It’s easy to look back at 1978 and laugh. If you go on YouTube right now and pull up clips of Ralph Bakshi’s attempt at Middle-earth, you’ll see some truly bizarre stuff. You’ve got Samwise Gamgee looking like a bewildered rustic caricature. You’ve got Boromir wearing a winged Viking helmet that looks like it belongs in a different movie entirely. And then there’s the rotoscoping—that strange, flickering technique where they filmed live actors and then painted over them. It’s trippy. It’s inconsistent. Honestly, for a lot of younger fans who grew up on Peter Jackson’s polished CGI, the Bakshi Lord of the Rings feels like a relic from a confused era of animation.
But here’s the thing.
Without this movie, we probably don't get the modern fantasy landscape we have today. Ralph Bakshi was a rebel. He wasn't some corporate suit trying to sell toys; he was the guy who made Fritz the Cat. He wanted to prove that animation could be gritty, adult, and epic. He took on a project that Disney reportedly passed on because it was "too complex." He had a limited budget, a grueling schedule, and a studio (United Artists) that didn't even let him put "Part One" in the title, which basically set the film up for a lifetime of confused complaints about why it ends right after the Battle of Helm's Deep.
The Rotoscoping Gamble and Why It Looks So Weird
Most people don't realize how much of a technical nightmare this was. Bakshi didn't just decide to make things look "jittery" for fun. The use of rotoscoping was a survival tactic. He wanted a realistic look, but he didn't have the hundreds of millions of dollars required for traditional high-end cel animation at that scale. So, he filmed live actors in Spain, often dressed in simple costumes, and then used those frames as a guide.
Sometimes it’s beautiful. Look at the Nazgûl. In the Bakshi Lord of the Rings, the Black Riders are genuinely terrifying. Because they are based on high-contrast live-action footage, they have a weight and a presence that feels more "real" than a standard drawing. They don't just walk; they loom. However, the budget started drying up midway through production. This is why some scenes look like fully realized paintings while others—especially the big battle scenes—look like solarized live-action footage with a few blobs of red paint for blood. It’s jarring. One minute you’re watching a cartoon, the next you’re watching a filtered version of a low-budget historical reenactment.
It’s messy. It’s experimental. But it has a soul.
✨ Don't miss: Who was the voice of Yoda? The real story behind the Jedi Master
Tolkien Purism vs. Hollywood Fluff
Bakshi actually cared about the text. More than you might think. While Peter Jackson’s films are masterpieces of pacing, they take massive liberties with the characters. Bakshi’s version, written by Peter S. Beagle (the genius behind The Last Unicorn) and Chris Conkling, sticks surprisingly close to the dialogue in the books.
Think about the Council of Elrond. In the 1978 film, it feels long. It feels dense. It feels like a bunch of ancient beings actually trying to solve a geopolitical crisis. The voice acting is top-tier, too. You’ve got John Hurt—yes, the John Hurt—voicing Aragorn. He brings a weary, rugged gravitas to the role that is distinct from Viggo Mortensen’s "reluctant king" trope. Aragorn in this version is a man who has been living in the dirt for decades. He sounds tired. He sounds like a Ranger.
Then there’s the Ringwraiths' attack on the Prancing Pony. Bakshi leans into the horror. He understood that Tolkien wasn't just writing "adventure"—he was writing about a world being choked by an industrial shadow. The atmosphere is thick with dread.
The Jackson Connection No One Admits
Peter Jackson has been quoted saying he hadn't seen the Bakshi film in years before making his own, but the visual parallels are undeniable. Check the scene where the Hobbits hide under a tree root while a Nazgûl sniffs around above them. The framing is almost identical. The way the Ringwraiths move, the way the Shire is established—Bakshi laid the visual groundwork.
Even the casting of Andy Serkis as Gollum owes a debt to the 1978 version. Bakshi’s Gollum (voiced by Peter Woodthorpe) was the first time we saw the character as a pathetic, slimy, amphibious creature rather than just a generic cave monster. Woodthorpe’s performance was so definitive that he actually reprised the role for the BBC Radio drama a few years later.
🔗 Read more: Not the Nine O'Clock News: Why the Satirical Giant Still Matters
The "Part Two" That Never Happened
The biggest tragedy of the Bakshi Lord of the Rings is that it’s half a story. The film ends abruptly. After the victory at Helm's Deep, Frodo and Sam are just... walking toward Mordor, and a narrator basically says, "And that's it for now!"
Imagine seeing that in a theater in 1978. You've sat through two hours of intense, psychedelic animation, and then the credits roll before the Ring is even close to the fire. The producers were scared that people wouldn't pay to see "Part One," so they hid the fact that it was an incomplete adaptation. The backlash was severe. It made money—it was actually a financial success—but the critical reception was so mixed and the production so exhausting that Bakshi never got to finish the sequel.
We eventually got a "conclusion" of sorts with the Rankin/Bass Return of the King TV special, but that had a completely different art style (the "frolic-y" Hobbit style) and it didn't bridge the gap properly. We were left with a fractured cinematic legacy.
Is It Actually Good?
Kinda. It depends on what you value.
If you want a smooth, cohesive narrative experience, you’re going to hate it. It’s chunky. The character designs for the Orcs are basically just guys in furry masks with glowing eyes. But if you value "vibe" and artistic ambition, it’s a goldmine. The score by Leonard Rosenman is weirdly avant-garde and martial, moving away from the lush romanticism we expect from fantasy music today. It feels more like a war film.
💡 You might also like: New Movies in Theatre: What Most People Get Wrong About This Month's Picks
The movie captures the weirdness of Middle-earth. Tolkien's world isn't just a place for sword fights; it’s a place of ancient, fading magic and psychological torment. Bakshi got that. He captured the nightmare quality of the One Ring better than almost anyone else.
Why You Should Watch It Today
If you’re a Tolkien fan, you owe it to yourself to sit down with this movie at least once. Don't go in expecting a rival to the 2001 trilogy. Go in expecting a 1970s art project that was way ahead of its time.
Look for these specific things:
- The Nazgûl: Specifically their first appearance on the road. The sound design is chilling.
- The Mines of Moria: The sense of scale Bakshi achieves with simple silhouettes is impressive.
- The Voice Work: Listen to Anthony Sharp as Saruman. He’s cold, manipulative, and sounds exactly like a corrupted wizard should.
Actionable Steps for the Curious Fan
If you want to dive into this specific era of fantasy, don't just stop at the movie. To truly understand what Bakshi was trying to do, you need to look at the context.
- Watch the "making of" documentaries: There are several interviews with Bakshi where he explains the technical hurdles of rotoscoping. It’ll make you respect the "glitches" a lot more.
- Compare the Beagle screenplay to the book: You can find the script online. Notice how much of the original Tolkien prose they managed to keep.
- Check out "The Art of The Lord of the Rings" (1978 book): It features the production sketches and background paintings. The backgrounds are actually the best part of the movie—they are lush, moody, and hand-painted by master artists.
- Listen to the BBC Radio Drama (1981): It’s the perfect companion piece. It uses some of the same actors and shares that "serious" tone that Bakshi pioneered.
The Bakshi Lord of the Rings isn't a failure. It's a glorious, messy, incomplete bridge between the world of underground "comix" and the multi-billion dollar franchises of today. It proved that Tolkien was "filmable," even if the technology hadn't quite caught up to the vision yet. It’s a reminder that sometimes, being bold and weird is better than being safe and boring.