Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings vs Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings (open spoilers)

Actually, I thought the rotoscoping worked pretty well in Wizards. It was creepy as all heck, and that’s exactly what those scenes needed. It’s been long enough ago that I’ve seen Bakshi’s LotR, though, that I can’t remember how well it worked there.

As for Rankin-Bass, their Return of the King suffered badly from being an orphan, but their Hobbit was actually reasonably decent. It hit most of the high points of the book, in a mostly-coherent way, and without much that was actually bad.

I’ll agree that it looked suitably creepy in wizards, but it also stuck out as significantly different from the rest of the film, which jerked you out of the magic of the film. I didn’t think “Gee that guy with horns loooks creepy”, I thought “They drew horns on that guy from Alexander Nevsky
And in LOTR, the scenes in Bree were so heavily rotoscoped that they didn’t look like cartoons anymore, but like colorized postcards, which was pretty jarring coming off the straight cartoony animation of the hobbits.

And the Breelanders caren’t supposed to look creepy.

Not all of 'em, anyway. I want to hit that Bill Ferny with an apple, though.

Also the Nazgul jabbing their swords into empty beds at the Prancing Pony: http://www.councilofelrond.com/wp-content/uploads/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/illustrations/Bakshi/bakshi-wraiths.jpg

Yup, I’m with you.

Now that I think of it, though, the first time I read LOTR, it was a paperback edition with Bakshi artwork on the cover. Fortunately, I persisted.

I think that some footage was cut. I have a hardcover version of the book in large type and with illustrations. All of the the illustrations are from Rankin/Bass, and there is at least one illustration of Beorn, who was not in the TV show. There are probably more that I’m forgetting.

The Hobbit wasn’t as bad in Rankin/Bass style, as it was always a children’s book, and that style didn’t hurt it much. Going from the dark menace of LOTR to the childish-cartoony Return of the King was so wrong (to me) that I could never sit through the whole thing at once, only seeing it in chunks.

LOTR is certainly a flawed work, but not without it’s own style. Whether you like that style really a matter of personal taste. The use of rotoscoping and posterization gives it a look very unlike traditional animation, and the combination of all the techniques can, admittedly, be jarring. With no live-action movie to be released for a generation, and only the Rankin/Bass cartoons to compare it to, at least some people welcomed this dark, stylistic alternative to the saturday-morning cartoon treatment it might have had. Now, if Disney had given it a proper treatment, that would have been more than welcome, but at the time no better treatment was on the horizon, and I was happy to have this at least.

Tolkien emphatically hated Disney and I doubt his heirs would ever have consented to it.

The Illustrated Edition of The Hobbit, with scenes from the TV movie, created some scenes for the book that (it seems to me) were never filmed. The scenes with the Arkenstone, for instance, are pretty clearly adapted from scenes from the movie, but with the Arkenstone added in, and in a different artistic style.

Were those drawings taken from deleted scenes in the movie? Or were they drawn specifically for the book, in the same style as the drawings that WERE taken from the film?

The Rotoscoping in the Bakshi movie is more divisive than I thought it would be. I’m surprised at how many people are defending it. I thought they were horrible, much too dark and difficult to discern - it was hard for me to tell what was going on in the rotoscoped battle scenes. They were also very jarring and different than the animation, to the point were it pulled me out of the story. However, I did like the Nazgul rotoscoping, because they were sort of not entirely existing in the physical world, and the rotoscoping reflected and enhanced that.
If the orcs and other bad guys (Balrog, Black Ridersm Sauron, etc) had been rotoscoped but not the Riders of Rohan or the people of Bree I might have been ok with that, as it would seem more of an artistic decision rather than a budget saver.

Please go back and read what I wrote.
I don’t know, from reading about it, or talking with the folks who put the book together, but the scene with the Arkenstone was not in the TV movie. The scene of Bilbo on Smaug’s treasure mound (but without an Arkenstone) appears in the movie. The Arkenstone is in a completely different artistic style. It’s pretty obvious that they simply pasted the Arkenstone on a still from the movie to create an image of Bilbo finding the Arkenstone that was not, in fact, filmed. I suspect many of the other scenese are similarly re-assigned in new contexts. I don’t know if any are from deleted scenes (I don’t recall the one of Beorn), but I’d suspect they weren’t.

I went back and re-read your post and I’m still not clear from that post whether the illustrated scenes were deleted from the movie or created specifically for the book. I’ve not seen the illustrated Hobbit or the animated movie. Your last post made it a little clearer that you thought they were taken from the movie but jiggered a bit.
Was also referring to tdn’s post (which you quoted) about Beorn appearing in the illustrated Hobbit but not the movie.

Really? What part of …

…did you not understand? I thought that made it abundantly clear.

No need to be snarky, just be helpful and try to be more clear. I think the confusion (and I too was confused) is that you talk about scenes for the movie and also scenes for the book. They didn’t make scenes for the book, they made illustrations, right? The mixing of terminology is what was confusing about your post (at least to me), and made it less tha abundantly clear.

So there is a scene with the Arkenstone (in what) that was adapted from (which) movie that had similar scenes but without the Arkenstone?

No, they did not make illustrations for the book. The illustrations for the book were scenes from the movie, not separate illustratins made for the book. But in the cases where no corresponding scenes from the movie existed (as with the Arkenstone), they appear to have repurposed stills from the movie, or manipulated them (a la PhotoShop, although this was a pre-PhotoShop era) to produce a suitable illustration.

As my first post said

which I meant quite literally – they were scenes taken from the TV movie – not redrawn from it, or taken from conceptual sketches.

No need to be an ass about it, your original post was not as clear as you seem to think it was.

I;m frustrated - I think my post was abundantly clear.

I couldn’t foresee that my “taken fro m the movie” would be misinterpreted.

OK, everyone stop it. Something was posted, it was misunderstood. These things happen. Let it go.

Jawas on stilts!

:: shudder ::

They kinda look like they’re wearing ponchos, actually, since the “cloaks” aren’t really very long. It’s particularly unfortunate for the one standing out in the open, especially since his hood looks goofy, somehow.