Old vs New - LoTR Animated vs Lord of the Rings - Nostalgia Critic 

When Critic was talking about how Merry and Pippin in Jackson's film are overplayed, sure that's true, but I guess that was the point. To show them happy and free in the beginning, but you can see them change throughout the story. Even in the end of The Return of the King, they were more humble, strong, and fearless. It's really cool seeing their transformation.

Uh, who dropped Sam on his head and crossbred him with the Troll from a Troll in Central Park?

I actually like Jackson's Aragorn better. I even thought that when I read the books. I kind of like Aragorn having to accept becoming king over time rather than being king like from the beginning

Sauron is monstrous in the Peter Jackson films because, in Tolkien's canon, he had lost the ability to take a fair form after the destruction of Numenor by Eru Iluvatar. Not to say that Bakshi's presentation of him was wrong, as showing him as a shadow is also a good representation of Sauron. Also, Sauron was never a man, he was a corrupted Maiar spirit, Lieutenant of Morgoth.

They dropped the S in Saruman to avoid people confusing him for Sauron. They could have just called him Curunir.

One thing that jackson's version wins in hands down is the soundtrack

in defence of the "bombastic Sauron" from Jackson's version: when Numenor fell, Sauron's physical body, which -was- sneaky and worked by guile, was destroyed, and he was "never again able to take a form that seemed fair to man or elf".

Would be a landslide for the Jackson version if you included music. Howard Shore's soundtrack is amazing.

I think the idea of Sauron was to be sneaky up until the point where the alliance against him formed. After that there wasn't really any point to working in the shadows because his enemies knew about the ring and his armies. So pretty much all cards were on the table anyway.

It´s almost like Saurons manipulative, good looking and fair physical form died with Numenor

to be fair, wood's portrayal is a bit more believable, hes a farmboy just started on this epic journey, seeing a group of ghostly horsemen rushing at you, you wouldn't be holding that sword like you were the greatest thing since sliced bread, you would be pissing your pants, so as much as the cartoon version was cool for fighting them, I'd give point to the trilogy version for being more human than hero

"Sauron have explosive diarrhea" - Doug Walker, 2009.

You're clearly confusing Sauron with his master, Morgoth. Morgoth is the true lord of Darkness. He is the mysterious one. Sauron is his cocky, powerhungry underling.

12:55 I think you misunderstood Sauron. He's not a human. He's literally a fallen angel. Or a lower-tier god, if you will. On the same rank as Saruman and Gandalf (although personally he is uniquely stronger, especially with the Ring of Power). And after he "died" he became something of a sentient force that corrupts everything in its reach and is trying to put itself back together into its physical form so it may once again try to conquer Middle Earth. But yeah, he was never a "man," most certainly not a mortal. He transcends physical and metaphysical, and he is definitely nothing comparable to a man now.

Interestingly enough, Christopher Lee was originally cast as Gandalf, an McKellen as Saruman. Lee is a huge Tolkien buff though, and suggested the switch.

DO OLD VS NEW HOBBIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aragorn played by Viggo Mortensen is the best thing happened to LOTR. What are you talking about?

I'd say that Frodo is done better in the Jackson version actually. The way he's so vulnerable and helpless all the time represents just how draining and dangerous the ring is to people. Frodo's just about the kindest person ever and yet the ring is able to corrupt and weaken him which is a testament to it's merciless nature. If Frodo was more independent it would only take away from the ring's threat. The fact that Frodo can be around the ring so long goes to show his sheer willpower, bravery and kind nature. Not to mention it supports the story's theme of how a weak but kind person can be important.

Gollum was done so great in the Peter Jackson films, andy cercis didn't get an Oscar so I flipped my table

Christopher Lee was a badass in real life too! He was a James Bond-esque British spy in ww2, was present during France’s last public execution, starred as Count Dooku and Saruman, and at 90 years old, became the oldest heavy metal rock artist in history!

One inaccuracy in your video: The Animated Lord of the Rings was actually financially successful. It made 30 million against a 4 million budget. In fact, it was the highest grossing non Disney Animated film at the time.

I disagree that Frodo wasn't tough enough in the live-action. He was too tough in the Bakshi version. Wraiths are supposed to be terrifying demons. Men are supposed to be terrified of wraiths, and hobbits even moreso. When Sam gets ballsy in the Return of the King its supposed to be a really big deal, because Hobbits are known for being timid. So I strongly disagree that a brave Frodo is to Bakshi's credit.

RIP Christopher Lee

I'm gonna have to disagree with NC on Frodo dropping his sword being a detriment. In the books, the Nazgul were described as so terrifying that nobody save for the bravest of people would even be willing to fight them. And not because they are physically terrifying, even though they are, but there is just something about them that all of the sudden makes them look like the most terrifying creatures you would ever see and all the joy in your life is gone. Now, Frodo's just a normal Hobbit with no combat experience, so he would naturally succumb to the fear, so him dropping his sword made sense to me. Sam was only able to fight because his determination to protect Frodo was stronger than anything else at the time, Same with Eowyn and her determination to protect a dying Theodan.

Ian Holm's Bilbo deserves a mention, surely, as one of the virtues of Jackson's version.

WHAT? No music comparisons?? ...Never mind.... guess Jackson's takes the cake.

10:33 Years later, in his review of Bakshi’s version, they answered that question. Supposedly the producers thought it sounded too similar to another character’s name in the movie so they just last-minute changed the name by removing the S.

i'm just shocked about how THE ANIMATION ISN'T TOTAL SHIT! i've been used to seeing half assed animation so much these days, that i'm impressed that the 70's gave birth to a nicely animated movie that wasn't disney!

Wow, I'm afraid I can't disagree more with aragorn. He has always been one of my favourite pars of the movies, and I think that he is very kingly and carries this honor and pride but just without needing to say it out loud

i love the way Aragorn is portrayed in the older version. now that looks like a ranger that has lived off the land all his life.

"Oh hurrrraaaaaayy!"

@6:33 Well, yeah... but he rejected the title of King. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a ranger. He'd be King of Gondor and the 'lovely' steward wouldn't be as important of a character... all things considered. In Jackson's version, he sells the Ranger because that's all he wanted to be: a Ranger, without any royal responsibilities. He didn't make this journey to become King of Gondor, but he realized that he HAD to become the King he was meant to be in order to finish the mission. It wasn't his first choice, but he accepted it all the same when the time came.

Best line in lotr: "look mr frodo, lambas bread, and wait. More, lambas bread"

Great video. I've never seen an intelligent comparison of the two versions before. Both have merits. I feel the Balkshi version did well with limited resources and despite some very obvious flaws, contains some amazing sequences.

bashki's will never live up to the Jackson trilogy. but they both have a special place in my heart. I like to have little marathons where I watch them all back to back.

RIP John Hurt. The Bakshi version was the first LOTR film I saw on VHS as a kid before seeing the Jackson version, and Aragorn was my favorite character alongside Gandalf in that film. Long live the king. :(

So Total war took some ideas from the animated LOTR when programming their AI

Honestly I think the lord of darkness would be someone who’s willing to strike from the shadows and keep himself hidden, but also willing to be a tank that is loud, bombastic and in your face in certain situations where it’s necessary.

So, if Ralph Bakshi becomes Ralph Bashki, then shouldn't Peter Jackson become Peter Jasckon?

In my opinion, Elijah Wood Frodo nails it better, i think that the fact that he was more vulnerable was the entire point, he's a Hobbit who has never be in a fight and from nowhere he have to go to Mordor and face forces allot bigger than he.

Am I the only one that wants to see an Old vs New of The Hobbit?

What no soundtrack comparison?

I'm gonna call you out on dissing Aragorn. for one he is a great motivational leader who is much more relatable as a person. how he treats others is inspiring and resonates wisdom. that isn't too say the bakshi one is bad I just don't think it's better or necessarily worse either.

The “speaking without pauses” bit is so odd to me, ’cause I only ever watch the extended editions, and there the dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf isn’t rushed/cut at all. Seeing as LotR is this grand adventure that involves a whole world, I think they deserve to only be viewed as the extended versions, with nothing cut or rushed for runtime.

While I disagree with some of NC's opinions on the characters in regards to how they're depicted, I definitely agree with his thoughts on Gimli in the scene comparison when he learns of Balin's death. Having him walk off in a solemn silence is indeed more powerful, but also more dignified. it seems more in line with Gimli's character and preserves his image as a proud warrior as opposed to him breaking down immediately. I'm not saying you can't have an otherwise hardened character have a moment of vulnerability, only that I think the subdued approach worked better.

I mean, what else would Sauron wear if he's going into battle? Would you expect him to fight in his bathrobes?

The animated Aragon looks like an oompah loompa

-Gets mad at the mispronunciation of Saruman -Keeps mispronouncing Bakshi

Does Doug realize the Peter took heavy inspiration from Ralph's movie right even the newer hobbit trilogy Smaug quotes almost all the lines from the 70's movie no joke

Bakshi, not Bashki. The man's an animation legend.

you should make a old vs new on nostalgic critic

But but but... I LOVED that "where there's a whip" song! lol

There really is no contest--Peter Jacksons is the best

I really DID want to see Jackson vs Rankin/Bass' The Return of the King! Well, where there's a RU-vid comment, there's a way! *wha-cha!*

I know that this is an unpopular opinion but I actually really liked the hobbit movies (not the third as much), but I would love to see and old vs new with Peter Jackson hobbit and the Raken Bass one.

So.. now that you did Lord of the rings will you do the Hobbit too? The old animated Hobbit vs the new one?

Lol what does the world have against Tom Bombadil?

13:07 Yes you're right. Sauron used to be like that, going under the name Annatar. Yet he lost his ability to change form after the destruction of an island called Numenore in the second age.

As far a Sauron goes, I agree that it is more sinister when Sauron is quiet and plots in the shadows. Interestingly, almost directly before Fellowship, Sauron was quiet and plotted secretly, especially when he tricked the elves into forging the Rings of Power. Truthfully when he was corrupted by the Lord of Darkness before him, he became a beast in many ways. By the time of the movies he was under the belief his power was so great that he didn't need to be secretive anymore which is why he was more loud and in your face.

Maybe they pronounced it "Aruman" because Saruman sounds too similar to Sauron.

Why does the animation look so strange? The black riders look like actual actors, just drawn over with a black and red crayon, and the way the characters move seems so..... Uncanny......

Nostalgia Critic should make a book vs movie series.

Bak-shee. Bak-shee. Not Bash-kee. Not Bash-kshee. Bak-shee.

I don't know how anyone can even compare the live action to the animated. I watched the animated after a long time the other day and it just made me appreciate the live action more, and I cannot stop analysing both and seeing how Jackson makes it so much better. I get the point about how the Jackson version can be more dramatic while the animated quites down and creates atmosphere, but the animation is so horrible it's clear that this is just a 1900 cartoon. The art is a separate thing, it's picturesque and really sets a fantasy fairy tale tone, and the black riders were really well done, but the movement of the face and how they speak just didn't look human at all. It was like a crappy puppet show and ruined my enjoyment. On the other hand, the live action thowever immerses you through stellar acting. They are just more human because of their acting, the bad animation ruins it all for the animated version. Also, take for example the gandalf death scene. In the Jackson version it is so emotional, the music is sad and the screams of frodo are just drowned out by the music to show us the pain on their faces. In the animated movie the characters hardly give a big enough reaction to the death of Gandalf, only when aragon tells froodo that the elves call gandalf minthrindir, did we really get a chance to lament his death, and even in the Jackson films that was done better because the voice of the elves was more beautiful and melancholic and when they ask legolas what they are singing about Gandalf, he just says, "I have not the heart to tell you, " it's sad. The animated film gives no sad initial reaction to gandalf's death and since gandalf never even felt much human because of the horrible animation, I didn't feel bad for his death in the animated, whereas in the live action I was brought to tears. You might say that they were just stunned by gandalf's death and thus didn't say much, but the way it was executed it just seemed like they didn't care about gandalf. Similarly the scene in the Jackson film where they discuss in riverdell what to do with the ring is iconic, every character shares their thoughts and its just glorious, and there was some beautiful atmosphere in that scene, the music came and went in soft rhythms and we could hear soft breeze and the birds chirping. In the animated the narrator just said, "they discussed long hours about the ring." The background for the movie when they have the council for the ring is gorgeous, while in the animated version shows the council around a plain white table on gray floor. The movie shows the stark beauty of riverdell, the cgi is just great. The scene in the Peter Jackson version where bilbo sees the ring at elrond's house and gets demonic was creepy af and showed what the ring did to someone, but in the animated version bilbo's face falls victim to bad animation and looks hilariously dumb. Also the aragon in the cartoon was just heroic and that's it. In the movie he was badass when needed to but soft and gentle like when he kisses Boromir on the forehead upon boromir's death. Man, Boromir's death in the live action is visceral, the way his face is drained of all colour and turns bloodless white as he is dying, and how he speaks through the agony of dying to make aragon promise that he would protect gondor. Its beautiful and really gives Boromir a redemption arc and shows how he is like when not in presence of the ring. Also aragorn is more hesitant to take the Throne which creates more drama, and his love story with arwin was sweet. The animated doesn't have that. This is just one of the myriad examples I can give

The Black Riders in the animated version was nightmare fuel for me when I was younger

Old vs New Peter Pan? Disney and 2003 live-action version?

I think Frodo dropping his sword, says it all. The book-Frodo was taught in swordfighting and adventuring by Bilbo, who was a seasoned adventurer; and Frodo had already defeated a barrow-wight-- and ATTACKED the Witch-king, and almost KILLED him-- that is BAD-ASS! Frodo also called on Elbereth, which made the Nazgul fear him even more, And why did the Witch-king stab Frodo in the SHOULDER? In the cartoon, Frodo stabs him first, but the Witch-king blocks it, and so it makes sense that he would miss. But in the live-action movie, he has a clear shot at Frodo, but choose to stab him in the SHOULDER, just like in the old westerns where a hero who got hit was only "winged." even at point-blank range.

omg his Gollum impersonation is PERFECTION

I strongly disagree with his opinion on Jackson's Aragorn!! What i love about Jackson's Aragorn is he doesn't WANT to be king at first!!! It's further explored in the Extended Editions, but in the actual movies, Aragorn says to Arwen, "Same blood flows through my vains, and... Same weakness." That quote alone tells us that Aragorn is fully aware of Isildur's failure, and he wants nothing to do with it due to failing like Isildur. When Aragorn takes Anduril, it's a crucial part in his character that he is ready to take back his throne of Gondor, and by The Return of the King comes along it is much more rewarding to see him finally move towards becoming the King of Gondor!!! In my opinion, THAT is much more interesting then a guy who's already ready to take the throne.

Bakshi's otherworldly backgrounds here & in 'Wizards' really set such an awesome mood & tone to his flicks... I LOVE the Bakshi stuff!

Jackson's sauron is much better

The should make an new Old vs New about something they've made an Old vs New about before, and then make an Old vs New about the two Old vs News

My favourite lord of the rings scene Smeagle: But Master Baggins is our friend! Gollum: YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS! *me bursting into laughter*

12:00 damn that voice is perfect for the witch king

Lotr drinking game: drink every time Frodo looks like he's jizzing himself

Once it comes out....Old Vs New The BFG. That would be perfect. :)

I watched the bakshi version first as a little kid and it's always been one of my favorite movies

Why was Gandalf's "WAT" repeated at 5:58? It didn't actually happen in the animation

I've always preferred the Baskhi version because of both Frodo and Aragorn. While Aragorn felt to me like what the Dúnedain are meant to be, both the descendants of kings and protectors of the people, Baskhi's Frodo managed to combine being vulnerable with being noble, jolly, and brave, which makes his descent into helplessness as the ring starts to wear on him that bit more noble (which also causes Baskhi's Samwise to become closer to the book, which is an interesting change if not a good one). The film certainly required another half hour to an hour of runtime just to add in more dialogue, but even with that limitation I feel it's the better version, and it manages to include some scenes left out of the Peter Jackson version that add character development (such as the fellowship arguing over whether to go via Moria or the Gap of Rohan).

another good point forThe Jackson version of lord of the rings trillogy, is because it have one of the best soundtrack of the movie history composed by Howard Shore 😄😄😄😄😄

I came back to this video right after his review of Lord of The Rings animated movie.

Christopher lee: **Gets Tolkien's blessing to play gandalf** **Is cast as saruman.**

I know I'm late, but I forgot to comment the other time I saw this vid. My main problem in comparing the Bakshi version to Jackson's film(s) is that Jackson had two entire movies to flesh out his characters and story, whereas Bakshi was trying to condense two books into one movie (the thought at the time was that no one would ever want to see films based on the books, as fantasy was nowhere near as big of a hit as it is today. That's also why it was released as an animated 'kids' film), and so didn't have a lot of time to work with. Frankly, I thought he did an amazing job with what he had to work with, although it's been a very long time since I've seen that film (and an equally long time since I've seen the Rankin/Bass version of The Return of the King, which I enjoyed as a kid). I think that if Bakshi had the same amount of time as Jackson, and was able to make two full length films instead of one short one, then it would've been a better comparison. Although I get what Doug was doing here, as there really isn't anything else worth comparing the Jackson version to, so we're kinda stuck with it. I, for one, would love to see a feature length animated version of all three books, done in Bakshi's style. Don't modernize it, don't 'make it trendy', just be faithful to the books and the style of the old one. Or hell, have Miyazaki do the films. He has a way of drawing out emotions in his films, and he can really give you a feel for the characters in a short amount of time.

is there a OLD vs NEW *Hobbit* yet?

I'm watching this the day after the US 2016 election and his comment about inexperienced presidents stings.

I wanna ram a pencil into my ears every time he says "Bashki"....

Classic Nostalgia Critic, it's good to see the old episodes back again.

The animated Lord of the Rings for some reason always reminded me of The Secret of Nimh. Maybe it was their color, atmosphere, or certain aspects of their respective animation styles? Either way, they're both great films in their own right. Just imagine if LotR was done with anthropomorphic mice, rats, and other animals representing the characters. Hmm...

Nothing Kingly in Jackson’s Aragorn? How about the fact that he lead the men into a final stand at Helm’s Deep while Theodin had completely given up? Or the fact that he can resist the ring while his ancestor could not, proving that he NEEDS to be in charge. Viggo brought so much depth

I don't like it when people bash on Elijah Wood for his performance because they say he should be badass or something. No, no he shouldn't. Not everyone is supposed to be a badass and Frodo represents innocence and youth.

What's really funny is that I remember this coming out, I was 9 at the time. So, now at the age of 17 it's weird to see Nostalgia Critic actually bringing nostalgia towards my childhood.

but sauron was loud bombastic and in your face, he strode confidently among the frontlines of the battlefeild smiting fools because noone could stand to him, he was one of the most powerful figure in the lotr universe only really surpassed by the valar and the old ones, he took on the collective might of the people of middle earth and for all intents beat them like a drum, the elves never recovered from their losses and slipped into a slow decline and the kingdoms of man were gutted and left a shadow of their former selves

_"It's so easy not to try~"_ Man I love that joke from the Angry Birds review.

How I feel about characters: Frodo: Sometimes his feebleness in Jackson's take was frustrating, but I liked that he visibly struggled along the way. In both the book and movie, especially towards the end, he was barely hanging on. He took on an unbelievably heavy burden and felt the consequences. And his weakness gave him an opportunity to learn and grow and made his relationship to other characters more meaningful. But I guess if Sam is a half-wit he kind of has to be completely self-reliant. Sam: Why did Bakshi hate Sam? The book made it clear that he was integral to Frodo's journey and amazing in his own right. The Jackson movie did a fantastic job portraying this and further developed their friendship. Plus, he was the only one not tempted by The Ring. That takes a pretty extraordinary purity and strength of character. Yes, he could be a bit comedic at times, but that was part of his charm. However, when push came to shove he knew when to get serious. How does making him into a complete idiot do Tolkien justice? Merry and Pippin: Jackson definitely simplified them. Maybe a bit too much. However, I actually liked it in the context of that film. With so much seriousness and darkness and a cast teeming with larger-than-life characters it was refreshing to have a couple of mischievous goofballs with hearts of gold. And Pippin's part as Soldier of Gondor was one of the best performances of the film. His initial innocence gave him a different perspective and made his maturity by the end of the film more emotionally rewarding. Gandalf: He does not throw temper tantrums. Need I go on? Aragorn: The Jackson version is very close to the book and I love it. Yes, Aragorn is technically royalty. However, his family lost the throne generations ago and the substitutes have no intention of stepping aside. Aragorn has, until now, been a ranger and nothing else. He is also a good, humble man who deeply cares for other people. I would be surprised if he did not have doubts and insecurities. To be the king he has to defeat Sauron and his army and kick Denethor out. Does this sound like an easy task to you? I don't think he saw it that way. Aragorn had no idea if he would make it out alive, much less be successful. To me, his weaknesses make him complex and lovable while his strengths, especially those he struggles to find, make him inspirational. Golemn: Jackson's version is near perfect. Saruman: Jackson version = perfect casting. Black Riders: Jackson actually stayed pretty faithful to the book in both regular vision and ring vision. Extremely creepy. Sauron: Jackson's version follows the original mythology in that he had a physical form (black armor in movie) but lost it and is now a shadow-like being (also seen in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings). The Eye of Sauron is completely Jackson and not the perfect solution to wanting to give him a larger role in the plot. This took away the book's masterful subtlety in how it handled his particular contribution to the plot and his personality after that point. The film probably would have benefitted from a more Bakshi-like approach post-backstory. BTW, Sauron was never a man. He is a divinely-created being who got kicked out of the divine realm by the supreme divine being. Closer to the Christian version of Satan if you want a comparison. Reference The Silmarillion. Worth reading for any Tolkien fan. Other notes: I can't blame Bashki too much for Eowyn. In the book and Jackson films she does not become important until Return of the King. Quite a shame. She is one of the best characters in the whole thing and the only strong female character. To those saying what about Arwen: In the book she more or less shows up 2-3 times to be Aragorn's lover. Not much personality or plot significance. Jackson did a lot better, but he had to do a lot to get there, This included adding several scenes, which sometimes feel forced. She is a decent character with some personality, but her main role is still being Aragorn's lover. Favorite scenes from Jackson films: Arwen's reflection on mortality: The one problem that will not be solved by the time the final credits roll. The preparation scenes from Helm's deep: Effectively showed how desperate, beaten down and unprepared they were. This would also Aragorn's first real test of leadership, so the build-up made his success more satisfying. The flag flying off the pole as Eowyn looks out: Beautiful, tragic, highly symbolic. Should be the textbook example of how to build suspense and use symbolism to create emotional impact. Boromir's death: Very rushed in the book. I liked how they made him fight one orc instead of a whole band and made his actual death scene longer. Orlando Bloom's performance was also flawless. The Ents defeating Saruman: Epic. Faramir riding to his death by Denethor's command: The score, symbolic imagery, camerawork and situation in general made it incredibly moving. I like that he gave us a feeling of closure at the end of the movie while showing that nothing would ever be the same. Middle Earth is saved, but there are still a lot of problems/unresolved points. The elves are dying, Arwen is immortal, Sauron is still out there somewhere, the hero (Frodo) actually wasn't a hero, a lot of people are dead, displaced and/or impoverished, Saruman is out there (and tries to invade The Shire in the book), no one outside their circle knows what the hobbits did and most of the main characters have suffered for their journey. Some of them are even broken. The book and film are bittersweet, but that is what makes the last 9 hours worth it. Tolkein's work is too beautiful, complex and epic to end otherwise.

I feel like Jackson should win for just Sam alone. Sam is such an important character to the story. While Frodo is the one carrying the burden, Sam is making sure Frodo never falters.

16:54 Excuse me, fucking what?

Saying as Sam is my favorite character, I think I'll stick to the Jackson films.

Well, I recommend watching the extended editions of the films. Yeah they may be long, but it feels right having everything.

Obama actually did have political experience. "He previously served as a U.S. senator from Illinois from 2005 to 2008 and an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. ... Turning to elective politics, he represented the 13th district from 1997 until 2004 in the Illinois Senate, when he ran for the U.S. Senate."

actually orthanc (the tower where saruman lives) was built by the humans of numenor.... you those guys who formed the kingdom of gondor and are the dunedain