Recap of Ralph Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings

[Werefrog]

You guys are just coming at this from what criticism is from two different angles. LunarRaptor, you want this to be a witty Internet review like the thing you would read on Pitchfork (or whatever the movie equivalent is). Sonic#, you expect more of an academic argument. And this obviously wouldn't cut it for that purpose.

LunarRaptor, my one piece of advice is if you want a piece to be effective in the style you are going for is that it's gotta be shorter. You list example after example of the same flaw. You should probably incorporate somethings that Sonic# suggests as well. If you want to review movies, even as a hobby, you probably need a better working vocabulary of cinema terms. You use a lot of descriptive words about the animation (like "abomination") that tell me nothing about how the movie really looks. From what you described, the animation does sound like it might be innovative for the time (despite frequent insistence that it's not)!

I actually want to see this now. Which I don't think was your goal.

[LunarRaptor]

I described that the animation looked like at several different times in the recap, itself. I only used shorter descriptions when talking to Sonic, because I didn't want to go into great detail. The hobbits in the movie looked like badly animated lawn gnomes. The Balrog looked like a man in a bad costume with a bad lion mask, butterfly wings, and fluffy slippers. See? I DID describe things. I've written several shorter reviews as well.

[Sonic#]

What Werefrog is referring to is a difference between subjective description and objective description. The first involves describing an object in the terms of your reactions to it - good, bad, ugly, beautiful, and so on. The second involves describing only the actual details of the object - round, flat, red-tinted, asymmetrical, and so on. Sometimes the difference is a little subtle and based on connotation - unbalanced versus asymmetrical, for instance. Writing descriptions, we often end up blending the two modes. Too much objective description and a work is merely recap. Too much subjective description, and the author's judgments take precedence over giving an accurate description of the object.

The issue here is that you frequently favor subjective description to such a degree that it's difficult to imagine what you're talking about. Your "badly animated" may be clear to you, but I can imagine many things as "badly animated." Your "bad costume" can similarly be imagined in many ways. "Abomination" is totally up to what I think is abomination, or what I think you think abomination is. Thus you recap your impressions rather than the film.

I'd also second Werefrog's suggestion on length, especially if you want this to be an argument against Bakshi. If you were to select only the best examples of what you don't like and critique them at greater length, developing your opinion with more objective descriptions, it would be quite approachable. As it is, the recap reads as notes towards that project, rather than a finished piece.

Sonic#, you expect more of an academic argument. And this obviously wouldn't cut it for that purpose.

That's fair. To be clear, I don't think that a recap needs to be an academic or critical argument. Rather, I think some of those elements are useful for approaching what's not working in this "recap."

[LunarRaptor]

I did that, too. And you accuse me of not paying attention? And my descriptions WERE accurate. The actual description I used for the Balrog in the paper was accurate. I just used the loose description here as a short example. Get off my -Fatal Hopper- case, already! If you didn't actually read my recap, then stop pretending you did!

EDIT:

In-paper description of The Balrog: "… it has big red and black wings like a Monarche Butterfly, the head of a papier-mâché lion, black humanoid body, feet that look like black fluffy bedtime slippers, it growls and carries on like an orc in heat, and moves extremely slowly."

Now stop hammering me for flaws that do not exist. Need me describe how the mane looked in precise detail? Perhaps you need me to tell you that the mask had a frozen open-mouthed roaring face that looked more like the creature was a stupid, mouth-breathing beast instead of an terrifying demon of the ancient world? Need me to take out the geometry equipment and detail the exact measurements next?! Just back off! I don't need this crap! I have a work in progress that right that has over 200 reviews, all of them positive and constructive!

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8047108/1/C ... rrior-Moon It's 372,840 words long as of right now. Have fun digging in. Just don't sour the atmosphere on the comment section with your overly critical reviews. And no, you don't have to log in. I've enabled anon reviewing.

[Werefrog]

What Werefrog is referring to is a difference between subjective description and objective description. The first involves describing an object in the terms of your reactions to it - good, bad, ugly, beautiful, and so on.

Yeah, this is what I mean. And I think for film, it helps to be able to say some things about cinematography(composition) as well as editing. You can probably find a site to help you with some terms if you've never taken a film studies course. Granted, a lot of professionals don't know how to do that, but it would make it better. In the scene with the Balrog, you are describing the subject of the animation, not the quality of the animation itself.

Perhaps you need me to tell you that the mask had a frozen open-mouthed roaring face that looked more like the creature was a stupid, mouth-breathing beast instead of an terrifying demon of the ancient world?

No, but I would like you to talk about things like lighting, the composition, the emotional timbre of the music, and the transition between the shots. You could take it to the next level and use it to discuss how these properties affect the way you feel. You are just discussing pretty petty details that depending on the context may or may not be prove that the scene is bad. If you are going to have this attitude, I'd rather not talk to you anymore.


My only other comment is that if you are interested in writing, you need to be able to handle feedback better. You have been given constructive notes. You can either revise your draft or get defensive. But only the first will make you better. I realize that putting yourself out on paper makes you feel vulnerable. I used to perform stand-up. Sometimes I got good feedback. Sometimes I didn't. Personally, I can say I didn't open myself to the feedback of others and it held me back. If you try to incorporate Sonic's suggestions (which were in fact constructive by the way. the problem is your attitude is defensive), you will have a better piece. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you don't want feedback just keep a journal. Writing is a dialogue. If you don't care about what I think, why should I care about what you think?

Edit:

A hypothetical example of what I mean:

Bad: The animation is an abomination. This is apparent in the scene with the Balrog. The Balrog looks like a Monarch butterfly.

Less bad: One especially disappointing scene was the climatic battle between the Fellowship and the Balrog. Bashki's sparse style of animation makes the mines of Moria feel static and empty (even for an abandoned mine!) rather than dark and foreboding.
The editing in the battle cuts back and forth too quickly between the Fellowship and the Balrog making it difficult to follow the battle, which admittedly does help add a chaotic feel. And to top it off, the polka music provides a confusing score that doesn't match the emotional content of the battle.

This is obviously still not great writing. But, what I do is show is how important properties of film influenced your opinion. Rather than just stating that the Balrog is a ridiculous looking creature (which is partly based on your bias as the book and Jackson's interpretation has created an expectation that won't exist for all viewer).

[Sonic#]

^ Second that, re: feedback. You can take it or leave it. I'm not trying to mess with you.

I wasn't saying that you did bad descriptions everywhere. Obviously your example is decent. The similes are a little risky, mainly because they are comparisons that are still rather subjective. At their best, they are very descriptive, but it takes some care to maintain some objective value. ("Monarch butterfly" does better here than "orc in heat," which is rather goofy - do orcs go into heat?) There are many places though where you tend far more towards subjective description, and it does hurt the quality of description overall.

Two examples around that spot, to explain what I mean:

This left a lot to the imagination and the creature was all the more frightening to the reader that way. That, and it carried a flaming sword and a flaming whip in its hands. It also did not make any sound. It also moved with frightening speed which inspired the Fellowship to run for all their worth away from it.

The menace of the Balrog is its mystery. It goes something like this. Let's say, that there is a frightening urban tale about a man named Bob in your neighborhood known for his evil deeds, but no one knows what he looks like and no one wants to go visit him. ...

This is alright. You're trying to relate how scary the Balrog is in the book. Fair enough. The underlined part is good description. What needs improvement is the emphasis on fear. Notice the bolded words - you repeat "frightening" a lot. The impression here could perhaps use more elaboration in your vocabulary, in addition to what you offer already, in order to better highlight what effect the Balrog has. (Awe? Terror? Gravitas?) This is an example where subjective descriptions can work better if they're more precise.

Here, thanks to the poor rendering of the Balrog, the poor acting of Gandalf's voice actor, and the bad pacing of the scene all around, the emotions that should have swept over the viewer had the experience been anything like the book are just not there.

This has far more of the subjective commenting I was talking about. Note the adjectives - poor, poor, bad. It describes your impressions and evaluations of the scene. You do describe how the Balrog is rendered somewhat, and you make some motions earlier in the paragraph towards describing pacing, but Gandalf's voice acting and the pacing need more attention here. "Poor/bad" isn't enough. You could say more to qualify the statements, modify your description, or leave that assessment out.

[LunarRaptor]

Like hell I'm going to describe what cuts, camera angles, and lighting were used! There is nothing to talk about, hardly.

The direction, from a technical stand point, was adequate in that it was pointed at the right things at the right times, but there is nothing special to talk about at any point! Bakshi set the camera on a tripod and pointed it in the right direction. There, I just described every shot in the movie. There is no clever camera work at any point. I am not going to mention the technically alright yet uninspired way the camera looks at the characters when that's all there was to it.
The lighting was mostly the same throughout the movie. If anything, it was just that some scenes were meaninglessly tinted in different colors sometimes, but there are far more important things to talk about, so forget it!
And I described what the music was like just fine. It's the same bombastic tune that's introduced at the beginning of the film pretty much all the way through, and that's one of the very first things I mentioned. There was no need to discuss the music, because all the composer did was throw as many instruments into a freaking marching band tune that he could from start to finish. Actually pay attention to what I write before you think you're ready to criticize me, because yet again, you're criticizing things that weren't mistakes.

[Werefrog]

Like hell I'm going to describe what cuts, camera angles, and lighting were used! There is nothing to talk about, hardly.

The direction, from a technical stand point, was adequate in that it was pointed at the right things at the right times, but there is nothing special to talk about at any point! Bakshi set the camera on a tripod and pointed it in the right direction. There, I just described every shot in the movie. There is no clever camera work at any point. I am not going to mention the technically alright yet uninspired way the camera looks at the characters when that's all there was to it.
The lighting was mostly the same throughout the movie. If anything, it was just that some scenes were meaninglessly tinted in different colors sometimes, but there are far more important things to talk about, so forget it!

Okay, now we are getting to the crux of the matter! Those are all details that would be useful to know. But can the attitude. I read a good amount of what you wrote. It was a boring rant, so I skimmed some. Providing significant details would make it a less boring rant that I might actually read all of.

In life and in art, form and art are ultimately connected. The function of a film like this is to tell a story. Without discussing the form, you can't discuss the function. Just like I can't know how memory works without knowing the structure of a neuron.

[LunarRaptor]

In your opinion, it was. I have you two well outnumbered by the people who like it. I DID provide significant details and I did discuss the form in great detail. I care not that they weren't the details you were looking for.
I am not adding in things like "in this wide shot the camera's angled to look at them from the side just like 80% of the others shot in this movie. The lighting makes it look like the place is well-lit despite the fact that they're supposed to be inside a cave and the music is still blaring non-stop like a marching band the same as it has been for the whole rest of the movie". Now THAT would get boring.

[Alunissage]

It's impossible to gain any information from a statement like "X is so bad its existence is an affront!" (beyond that the speaker is mad about X) without context. Unless the only thing you're trying to convey is what your emotions are at the time of expressing the statement, you need to say what factors make X horrible. And why you dislike those factors. I like marching band music. Tell me why you use it as a negative in this case.

One man's mead is another man's poison and all that. When you write a screed that's all about how much you hate something without giving the details such as Werefrog and Sonic pointed out, all you're telling us about is you. Not the work itself. The reader is far more likely to form a negative impression of you than of the thing you're trying to castigate, because when you decide that like hell you're going to talk about anything that you can't direct the same fury against, it suggests that you're only interested in feeling angry, not thinking.

The other problem with making your entire commentary be about how angry you are and how much something sucks is that when people disagree with you you tend to get stuck in a spiral of becoming ever more enraged and defensive, because having poured so much effort into presenting your entire opinion as rage, making any concession at all seems like it will destroy your point. So you get more and more irrationally combative and start convincing yourself that everyone who disagrees with you is just personally attacking you and couldn't possibly have read what you had to say, because otherwise you have to admit that there isn't as much reason for your rage as you claimed originally. Trouble is, you're not convincing anyone else of that, because they all know what they read or didn't read. As I said, I haven't read your long pieces and don't plan to, because I simply don't have any reason to, but I've read everything after that, and at no point did I think that either Sonic or Werefrog were attacking you or that they hadn't read as much as they said. And perhaps if you weren't the one personally involved in this you'd see that.

[Werefrog]

In your opinion, it was. I have you two well outnumbered by the people who like it. I DID provide significant details and I did discuss the form in great detail. I care not that they weren't the details you were looking for.

Okay, I see no reason to discuss this further, nor do I see a reason to read your work in the future.

[LunarRaptor]

I DID provide context. I did explain why shoddily done scenes were shoddyily done. Why is marching band music bad? It's not in and of itself, but as a constant sound in the background of a movie no matter what the tone of the scene to supposed to be?

Actually, I said plenty about the work, itself. That's funny, you're the only ons to form a negative opinion of me based on this in four years. Um, no, I'm not going to talk about the camra work, lighting, and music, because there is very little to talk about. There is very little variation in any of the three from scene to scene. Bakshi did not utilize the camera in any meaningful way, the lighting was always somewhere between medium and brightly lit no matter the matter, and the music did not change much throughout the film (the latter of which I DID MENTION). I have said everything there is to say about these three aspects of the film right here. I do not need to repeat this over and over again for you to get a handle on what the film looks like.

Believe whatever you want.

[Alunissage]

Er, no. We're the only ones who have expressed a negative opinion of your work in four years.

And as I said, I didn't read your essay and have no idea whether you mentioned the music much or not. That was an example of what Werefrog and Sonic were saying.

[Sonic#]

Even if you disagree with my overall assessment of the recap as description-laced diatribe unwieldy because it purports to be both a recap (where comprehensiveness helps) and an attack on Bakshi (where brevity would help), the specific points I'm making about description are good points to incorporate into writing.

It doesn't matter how many people stated you liked the work. Bandwagon arguments are a fallacy, partly for the reason Alunissage describes (most people disliking a post won't care to comment on it), and partly because I'm addressing different things with the goal of improving your writing. And that goal need not be seen as remedial, as everyone can use feedback for improving writing.

I have said everything there is to say about these three aspects of the film right here.

That's not true at all. There is always more to say. You can decide to be general on these points or very specific, but in either case you shouldn't dismiss entirely the very elements that are key to film work. There are many points when camera angle work and lighting are important and specific to the scene (like the darker color palette of the hobbit hole), but from your description its importance is not evident. This makes the quality of visual description more impressionistic; as Werefrog notes, it's difficult for someone who hasn't seen the film to imagine what's going on. (In that scene, your description of narrative events are clearest; the rest is much more difficult to imagine.) In other words, this recap is to this film as this film is to the Lord of the Rings. Only people who have already seen the film will understand what you're talking about, and the people who have seen it will have many details of interpretation to quibble over.

[LunarRaptor]

That's not true at all. There is always more to say.

No, there isn't. Look at the film. If I start talking about camera work and what not, it really would just be me repeating the same things I've said about it over and over again. Going through the film and noting the editing and camera work would quickly become tedious to do and boring to read, because there just isn't much there to talk about. If you want to do something like that, do it with the Peter Jackson films where both the camera work and editing were creative, fruid, and artistic. Here, every time I'd talk about it would just be, "The camera follows the Fellowship from the side but otherwise stayed perfectly static"; "the camera sits perfectly still while the Fellowship fights the orcs". "the camera is positioned perfectly still roughly where the back wall of the Prancing Pony's main dining room would be so we're staring right at Butterbur across the way". See? The camera sits perfectly still for most of the movie and just looks at the characters dully. If Ralph Bakshi doesn't care to use his position as the film director i any meaningful way, then neither do I care to mention every little damn thing the camera does.

There are many points when camera angle work and lighting are important and specific to the scene (like the darker color palette of the hobbit hole), but from your description its importance is not evident.

And that would be Bakshi and his crew's fault. They did not utilize any of these tools in any profound manner that breathed more life into the work. I already said that it was technically well done but uninspired. If they don't care about direction and lighting beyond that it's done correctly so that the audience can, then neither do I.

This makes the quality of visual description more impressionistic; as Werefrog notes, it's difficult for someone who hasn't seen the film to imagine what's going on.

And the dialogue, narrative, and often, the animation, is so disjointed that even people who have seen the movie will have difficulty imagining what's going on.

In other words, this recap is to this film as this film is to the Lord of the Rings. Only people who have already seen the film will understand what you're talking about, and the people who have seen it will have many details of interpretation to quibble over.

The original audience I showed this WERE people who had already seen the film. And other than that, I have had no one who hasn't seen ut have any difficulty following along. You are the only one who has ever had details of interpretation to quibble over. You are the only one who has ever claimed my descriptions were confusing. So maybe the problem is just that my writing isn't your cup of tea.

[Sonic#]

You are the only one who has ever had details of interpretation to quibble over. You are the only one who has ever claimed my descriptions were confusing.

Yeah, we already refuted that line of reasoning. We're the only ones who commented negatively; many more probably have never bothered to read after seeing the inefficient writing. That was the reaction of both Alunissage and Werefrog, people who only chose to comment after my comments and your responses. They likely wouldn't have given this post a second thought if someone else hadn't already done some effort to digest why it wasn't working.

We're the only ones who have expressed a negative opinion of your work in four years.

It doesn't matter how many people stated you liked the work. Bandwagon arguments are a fallacy, partly for the reason Alunissage describes (most people disliking a post won't care to comment on it), and partly because I'm addressing different things with the goal of improving your writing. And that goal need not be seen as remedial, as everyone can use feedback for improving writing.

From the evidence you've presented, I'm the only one to ever say anything critical about your piece, positive or negative. I'm the only one to have cared enough to give criticism rather than mere praise or indifference.

[LunarRaptor]

You don't know any of the people who have commented before or who has read and commented, so you're not really in any position to make that judgment, are you?
Correction, why you don't think it works. You can insist that I don't touch on the direction, lighting, and music (I DID touch on the music) all you want, but the fault lies with Bakshi not having any profound way of using these cinematic tools to give me much to comment on.

You want me to write about those things, then give me a film that actually made good use of them. Want me to comment on the claustrophobic atmosphere of Ridley Scott's "Alien" with the simply use of confining the camera to narrows hall of the ship that serves as the primary setting of the film? Cool. I'll do it.
How Orson Well's Citizen Kane probably had more special effects per shot than any other film in Western cinema's history? Sure.
Sam Raimi's unique directing? I'm there.
Steven Spielberg's eye for the majestic?
Kenneth Branaugh's ability to make everything feel larger-than-life?
Cecil B De Mille's ability to actually make everything larger-than-life?
Peter Jackson's kinetic camera style?
I'll talk about the technical aspects of their works, because there is actually something worth talking about there.

[Sonic#]

^ Then that raises the overall question of why you would even comment on this film if you hate it so much that you don't care to comment on it fairly? That's the fundamental disjunction here. Write for something that's worth your comments; otherwise don't inflate its importance with any writing at all. Your tendency towards impressionistic (or subjective) descriptions over objective ones would of course negatively affect those descriptions too, but it's easier to forgive the enthusiasm of positive commentary than it is to overlook the bitterness in diatribe.

You don't know any of the people who have commented before or who has read and commented, so you're not really in any position to make that judgment, are you?

You don't know the people who didn't comment by definition, so you're not really in a position to judge that no one has disapproved of your work before, are you? That's the gist of what I'm saying. I don't have to know what other people have said to point out how your argument is a bandwagon fallacy.

As for whether the comments have been critical and positive before, I don't know that either, but to be fair, I've asked you to demonstrate otherwise, and you've shown me very little. Based on that sample, it's clear that the people who like your work are willing to overlook the spots of bad writing and poor criticism to support the diatribe-laden riffing.

[LunarRaptor]

Believe whatever you want about them or my writing.

[Sonic#]

I don't need you to tell me what to believe, though I thank you for the invitation. If this is a passive-aggressive way of signalling that you don't need my suggestions, you're failing badly at suggesting indifference. If it's an attempt to gain control over our discussion by suggesting that my statements are mere beliefs, you're showing an inability to address criticism in a mature manner. You would be more successful at pretending indifference by not replying. You would be more successful at presenting a competent writing persona by not replying than by replying with defensive posturing, fallacies, and deflections.