To be fair to Gollum’s voice actor, he was likely told, “your character hasn’t spoken to anyone-save muttering to himself-for five hundred years. And he’s only talking to Bilbo long enough to get the jump on him.” No one asked him to make an Oscar speech.
The VA, Brother Theodore, actually didn't sound too different from his performance here in real life. Also, after living in subterranean tunnels, (possibly Goblin sewers?), being exposed to the power of the ring, and living off of bugs and raw fish and Goblin meat for five lifetimes, I could easily see Gollum being turned from a hobbit into the creature he's depicted as in this movie.
Several of your complaints are straight from the books dude. It’s funny how you praise Jackson for being faithful to the book, and criticize this movie for being unfaithful to it, but then criticize the things in this movie that were faithful to the book (like Bilbo stealing Thror’s Cup). Also bro Peter Jackson’s hobbit movies are so much worse than this…..
They weren’t actually Peter Jackson’s hobbit movies. They were Guillermo del Toro’s Hobbit movies, then he left and they got somebody else (I don’t remember who), and only then, when they were almost at deadline and almost completely out of budget, they asked Peter Jackson to come in and rescue them. He did what he could , but…
I love this movie. It introduced me as a kid to Tolkien. Considering the budget, it looks lovely and the the voice acting is excellent. You watched this with every intention of hating it and that’s exactly what you did. Also… it’s a Gen X movie, not a Boomer movie.
I love this movie too! (I am Gen Z) But the movie was made BY boomers and made FOR Gen X. So you could argue if it is a boomer movie or a Gen X movie. (I personally think Gen X but I see why people think differently)
The context of this being a 1970s TV movie is very important. I don't think it's fair to compare the quality to that of the high budget theatrical releases of that time. Most of the problems present are almost all from a lack of budget and time both of which they when little control over and had to make the best of. Personally, it's fairly impressive what they were able to achieve despite the severe limitations, especially when compared to other TV movies made around the same time. It looks like a masterpiece compared to that other stuff.
I think that it is fair to compare them. this film rocks, and was done with a small budget, and was done to entertain. The modern version was super high budget, and was done to make money by adding garbage to stretch the run time. The old version can be watch multiple times and enjoyed. The new version can barely be watched once, without hitting 2x play speed, or skipping sections entirely. Small budget done with love. Big Budget and no heart.
There is no comparison BUT to pretend its perfect or great is nothing but rose tinted nostalgia. You can appreciate it for what it is, which I do. I love it but I can also accept what it is and see the flaws. Its called critical, objective thought. Something that seems in short supply these days.
Much of the animation and production staff on this film (Top Craft Animation, which itself was a splinter off of Toei Animation) would go on to form Studio Ghibli. I think it speaks volumes both to the quality of the film that we got despite the budget, and to the lost masterpiece that could have been with proper budget and development time.
@@ZimCrusher yeah, i was gonna defend it in my own way, but u flipped the script, and that was dope...i'd say that for its time, it was totally cool, i was only born in 1976, but when i saw the hobbit cartoon as a kid, i thought it was great; its also a children's story that tolkien literally wrote for his kids, as a christmas present, if i remener right......its totally apt to portray it the way the 1970's cartoon did, as a simple children's cartoon type of thing...and also, the art is iconic, in a cult-ish kind of way, in an old school way also.
@@cult_of_odin No one’s pretending it’s perfect. It’s just that nothing about the video or your little ramble is being particularly “critical.” Finding random shit to focus on because you can’t think of anything else to talk about isn’t being objective or critical, it’s just padding for time and content.
The sound mixing on the DVD version of this movie is a very unfortunate thing. Anyone who remembers the film airing when they were younger might remember some very specific sound effects and background music that is seemingly missing, being cut off improperly, or layered poorly (I have a VHS copy recorded off tv from the early 90's with the original sound, it doesn't do any of that). The meeting with Elrond had a much more simple, ominous score that shows up again during the spider scene. I do know that Rankin/Bass' hand-drawn films, including this and the Last Unicorn, had a lot of their original art lost or destroyed (via an old teacher who had worked for them) due to negligent archiving, so it's not too much of a stretch imagining the sound tracks may have suffered as well.
Yep the DVD dropped the ball on the sound effects and even added unnecessary ones( Bilbos stupid scream when seeing the spiders, Gollums odd sound effect when pointing and the nullified voice of Thorin when Bilbos barrel riding!). I'm glad I still got the VHS and Disney Channel recordings because what WB did was awful to its DVD version.
Based on a little research it seems like this is because the DVD release (and later, like the totally gorgeous 1080p digital release) use a rip of the original show’s LP as the audio. The LP and movie were exactly the same length and had the same dialogue and music, but the LP has less incidental audio in the mix, especially towards the back half of the movie.
I got the original double album boxed set of the Rankin/Bass Hobbit. The record's audio was incredibly detailed. I lost the set over time. This was a well-made, filler-free adaptation for its budget and time. Peace.
Almost like he sat on a giant corn cob. And obviously this guy has some disturbing issues if he sees a simple drawing of Gandalf as a pedophile and the dwarves as scrotum. Dude might want to schedule some therapy.
This little movie changed my life. Growing up in the 70s in the rural south, this Hobbit was my first exposure to Tolkein, and it was astounding. It prompted me to seek out the book and then the other books, and from there a whole universe of fantasy literature. So, you can bash it all you like, but I will be forever grateful to RankinBass for making it.
yeah it was my introduction to Tolkien too... and Rankin Bass. They later made THE LAST UNICORN which was sort of their magnum opus, along with the show Thundercats. I absolutely couldn't stand the endless Peter Jackson version.
I'm 21 years old and just watched this movie for the first time a few days ago, so no nostalgic bias. I loved it, and I have no idea how you call yourself "Rational Ryan" yet are so clearly irrational in your review. You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but it seems as if you watched the movie wanting to hate it. I loved the music and the fact that it's a pretty faithful adaptation of the book
Yeah I feel this so much, and literally same 21 and just watched this. his critique of gollum is dumb the actor was trying to hard? I love the gollum in this and most the fever dream shit
I don’t think he wants to hate it. I think he knows it’s good and makes up negative comments. Honestly a lot of his comments are about things that aren’t even related to the movie, or are literally just inaccurate. He points out random things that aren’t even an issue cus he’s trying to get views
Bro....no. This "review" ain't *it* son. This movie is a treasure and the people who animated it were working on a *SLIM* budget and made gold. Nah. Get ratioed🤨
I love it too, that doesn't make it good. The part of being an adult with critical thinking is you can still love and enjoy things through nostalgia and recognize its not prefect, sometimes its horrible.
Agreed, they really captured the tone that sits with me when thinking about TLOTR... im even almost sure that Peter Jackson took some tonal references from this animated film. ... also, the art backgrounds are amazing
Unlike Peter Jacksons awsome adaptation of Hobbit where 80% of movie time is running around and or fighting with some generic orc character, and rest is showing something that isnt even in the books, some made up character... showing dwarfs like short aragorns...ect To me this adaptation is way better, concise, and to the point... And more for children ( like originaly intended)
Tolkien himself changed The Hobbit. From oral story to short story, to the novel 1st edition, to the novel 2nd edition, to the novel 3rd edition he was working right before he died
@@omalleycaboose5937 Yeah, it just means that The Hobbit is like Berserk. People say that the anime adaptation of '97 was good, but.... no, it's only good compared to the CGi show they made in '16-'17... And only regarding animation, to be fair.
Larry Barnhill, I think Ryan is too glib to appreciate the charm of hand drawn animation or anything which doesn't suit his impatient and self centered aesthetic taste.
You know there were studios in the early 1970s which didn't make hand-drawn animation look terrible? We're not even talking Disney here, Warner Bros were consistently entertaining and Japan was already coming onto the scene. Star Blazers was just a couple years away.
I used to to watch this movie to kinda poke fun of at the music and some of the line delivery. But over time, it's really become a comfort movie for me. I watch this every time I feel inadequate for anything and it's everything to me. The art style, the music, the humble presentation. There's nothing to hate about the Rankin/Bass Hobbit.
i’m too young for this movie to be nostalgic for me but i just watched the it and honestly it was so beautiful. I loved the soundtrack, the artwork, the landscapes everything! it was really well done for its time and i feel like you just watched this movie with the intention of hating it and making a video on how much you hated it
That or he has legit criticisms. I have no love nor hate for these films but you cannot pretend that they are good. I have seen budget movies better than this.
Yeah that's exactly the impression I get. Halfway in, most of his criticisms were nitpicks or things that don't really matter that much... or just him declaring something is bad or wrong completely at random. He also keeps talking about sound mixing issues but I'm more than half convinced he added those in himself just so he could bitch about something (I've seen this movie on several different home media releases and I have legit never had trouble understanding the dialogue). For a guy called "Rational" Ryan, he sure sounds like anything but. In fact this video reminds me of the old days of Channel Awesome in the worst possible way.
If you were a Gen Xer you got it. I remember seeing this movie as a kid and having fond memories of it. We had the record and I used to play it quite a bit.
The reason why I love this movie is because of the art style and the music. I watched this as a kid and absolutely fell in love with the fantasy genre. It's less of a good movie and more like a gateway drug to high fantasy in the form of a VHS you got when you were 5.
The music was awesome. In both the Hobbit and the Return of the King. I never will forget "Where there's a whip there's a way", or "doomm the cracks of doom...." Unlike the new version with totally forgettable songs, and the lame love story.
@@tuomaslilja1027 No one said that. Lord of the Rings is NOT The Hobbit. LOTR = Awesome the Hobbit 2018ish = Garbage The Rank and Bass version is 100x better than that.
Thank you for pointing out that voice change from the Chief Elf in "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer". He is the Chief Elf, or should I say the Big Cheese Elf. He is the boss of all the working elves and, thus, likes to use an pompous, intimidating, bossy voice in their presence. However, Santa is the REAL boss at the North Pole, and has seniority over Chief Elf. Naturally, Chief Elf would NEVER dare use his pseudo-bossy voice in front of Santa! That is why his naturally meek voice is revealed in that scene. Even I figured this out many decades ago.
Gollum’s appearance is less jarring if you didn’t know about the Lord of the Rings at the time you made the movie. They are actually showing artistic integrity towards the original character by not including any lore from the spinoff. Remember, the Hobbit is not a prequel-LOTR is actually the Sequel Trilogy of the Hobbit.
That's always been my impression. They just read The Hobbit and saw no reason to take material from the other books. The two stories aren't completely at odds with each other but Tolkien had to do some retcons and after-the-fact rationalizations to make them fit together.
According to the book, Gollum by this point had been corrupted and mutated by the ring. With no resemblence to the Hobbit he once was. A genuine monster made manifest. While thr Jackson films obbiously portrayed someone as simply corrupted by addiction to the Ring; many of the old time Tolkien fans of the books I have spoken too harken more to what this animation portrayed. A monster with a resemblence of intellect beyond what it should. Turned entirely by the Ring into a beast that has no form of humanity left. Scheming to eat whatever it catches in its grip. Having grown beyond it's body's natural form. All influenced and manifested by the dark powers of the ring. They do not agree to the exact design of choice, as is the art of writing: everyone will create their own unique interpretation. But they have stated this film did the design more justice than the Jackson films.
Okay so this review is utter garbage. I mean my God. This is a made for TV movie with a three million dollar budget. And yet the level of care for the source material is downright impressive. Let's start with taking the time to draw, in detail, the map from the book. Then each dwarf has the exact color hood they wear in the book. You can see in shadow the instruments each dwarf has in the book. The entirety of Misty Mountains Cold is on this. All the details of the hobbit hole from the book are on display here including Bilbo's map of the Shire. Bilbo and Gandalf fit the book's description. Bilbo has curly brown hair, hair on his feet, a fat stomach, a pipe that goes down to his feet, etc. Every last song from the book is here. Someone took the time to draw the exact runes from the book for a two second scene. The thing you call a hut is the last homely house where Elrond dwells. But that level of detail is just the beginning here. Music. It's awesome. Take The Greatest Adventure, which is the Ballad of the Hobbit. It doesn't play over and over for no reason, but at moments of growth for Bilbo as a character since the song is about having the courage to seek out life instead of just dreaming about it. When we first hear it, Bilbo has found his sword and is starting to grow more adventurous . The last time, just before he meets the dragon notes Bilbo's triumph, He has completely conquered his fear and he proceeds to meet a foe that he should be no match for and outwit him, burgling Smaug's most precious secret. The songs feature Glenn Yarborough, a legendary folk singer, and despite the buget and time constraints they got every song in the book into this plus some that didn't make the film. And they're quite good. Then there's animation. So much detail. The interior of Bag End and Elrond's shows a lot of it as do the overhead views of Dale and Laketown. The crown and jewels from Misty Mountains Cold looks amazing for the budget, and there's a lot of fine detail in the art when we zoom in on objects. The tone. The tone of this children's movie is actually more dignified than the Hobbit trilogy. We have the bells frantically ringing in Dale as dragonfire swallows everything. We see the old kingdom of the dwarfs and some of them interacting with royalty. The goblins are much more serious, and their design is much more frightening. Riddles in the Dark is dark and eerie. Bilbo seems unafraid in the scene you mention because he's armed with an elvish blade he knows Gollum won't come near, and Gollum is far away. Gollum explains what happened because the intended audience is like six. The spiders poison the dwarfs and are going to devour them. And Bilbo stands up to Thorin, reminding him of his brave deeds as the dwarf calls him a coward for not marching to suicide. More dwarfs die in this than the book. Thorin dies onscreen with his sword on his heart. For a kids film by Rankin Bass, this is a surprisingly mature take on things. The pacing. It's rushed, but they got every important scene in there. How Gandalf and Bilbo know each other is less important than introducing the dwarfs, explaining the quest, and covering the major plot points. They made effective use of time and this has almost no filler. Everything with the dragon is straight from the book. The people in charge didn't want to add anything that wasn't. In that scene, we see Bilbo has completely changed from the Hobbit who fainted at the mention of a dragon. Now he is relishing in making a legend of himself, speaking in mysterious riddles, and dodging Smaug's magic glare. As for the last battle, they animated it as well as they could afford to, and it's still more dramatic than the trilogy with bodies strewn everywhere and Bombur's line being "I still live" just before Bilbo ends up at Thorin's deathbed. This movie is full of effort and it shines as the best adaptation so far. The screenplay won a Peabody. There's a good reason people love this so much. And again I have to say your review was garbage. Seriously, you didn't realize Bilbo was narrating because Gandalf gave him paper and a marker to make a log of the journey he could review later?
Thank you for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree. There are actually, many positive posts. I also left a long post, but not as detailed. For the time and budget, this was crafted with respect and love. I got the double album boxed set of the movie the following Christmas. I loved this film. It took transported me to another world. Bilbo's home, covered in tall grass, is great artwork. A great film for children. I was 10 when it first premiered. And it still holds up today. A little janky, but great for kids.
I have clear memories of waiting to see this on network television and then watching this when it was broadcast on ABC (?). I still have the soundtrack album on 33-1/3 and can recite it word for word. I recall crying like a baby when Thorin died. The spiders, though animated, scared the bejeezus out of me as a kid. And when Bard stood like a rock and made that speech, then turned around and killed that goddamned dragon with a single arrow, I knew justice had been served. Your review is perfection. I couldn't even make it ten minutes into this terrible, horrible, Millenial-based and biased, judgemental piece of dogshit review. Kudos. Stand tall.
All the boomers are really out in force in these comments lol. It's great that you like it, but the execution is awful imo. The visual style alone is horrific to me. I can't see how anyone defends this film without their nostalgia heavily biasing them towards it. It's like millenials defending the Star Wars prequels lol.
@@boat1280 I don't see how you get there. The visual style is excellent and compare that to anything else that is for children now. The same goes for the prequels whose visual style is far beyond anything that anyone else is doing now nevermind Disney Star Wars which is visually dire in comparison. I knew that it wouldn't take long for the quality of the prequels to shine against the Disney material. That's aside from the storytelling which is also so superior to anything being done by Disney Star Wars, Marvel or anyone else because they don't really know how to tell stories. They are caught up in moments and feeling good and horribly bad "comedy" over telling stories with strong characters.
I actually liked Gollum in this movie. His character design fits well with the book where he's described as having big lamp-like eyes and flappy webbed feet, etc. and it's not really established that he once would have looked more like a Hobbit, so this weird amphibious creature isn't too far off. I even liked the voice, it gives you a sense of how old he is that you don't really get from Andy Serkis. I guess I mainly like the fact that it's different because it's interesting to see how different people interpret what Tolkien described in the books.
@@Herr_Schindler I don't think anything in The Hobbit hints that he would have once looked like Bilbo, unless I missed something that all comes from LOTR
@@alex_mcclay In the chapter "Riddles in the Dark" Gollum remembered how his grandmother taught him to suck the contents of eggs when he was still living in a hole in the ground. Like a hobbit
@@Herr_Schindler That doesn't suggest he would have looked like a hobbit it just says he once lived underground lol In any case, he's described as having flappy webbed feet and big lamp like eyes in both The Hobbit and LOTR I don't see how this interpretation isn't valid.
Most of your criticisms are just opinions and it's silly to bash a film for lack of technical achievements when it didn't exist like blaming an old computer for relying on dos and not windows before windows existed
@@Devyn89 Opinions he’s treating like facts. Like the art style being horrible is something he treats as a given. Or how he loses his mind and screams about rough drafts over a narration that’s clearly just repeating certain lines like poetry.
@@APinchofBazel Bruh even the Bakshi version was objectively better animated, this movie just looks lazy especially when you consider the quality of the books’ art style. Sorry this was your first exposure to LOTR but this is not good lol
@@epiczk0n141 Think you’re replying to the wrong comment my guy. And a theatrical film looking better than a made-for-TV movie from the same time period? Damn, what a concept. What a mind-blower.
In terms of the “stop, strike a pose, move mouth” style of animation, it’s worth pointing out that the animation was done by a Japanese studio called TopCraft (that would later, believe it or not, become Studio Ghibli). If you’re going to analyze the animation, it makes a LOT more sense to compare it to contemporary anime, rather than other Rankin Bass productions.
Not to mention, REAL PEOPLE often behave this way! The clip he shows of live-action Bilbo telling the troll story is mostly just Bilbo standing with his mouth moving, occasionally making other subtle movements.
This little movie, with it's flaws, will always hold a special place in my heart. I watch it several times a year. It's like chicken soup when you're sick.
It's actually one of my favorite bedtime stories. Take some melatonin,turn it on and drift off to sleep. Have yet to get past Smaug,my wife always finishes it and turns off the tv.
I don't dislike the PJ Hobbit films. They're far inferior to his LOTR films in a lot of ways, but they absolutely have their merits. With that said, the goblin town song in the animated movie is way better than the one in the PJ movie. The style of voice for the Goblin King wasn't bad per se, but I thknk it was a creative error. I was not intimidated by that voice, and it didn't feel like it matched the visual in front of me. A lot of the songs in this animated movie are great, although I'll agree that The Greatest Adventure really shouldn't have been played more than twice.
Ryan, I like your videos, but I disagree with you on rankin/bass, one movie they did that I like was “the last unicorn”, it was a theatrical production which means it had cleaner animation and big stars joke Mia Farrow, Jeff Bridges, and Christopher Lee, so they can do something of quality
Seems like your nostalgia goggles are stuck. Its easy to love something and accept it is flawed unless you are incapable of objective, critical thought.
@@cult_of_odin first of all, have you actually watched "the last unicorn", its free on youtube, second of all, the rankin/bass fantasy movies were animated by top craft and the staff would go on to cofound studio Ghibli and the aforementioned film is the closest to a Miyazaki film.
You do know that this movie was 100 times more faithful to the book than Jackson’s money-grabbing trilogy. Over half the stuff in the Jackson trilogy is made up bs to fill time. Don’t even get me started on the stupid love triangle. (Also your constant referring to “old people” is heavy handed and comes off as immature.)
Yes and no. They are more accurate in that they didn't outright change anything, and the dialogue and narration are straight out of the book. BUT it also cuts out 90% of the depth, tension and suspense which is one of the big reasons the book was so good in the first place. Jackson, though he changed some things and went a little too over the top with the action and how much plot armor the characters had, actually added more depth to his 3 part version of the hobbit than the original book had by adding a lot of backstory from the appendices to lord of the rings. Especially in the extended editions. I thought that was cool.
It cuts out about 90% if it were based on the filler fluff story in the trilogy. It hits almost all the important beats of the book while including amazing songs in a 2 hour time slot taken up by 30-40 minutes of commercials.
@@davidsimon5088 This movie hits all the important beats of the book, but with none of what made those beats important. It's just a cliffnotes version and if you don't already know the story you'll just be bored.
It wasn't a stretched-into-a-studio-cash-grab-DFX-infested "trilogy" that is, frankly, a waste of time. Rankin-Bass did what they could with a "Coca-Cola budget," while Peter Jackson had "Dom-Perignon-Champagne budget," THREE times! So, get on your Segway, since "walking is so 19th century.";)
I saw your Return of the King review first, and while I still enjoy that one I can admit as a fan of Tolkien and good animation that it is very, very subpar. THIS, however, is a heartfelt piece with a lot of qualities, so, no, you're wrong here. It doesn't "suck", it's simply a product of its time. RUclips reviewers can be negative but have good reasoning. You're too narrow minded in your focus, and thus unfair. But, whatever, RUclips critics are a dime a dozen after all.
The Hobbit movie was wonderful. I saw it in 2nd grade and after seeing it, I went to the library and checked out the Hobbit book. This film was inspiring and captured the book wonderfully. I'd still recommend this film over that Hobbit trilogy film set. The single animated film felt more accurate and proper in tone. Your beef with the film seems overly critical and just picky. You're way off on this one.
Ngl I love this movie. And I love the Peter Jackson movies. I think it’s reached a point where any version of this story will make me happy, because I’ve spent my entire life just obsessing over it hardcore. The only adaptation I can say I genuinely couldn’t enjoy was the 1960’s 10 minute hobbit short where they changed literally everything.
And on the same level as the 1967 Hobbit, I place the Rings of Power, which will never be Tolkien because the fandom has entirely rejected it on Tolkien's behalf!
For gen x this film was both our first introduction to Tolkien and our first introduction to Japanese animation. It was enchanting in the day because we weren't saturated in fantasy films. This was something completely different.
Honestly I enjoyed the movie immensely and have fond memories of it. While you can complain about the songs, at least they're catchy and have a good flow to them. And the art and animation are at times impressive considering the time period. Smaug is still a favorite, his 'bored' voice is kind of the point-he's a character who has won and has remained undefeated on top of his treasure for decades. Of course the voice actor would sound bored.
Seriously, i feel like you either didnt read the book or forgot half of what transpired since bilbo himself wasnt exactly freaking tf out when he learned the ring makes him invisible, he was just like "oh...well thats cool" and thats it, and how gandalf just shows up to rescue them every time they're in danger from the goblins or the trolls, it really does happen almost instantly, also you can make anything seem annoying when you meme the fuck out of it to a borderline unfair degree
His voice changes at 4:52 to show that he’s an asskisser for Santa and mistreats his own when he isn’t looking. It’s exaggerated for comedic effect so children can understand. What’s inexcusable is that you don’t get that into your adult years.
You’re too cynical for your own good. Take a chill pill and enjoy the movie for what it is: a basic intro into the lore of the Hobbit for kids. I get it, you’re trying to be funny and ironic, but it just comes across angry, sad and like you’re above it all.
I was born in 1984 (NOT A BOOMER) and I was raised with this movie - I love it so much! You are just lame for not being able to appreciate older animation. And obviously, the Lemmiwinks song was based on the song from this film. This Gollum was the first Gollum I ever saw, and I do like it better than the Peter Jackson films.
Did anyone else get hung up on late 70s kids being called "Boomers"? Oh well. As many of that generation like to say, "No one noticed us then, and no one notices us now. We're used to it, and that's okay." ... Sorry, man, but I only made it about 8 minutes in, and it seems to me that you don't just dislike this movie; you dislike Rankin/Bass for reasons that I find unfair for the time in which those films were made. This was also made during a long-forgotten era of Fantasy (and children's) media, which was a big part of my childhood, so the visual style and childlike simplicity of the story it is holds nostalgic qualities for me. If you compare children's movies from the 70s with post-Millennium productions, then of course there's going to be a huge difference in technology, budget constraints, release formats, and audience expectations/marketing goals. We're from very, very different worlds. (I did hear that the digital "remaster" of this movie chopped the sound all to hell, however, so it's unfortunate that this is also probably a subpar copy.) Greetings from a Xennial! :) (Millenials old enough to identify with Gen-X, formerly known as the "MTV Generation".)
Wow, that was one hell of a rant. Man, I was so cranky all last month. ...Went and found a good copy of the VHS, though, and I stand by my assessment. It's also worth it to consider that the very 1st edition of D&D was still on the shelves when this movie came out -- the game that was so misunderstood in media and by parents that it came to be associated with Devil worship in the 80s. Fantasy has come a *long* ways.
Your faulty use of the word “boomer” was all I needed to know. The modern sickness seems to be rampant cynicism coupled with lots of nihilism. What a shame.
I agree with many of your points fks sound mixing, pacing, bad voice acting, but I don't think that all of your points are valid, or fair to the film. Complaining about the animation isn't fair to the film in my opinion, as it was essentially made on a shoestring budget plus, the change pose then talk repeat formula isn't all that bad. It's in pretty much every anime ever made and people are fine with that, me included. It is also not fair to compare it to the Ralph Bakshi film, as that film had at least 10 times the budget. The greatest adventure being repetitive is also something I respectfully disagree with. When Bilbo enters Smaug's chamber, we don't need an exciting piece of music. The greatest adventure played at the beginning, and from there played every time Bilbo makes one step closer to completing his character arc. Him confronting Smaug is him completing that arc and therefore, I think it's beautiful that the most intense version of the song (ignoring the beginning) plays here. But overral, very fun review, had me laughing out loud at moments, especially the keep it secret part.
I agree that there are some valid points as well but I disagree the most with him saying that there is no tension. As a child this movie constantly had me on the edge of my seat. I worried about many of the characters in more dangerous scenes. As an adult it feels tame but it’s a kids movie, that managed to have a grand epic feel without losing the fairytale charm that endeared it to me.
If you're pointing out that the world is still waiting on a GOOD adaptation of The Hobbit, you make a very good point. If you're going to tell me the bloated movie adaptations were any better...well... there's a place on your body where the sun doesn't shine, and you can insert your opinion there.
I really like this version for many reasons: the voice acting goes full mythic mode, the characters are actually all really acurate, except smaug. Thorin for example is in the book nearly 300 years old. show me somebody without wrinkles in this age. And gollum was i think better then in the jackson films. Yes i said it. this frog design comes from the novel describing creatures that live in dark caves, who have had to adapt on their enviroment to survive. Give a corrupting ring to a guy that lives in the dark at a lake and he might mutate in this way. The music i fell gives this movie a certain flare of mystical adventure (and maybe in case the visuals are terifiyng for little kids). Old childhood movies have this kind of atmosphere. You also have to count in the fact that the hobbit was written before lord of the rings was even planned. This movie seems until the last scene stick to that so you can enjoy it without thinking that their is something missing. But hey movie taste is different for everybody. I find it only funny that you seem to not like the Jackson hobbit version that much and still you bring up what they did better for some reason. Thats no complain, i just find it funny.
Gollum looked amazing, and I agree. This movie had an otherworldly quality to it, and for a 10-year-old boy in 1977, seeking such an adventure, this film hit the sweet spot. Nice post. Thank you.
The Jackson films are poor but infinitely better still imo. The fan edit "JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit" is legitimately great to watch. As someone who's never seen this old one before, I find the entire visual style horrific and the music to be hilarious. But hey, generational differences I guess. There's probably stuff I defend from when I was a kid that future generations will hate. Glad yall found joy in it
Also ten when this came out. A couple years later for Christmas I got a record of the soundtrack and large page picture book. This was several years before I ever watched a vhs movie. This soundtrack has beautiful songs. Folk music was big then. Glen Yarbrough's singing seams to match seamlessly with Orson Bean's Bilbo. Also many of these songs are expanded from short poems and songs in the book. The fluidity of the animation wouldn't hold up today but for the time it was good especially for tv.
I don’t blame you but I personally love LOTR PJ trilogy over the rankin and bass version but love this over PJ version anyday so we definitely can agree on that this guy literally has no clue what he’s talking about lol
I can't blame the production company for rushed pacing on this. They had a two hour time slot with at least 30 minutes for advertising. What they accomplish on that end while still having great music is kind of amazing. The music was in a popular style of the time and the songs are inspired and expanded versions of poems and songs in the book. Glen Yarbrough singing and Orson Bean's narration and voice of Bilbo blend very well.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on that. This film sparked my interest in Tolkien's literary works as a child. I'll bet I wasn't the only one. I would much rather watch this than Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy even today. Even the music, while corny, gives this a unique quality. Maybe I'm watching thru nostalgic glasses, but to me this is fantastic.
It definitely has some flaws, but I watched it maybe 2 years ago and still very much enjoyed it for a lot of the same reasons I did as a kid. It has good and unique art style, voice acting and music. It's not a masterpiece, but for what it was trying to do with what was available at the time that it was made, it's really solid. This movie got me into Tolkien as a kid as well. I think I saw this right before the LOTR movies came out, so I was relatively young at the time, and I loved Tolkien ever since. One weekend when I was super sick, i basically stayed home to heal and listened to The Hobbit on audio cassette for the entire weekend.
You think both this and the Bakshi versions are bad, then you haven't seen what's in store for you in the animated Return of the King. Can't wait until you come across the scene with the singing orcs!
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I couldn't disagree more. This was an animated interpretation of The Hobbit. The great movies that comprise The Hobbit we're not entirely true to the books either so how could an animated version be?
@@ronnyrono782 Though I should note, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were chock full of songs. All the time, all over the place, on every kind of occasion. I don't disagree. Song style in particular was out of place. Doesn't stop me from singing it randomly. Again, song is an absolute banger.
I'm sorry but I think you are objectively wrong on several points in this review. I know that art is ultimately subjective but there are several places where it feels like you are looking for things to complain about more than attempting genuine, critical dissection. That's all. The Rankin/Bass adaptation of The Hobbit is both one of the critical pieces of media that drew me into Tolkien's works and fantasy fiction in general and a film that I still watch today. It is far more effective as a fantasy adventure story than the Jackson Hobbit films and has leagues more charm, feeling like a truly "fantasy" world. But my personal feelings aside, it isn't perfect (as no adaptation of any work of fiction will ever be) but I dare say that it does exactly what it sets out to do and does not overstay it's welcome. The music is second-to-none for animated fantasy and everything about the character designs just feels so unique and inspired. Just the complexity and whimsy of the line-work alone clearly took a painstaking amount of time and effort. Some of it deviates from Tolkien's own designs (most notable in the Wood Elves) but I think this is done for creative reasons and I have to applaud the character designers for wanting to craft a very stylish fantasy world. The voices are especially iconic, with top-notch casting to thank, especially John Huston's Gandalf and the inclusion of Glenn Yarbrough's bard. And there will be some who will cry foul on me for saying this but...I actually find the depiction and voice of Gollum in this film to be BY FAR the most unsettling and compelling of any on-screen adaptation. Andy Serkis absolutely deserves all the praise he gets for bringing Gollum to life in the Jackson films. No doubt about it. But Serkis' Gollum feels like a very different character and one that I think comes across almost too "cartoony" at times, which is an amusing thing to say when I talk about how an animated adaptation feels "less cartoony" than a live-action one. Long story short, this film is the best piece of media related to the original story even to this day and potentially still one of the better pieces of animated fantasy adventure yet made.
To tell the truth I love this movie I don’t care what people say about this film. It’s part of my childhood that gave me inspiration of loving the Lord of the Rings stories. If it weren’t for that I would not have great imagination of Adventure going out to the world just to see beyond my home. The woods the trees birds and other wonderful animals. To all those naysayers “The Hobbit 1977” and “The Return of the King” is one of my top favorite animation film.
It seems clear what he’s doing if you pay attention. I suspect he knows deep down this is a good adaption. But he wants to make a video that gets a lot of views. So he says something he knows is provocative to get the views and attention he wants. You can tell becauxe he keeps pointing out the things that everyone loves in this adaption (songs, animation, loyalty to the books, etc), and often says things like “okay the goblin song is kind of a Banger….but uh….I mean why couldn’t the others be a banger?” See? He realizes he can’t actually find any real flaw, so he makes up a flaw, even stammering because he’s trying so hard to find one. I think it’s potentially dishonest because he probably makes money off these videos, and when we give him views since the title is provocative, he gains money for writing a poor review. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, but I think he should start examining his conscience more.
💡Never thought of that. You're right. The positive posts are overwhelming. I couldn't help but think...this review is off. Now I know why. He's a closet RankinBass fan.
It may not be the best adaptation, but it's a comforting and even nostalgic movie. Plus it makes sense for it to be an hour an a half (like most animated movies) Cause it's adapting a book originally meant for kids. Atleast one adults can enjoy as well. Also I personally like Gollum being frog-like. Cause before Toklien worked on LOTR and added the Hobbit to his extensive lore, it was a serperate story. No connections until years later. So it's possible in this scenario Gollum is just apart of a race of sapient frogs. Sapient eagles, dragons, bears and wolves are canon. So why not frogs as well. It makes no sense in making a book that takes less than a day to read into a film trilogy that takes like 7 hours to watch. Wasting all the talented actors, set builders, and of course the VFX artists time and resources.
This feels like such a throwback. Not the movie from 1977, this video. This style of online "review" is so far behind the times, isn't it? Takes me back to when Channel Awesome was a big deal and everyone was making stuff like this trying to be the next AVGN. Most RUclips critics these days don't walk you through a movie scene by scene and they usually try to have something to say about a film beyond sneering at it. I used to like these kinds of videos but I sure as hell don't miss them now.
I only like these types of videos if the thing being sneered at is genuinely terrible and morally reprehensible. Like when something is a CLEAR rip-off of a franchise, or bigoted propaganda. I just feel annoyed when it's creators making fun of something that clearly was made with care and passion.
I can either watch 3 films that are 2.5+ hours EACH and get an absolutely bloated mess of a story that fails as an adaptation and sullies the good name of the LOTR trilogy OR I can watch an innocent, wholesome, enjoyable 70 minute animated musical that covers the same story.... Yeah, I'll go with the animated version.
@@jaspergillgannon4991 Regardless of any subjective debate about quality...just considering 70 minutes of your time vs 7 hours of your time is enough of a tie-breaker. After all...the whole point of The Hobbit is just to get to the perfection that is the LOTR Trilogy. LOTR is far superior to EITHER version of The Hobbit...which merely serves as an initial introduction into the world. You can make that a grueling 7 hour slog, or you can make it a brisk and harmless 70 minute musical adventure.
@@ChrisPeteG I agree, however I don't like either myself. I think the only chance to get a proper movie adaptation of The Hobbit was with Jackson, who blew it. As he mentioned it in this video, I recommend watching the Maple Films Fan Edit of The Hobbit, taking all the PJ movies and cutting them into one lengthy edit. That's how it should have been.
@@ChrisPeteGCompletely untrue, the hobbit was made first as a stand alone story with no ideas for the sequel of LOTR even being made until a decade after the hobbit was published. The hobbit is not a prequel to LOTR, LOTR is a sequel to the hobbit. And the hobbits better too
@nicks1459 I never said Hobbit wasn't written first as a book, but functionally the Hobbit is still a prequel to LOTR just as LOTR is a sequel to the Hobbit book. The Hobbit cartoon is the much more efficient path to get the whimsical backstory of LOTR before you watch the masterpiece of the trilogy.
I think Smaug"s character design is cool in this. I'm a big fan of dragons being a bit more than just big giant reptiles with wings. Throwing some mammalian features adds some nice flair and is kind of reminiscent of their depiction in medieval artwork.
27:20 - Didn't the book itself described that those elves were different than elves from Rivendell and were more primitive and aggressive to a point where they just lived in shacks and their king resided in the cave? Like you can't really complain that they didn't did them like in LOTR when this is how they were described in Hobbit.
Fan edits with the Peter Jackson trilogy are the way to go. I also like the songs and whimsical nature of the animated hobbit and enjoy watching that on occasion as well.
At least your review on Ralph bakshi’s lord of the rings movie actually felt like a legit review nostalgia critics “review” on the movie felt more like a commentary video than an actual review not once did he point out the flaws of the animated LOTR movie not even the part when they called saruman “Aruman” Course I’d take nostalgia critic reviews with a grain of salt anyways especially because in recent years he’s seem to become the very person he spent his entire RUclips career making fun of
So…literally exactly like these videos? Both are less reviews and more glorified commentaries, except Ryan stops more often to hyperfocus on trivial nonsense.
This comment was posted 9 months ago, and I've only just now figured out what the hell OP was trying to say. Holy run-on sentences, Batman! You do realize that punctuation and capitalization are things for a reason, right?
@@beta_cygni1950 That's on you, dude. It took me only reading their comment on e to understand what they were trying to say, lack of punctuation and all.
I saw this as a kid, and it was my first exposure to Tolkien lore, and I loved it. Looking back from an adult perspective, I have suspicions about what influenced the production: 1) Hippie culture- You see a lot of psychedelia in the Bakshi version, and in the R-B we have tons of John-Denver style folk music. 2) The famous Book of Gnomes was published in 1976, and The Hobbit came out in 1977 3) PBS children's programming ruled the day, with very soft approaches meant to not scare or overstimulate children, and creates a very slow and dream-like feel
you do a good job of invoking historical context without really understanding how it effects the film or the artistic production. please stop making videos and do something else, thanks.
Yeah so remember this movie was made in the 70s....D&D wasnt a thing yet and the fantasy genre just wasn't something that took off until Conan the Barbarian a few years later. Regardless of how Tolkien deacribed them in the book, this movie reflects how people in the 70s thought of elves, dwarves, goblins, etc. THIS is the version that Gen X knew and grew up on, and then went on to refine the fantasy genre into what it is today. So you're welcome.
21:16 Dude, what are you talking about? English isn't even my native language and I can understand Gollum's dialogue perfectly. In general, I think you were a bit too nitpicking in this Video. Sure, the character designs could be better and the story would have needed more time to unfold but honstly, I think it's a well made movie. It's not the best or the worst, but one which is alright for that what it wanted to be. Keep in mind, it was before Jackson gave us the appearance of middle earth which we all know today, so I can forgive this movie. Weirdly enough, my Hobbit Book is filled with character illustrations which look like from this movie. And when you think this Bilbo is an abomination you should look up the Alan Lee illustrations... I wish I would have the opportunity to watch this movie.
This movie is what happens when you try to adapt with too little in resources The trilogy is what happens when you force yourself to use more resources than necessary
It had a low budget but was still good for its time, animation quality improves over time. And transferring vhs to DVD always causes visual and audio problems. Your favorite things are going to be shit compared to new things and kids are going to shit on them because of it.
To be fair at least with the unusual design of hobbits they look like a different race to men compared to the live action movies where they look like usual men when not in shots with the men characters
That one line near the beginning of his review "If you showed this movie to someone before the Peter Jackson version existed and told them that it was based on one of the greatest novels ever written, they would probably go ...whaat?" Made me realize this guy is completely clueless. I was that person and I loved this movie and it made me want to find that book and read it. My family watched this movie many times on vhs and it was one of the first movies I showed my kids as soon as they were old enough to appreciate it. Is it a perfect adaptation? No. But it did it's job in showing what an awsome story Tolkien wrote and it started my love of Tolkien's writings. The movie is great, this review of the movie is what sucks.
yes! my first exposure to The Hobbit was actually the 2003 gamecube game, but I also watched this movie alongside it and read the book with my mom. I was obsessed with the movie, and to this day I find it very charming and comforting.
I really loved your videos on the Ralph Bakshi-movies, but i do not agree with your opinions about this movie. It's a really charming adventure which respect the lore and book alot. I think Tolkien actually would love this adaption. The singing, the music, the design and the overall magical feel. At times i think it's actually pretty scary. I only watched this movie as an adult, and i thought it was a truely unique, and i know i would have loved it even more had i seen it as a kid.
@@waddleburr8048 I know right? You can't shit talk without having the skill to do it yourself, that's why gamers who complain about graphics (especially pokemon of all things) need to take a chill pill
You don’t understand the 70s, man. The Vietnam war was on going & being protested for years. The country was sick of war, & the peace movement was happening. People didn’t want to see violence in movies. Thats why the fight scenes are largely more of a suggestion that violence happened. People didn’t want their kids to see even monsters being stabbed. I grew up on these films, so I prefer the garden gnome dwarves and the 70s ballad back ground music. It sounds like an old friend. Yeah, southpark parodied the 70s The Hobbit film in the Lemmiwinks episode. It was hilarious to us GenXers who instantly got it. A little in joke. Smaug was voiced by Richard Boon. A famous actor in the 60s & 70s. He played bad guys. In the old days some actors only played bad guys, and people watched movies a lot more, so you would have a gut reaction when you even heard their voice. Its like hearing Darth Vader. You’re like Oh sh!t its that bad guy! So the film companies would hire an actor, often with that in mind. Especially for voice acting. That is lost to time. To us it wasn’t some bored guy. It was Richard Boon.
Yes I agree and for me I’m not a big fan of the look of the wood elves Also it sucks that they didn’t include Beorn skin changer as I think that was the main thing that wasn’t included in the adaptation
Sounds like a Gen Z punk busting on Boomers like they are so fond of doing. This is a great movie and a part of my childhood that I remember fondly. There’s a reason why Millennials and Gen Z are looked upon as arrogant by their elders.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
The "boomer generation" was already grown when this movie came out. This is the movie Gen X grew up with.
Confirmed. October 1972 here, and I saw this many times as a child.
Same here 1974👍🏾@@StormsparkPegasus
1979 here and I saw it many times as a kid.
I'm a Boomer and was 15 years old when this was made.
@@Eggman62and? My mother is a boomer and she was 31 when this came out.
To be fair to Gollum’s voice actor, he was likely told, “your character hasn’t spoken to anyone-save muttering to himself-for five hundred years. And he’s only talking to Bilbo long enough to get the jump on him.” No one asked him to make an Oscar speech.
The VA, Brother Theodore, actually didn't sound too different from his performance here in real life.
Also, after living in subterranean tunnels, (possibly Goblin sewers?), being exposed to the power of the ring, and living off of bugs and raw fish and Goblin meat for five lifetimes, I could easily see Gollum being turned from a hobbit into the creature he's depicted as in this movie.
To be honest, Gollum’s voice in the animated hobbit fits pretty well with him.
@@dr.masiaka7048no
Several of your complaints are straight from the books dude. It’s funny how you praise Jackson for being faithful to the book, and criticize this movie for being unfaithful to it, but then criticize the things in this movie that were faithful to the book (like Bilbo stealing Thror’s Cup). Also bro Peter Jackson’s hobbit movies are so much worse than this…..
EXACTLY THIS GUY MAKES ME SO MAD LOL
@@squilber2177 As someone who likes the 3 animated tolkien movies & Peter Jackson's two trilogies, this guy is infuriating.
First Jackson hobbit movie was better than this.
Then they got bad.
@@zimrielnot even close
They weren’t actually Peter Jackson’s hobbit movies. They were Guillermo del Toro’s Hobbit movies, then he left and they got somebody else (I don’t remember who), and only then, when they were almost at deadline and almost completely out of budget, they asked Peter Jackson to come in and rescue them. He did what he could , but…
I wouldn't call this a "Boomer" movie, more of a Gen X movie. Oh, Generation X, we still get no regard, even after all these years.
Just thinking this the moment I saw the word "boomer". We (Gen X) did get kicked to the curb but it's all good man. We had the best stuff.
@@illegaljohnny - Amen to that.
Everyone older than a certain age is a boomer to some people.
@@nickkladky8396 I believe the term for this is "exaggeration."
My thoughts exactly.
I love this movie. It introduced me as a kid to Tolkien. Considering the budget, it looks lovely and the the voice acting is excellent. You watched this with every intention of hating it and that’s exactly what you did. Also… it’s a Gen X movie, not a Boomer movie.
I love this movie too! (I am Gen Z) But the movie was made BY boomers and made FOR Gen X. So you could argue if it is a boomer movie or a Gen X movie. (I personally think Gen X but I see why people think differently)
@waddleburr is right. Zootopia or Frozen aren't gen z movies, they are squarely millennial movies, ergo..
The context of this being a 1970s TV movie is very important. I don't think it's fair to compare the quality to that of the high budget theatrical releases of that time. Most of the problems present are almost all from a lack of budget and time both of which they when little control over and had to make the best of. Personally, it's fairly impressive what they were able to achieve despite the severe limitations, especially when compared to other TV movies made around the same time. It looks like a masterpiece compared to that other stuff.
I think that it is fair to compare them.
this film rocks, and was done with a small budget, and was done to entertain.
The modern version was super high budget, and was done to make money by adding garbage to stretch the run time.
The old version can be watch multiple times and enjoyed.
The new version can barely be watched once, without hitting 2x play speed, or skipping sections entirely.
Small budget done with love.
Big Budget and no heart.
There is no comparison BUT to pretend its perfect or great is nothing but rose tinted nostalgia. You can appreciate it for what it is, which I do. I love it but I can also accept what it is and see the flaws. Its called critical, objective thought. Something that seems in short supply these days.
Much of the animation and production staff on this film (Top Craft Animation, which itself was a splinter off of Toei Animation) would go on to form Studio Ghibli. I think it speaks volumes both to the quality of the film that we got despite the budget, and to the lost masterpiece that could have been with proper budget and development time.
@@ZimCrusher yeah, i was gonna defend it in my own way, but u flipped the script, and that was dope...i'd say that for its time, it was totally cool, i was only born in 1976, but when i saw the hobbit cartoon as a kid, i thought it was great; its also a children's story that tolkien literally wrote for his kids, as a christmas present, if i remener right......its totally apt to portray it the way the 1970's cartoon did, as a simple children's cartoon type of thing...and also, the art is iconic, in a cult-ish kind of way, in an old school way also.
@@cult_of_odin
No one’s pretending it’s perfect. It’s just that nothing about the video or your little ramble is being particularly “critical.”
Finding random shit to focus on because you can’t think of anything else to talk about isn’t being objective or critical, it’s just padding for time and content.
The sound mixing on the DVD version of this movie is a very unfortunate thing. Anyone who remembers the film airing when they were younger might remember some very specific sound effects and background music that is seemingly missing, being cut off improperly, or layered poorly (I have a VHS copy recorded off tv from the early 90's with the original sound, it doesn't do any of that). The meeting with Elrond had a much more simple, ominous score that shows up again during the spider scene. I do know that Rankin/Bass' hand-drawn films, including this and the Last Unicorn, had a lot of their original art lost or destroyed (via an old teacher who had worked for them) due to negligent archiving, so it's not too much of a stretch imagining the sound tracks may have suffered as well.
Yep the DVD dropped the ball on the sound effects and even added unnecessary ones( Bilbos stupid scream when seeing the spiders, Gollums odd sound effect when pointing and the nullified voice of Thorin when Bilbos barrel riding!). I'm glad I still got the VHS and Disney Channel recordings because what WB did was awful to its DVD version.
Based on a little research it seems like this is because the DVD release (and later, like the totally gorgeous 1080p digital release) use a rip of the original show’s LP as the audio. The LP and movie were exactly the same length and had the same dialogue and music, but the LP has less incidental audio in the mix, especially towards the back half of the movie.
Someone put together a fanedit with restored audio. DO a websearch for "The Hi Fi Hobbit" and you should find it.
I got the original double album boxed set of the Rankin/Bass Hobbit. The record's audio was incredibly detailed. I lost the set over time. This was a well-made, filler-free adaptation for its budget and time. Peace.
Ok but who says THE EAGLES in the battle of the 5 armies and why is it there
This was so astronomically nitpicky
Almost like he sat on a giant corn cob. And obviously this guy has some disturbing issues if he sees a simple drawing of Gandalf as a pedophile and the dwarves as scrotum. Dude might want to schedule some therapy.
YOU'RE astronomically pitnucki
This little movie changed my life. Growing up in the 70s in the rural south, this Hobbit was my first exposure to Tolkein, and it was astounding. It prompted me to seek out the book and then the other books, and from there a whole universe of fantasy literature. So, you can bash it all you like, but I will be forever grateful to RankinBass for making it.
yeah it was my introduction to Tolkien too... and Rankin Bass. They later made THE LAST UNICORN which was sort of their magnum opus, along with the show Thundercats.
I absolutely couldn't stand the endless Peter Jackson version.
Exactly Amen Brother
I'm 21 years old and just watched this movie for the first time a few days ago, so no nostalgic bias. I loved it, and I have no idea how you call yourself "Rational Ryan" yet are so clearly irrational in your review. You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but it seems as if you watched the movie wanting to hate it. I loved the music and the fact that it's a pretty faithful adaptation of the book
Yeah I feel this so much, and literally same 21 and just watched this. his critique of gollum is dumb the actor was trying to hard? I love the gollum in this and most the fever dream shit
I loved this movie! this guy a hater.
I don’t think he wants to hate it. I think he knows it’s good and makes up negative comments. Honestly a lot of his comments are about things that aren’t even related to the movie, or are literally just inaccurate. He points out random things that aren’t even an issue cus he’s trying to get views
I disagree that Ryan is entitled to his opinion.
He’s lost that privilege
@@ransakreject5221 I agree with you
Bro....no. This "review" ain't *it* son. This movie is a treasure and the people who animated it were working on a *SLIM* budget and made gold. Nah. Get ratioed🤨
He's getting destroyed in his own comments
You're blinded by nostalgia.
I love it too, that doesn't make it good. The part of being an adult with critical thinking is you can still love and enjoy things through nostalgia and recognize its not prefect, sometimes its horrible.
@@GeraltofRivia22 yeah me too. I still love this movie however bad it is
Agreed, they really captured the tone that sits with me when thinking about TLOTR... im even almost sure that Peter Jackson took some tonal references from this animated film. ... also, the art backgrounds are amazing
Unlike Peter Jacksons awsome adaptation of Hobbit where 80% of movie time is running around and or fighting with some generic orc character, and rest is showing something that isnt even in the books, some made up character... showing dwarfs like short aragorns...ect
To me this adaptation is way better, concise, and to the point... And more for children ( like originaly intended)
Tolkien himself changed The Hobbit. From oral story to short story, to the novel 1st edition, to the novel 2nd edition, to the novel 3rd edition he was working right before he died
@@josephiajanke9850 So did George Lucas . . . and yeah, he's not dead, but he should be.
thats why it's boring
@@blackmetalerik962 both versions are boring, just because this is the best adaptation of The Hobbit doesn't have to mean it good
@@omalleycaboose5937 Yeah, it just means that The Hobbit is like Berserk. People say that the anime adaptation of '97 was good, but.... no, it's only good compared to the CGi show they made in '16-'17... And only regarding animation, to be fair.
You know there was a time when cartoons were actually animated by hand, right?
Larry Barnhill, I think Ryan is too glib to appreciate the charm of hand drawn animation or anything which doesn't suit his impatient and self centered aesthetic taste.
You know there were studios in the early 1970s which didn't make hand-drawn animation look terrible?
We're not even talking Disney here, Warner Bros were consistently entertaining and Japan was already coming onto the scene. Star Blazers was just a couple years away.
@@zimriel Nearly everyone does, with one possible exception; "Rational" Ryan
@@zimriel Oh this movie was all import animation from Japan
@@susic1819from the studio which later became Ghibli at that
I used to to watch this movie to kinda poke fun of at the music and some of the line delivery. But over time, it's really become a comfort movie for me. I watch this every time I feel inadequate for anything and it's everything to me. The art style, the music, the humble presentation. There's nothing to hate about the Rankin/Bass Hobbit.
Simply en-chanting…
Ooooo wuuut are you dooin
@@jswin2084 with beeeeards all a-wagginnnnnn
The Greatest Adventure song is so motivational and soothing.
@@aspiringjoker2883 no knowin no knowin
@@waddleburr8048 what brings Mr. Baggins!
i’m too young for this movie to be nostalgic for me but i just watched the it and honestly it was so beautiful. I loved the soundtrack, the artwork, the landscapes everything! it was really well done for its time and i feel like you just watched this movie with the intention of hating it and making a video on how much you hated it
Pretty much.
That or he has legit criticisms. I have no love nor hate for these films but you cannot pretend that they are good. I have seen budget movies better than this.
@@opticalraven1935
That or deema legit thinks there are good qualities to this movie and was never pretending
Yeah that's exactly the impression I get. Halfway in, most of his criticisms were nitpicks or things that don't really matter that much... or just him declaring something is bad or wrong completely at random. He also keeps talking about sound mixing issues but I'm more than half convinced he added those in himself just so he could bitch about something (I've seen this movie on several different home media releases and I have legit never had trouble understanding the dialogue).
For a guy called "Rational" Ryan, he sure sounds like anything but. In fact this video reminds me of the old days of Channel Awesome in the worst possible way.
the feeling is mutual. in fact i fully believe that they just wanted to hate it without an open mind
I didn’t know it was possible to have such a wrong opinion
I love how the South Park guys made a parody that only a few people would get
I watched thst episode several times before I realized "wait... are they doing the Hobbit song???"
If you were a Gen Xer you got it. I remember seeing this movie as a kid and having fond memories of it. We had the record and I used to play it quite a bit.
Notice that it was a loving tribute to the movie. They must have watched the hell out of it back in their chilhoods
I have seen the Hobbit maybe 5 whole times in 30 years, and not for a moment did I miss the reference.
I fell over dead when i heard that song,my wife even she recognized it.
This movie was and still is awesome. Truly the official adaptation tbh.
Dude yes! Classic
And the greatest adventure is one of my favorite songs of the movie.
The reason why I love this movie is because of the art style and the music. I watched this as a kid and absolutely fell in love with the fantasy genre.
It's less of a good movie and more like a gateway drug to high fantasy in the form of a VHS you got when you were 5.
The music was awesome.
In both the Hobbit and the Return of the King. I never will forget "Where there's a whip there's a way", or "doomm the cracks of doom...."
Unlike the new version with totally forgettable songs, and the lame love story.
@@ZimCrusher so you really prefer this shit over jacksons lotr ?
@@tuomaslilja1027 No one said that.
Lord of the Rings is NOT The Hobbit.
LOTR = Awesome
the Hobbit 2018ish = Garbage
The Rank and Bass version is 100x better than that.
@@ZimCrusher Ok , sorry for the misunderstanding.
It wrote that comment at 2:30 am, probably wery drunk🤣
Yeah, I doubt they’re putting this much effort in making a soundtrack to a 60 min feature these days
The Rudolph elf voice change was never a mistake. It was the elf pretending to be nice in front of Santa but in reality was an ass
I think everyone has had that boss.
Thank you for pointing out that voice change from the Chief Elf in "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer". He is the Chief Elf, or should I say the Big Cheese Elf. He is the boss of all the working elves and, thus, likes to use an pompous, intimidating, bossy voice in their presence.
However, Santa is the REAL boss at the North Pole, and has seniority over Chief Elf. Naturally, Chief Elf would NEVER dare use his pseudo-bossy voice in front of Santa! That is why his naturally meek voice is revealed in that scene. Even I figured this out many decades ago.
Thats exactly what I thought when he said this!
Gollum’s appearance is less jarring if you didn’t know about the Lord of the Rings at the time you made the movie. They are actually showing artistic integrity towards the original character by not including any lore from the spinoff. Remember, the Hobbit is not a prequel-LOTR is actually the Sequel Trilogy of the Hobbit.
That's always been my impression. They just read The Hobbit and saw no reason to take material from the other books. The two stories aren't completely at odds with each other but Tolkien had to do some retcons and after-the-fact rationalizations to make them fit together.
Before the Jackson films many people had different interpretations of how Gollum appeared, particularly the illustrator Tove Janson.
According to the book, Gollum by this point had been corrupted and mutated by the ring. With no resemblence to the Hobbit he once was. A genuine monster made manifest. While thr Jackson films obbiously portrayed someone as simply corrupted by addiction to the Ring; many of the old time Tolkien fans of the books I have spoken too harken more to what this animation portrayed. A monster with a resemblence of intellect beyond what it should. Turned entirely by the Ring into a beast that has no form of humanity left. Scheming to eat whatever it catches in its grip. Having grown beyond it's body's natural form. All influenced and manifested by the dark powers of the ring. They do not agree to the exact design of choice, as is the art of writing: everyone will create their own unique interpretation. But they have stated this film did the design more justice than the Jackson films.
Hobbit movie trilogy is Garbage... the Hobbit animated movie is good wholesome childhood nostalgia; get your facts straight!
Okay so this review is utter garbage. I mean my God. This is a made for TV movie with a three million dollar budget. And yet the level of care for the source material is downright impressive. Let's start with taking the time to draw, in detail, the map from the book. Then each dwarf has the exact color hood they wear in the book. You can see in shadow the instruments each dwarf has in the book. The entirety of Misty Mountains Cold is on this. All the details of the hobbit hole from the book are on display here including Bilbo's map of the Shire. Bilbo and Gandalf fit the book's description. Bilbo has curly brown hair, hair on his feet, a fat stomach, a pipe that goes down to his feet, etc. Every last song from the book is here. Someone took the time to draw the exact runes from the book for a two second scene. The thing you call a hut is the last homely house where Elrond dwells. But that level of detail is just the beginning here.
Music. It's awesome. Take The Greatest Adventure, which is the Ballad of the Hobbit. It doesn't play over and over for no reason, but at moments of growth for Bilbo as a character since the song is about having the courage to seek out life instead of just dreaming about it. When we first hear it, Bilbo has found his sword and is starting to grow more adventurous . The last time, just before he meets the dragon notes Bilbo's triumph, He has completely conquered his fear and he proceeds to meet a foe that he should be no match for and outwit him, burgling Smaug's most precious secret. The songs feature Glenn Yarborough, a legendary folk singer, and despite the buget and time constraints they got every song in the book into this plus some that didn't make the film. And they're quite good.
Then there's animation. So much detail. The interior of Bag End and Elrond's shows a lot of it as do the overhead views of Dale and Laketown. The crown and jewels from Misty Mountains Cold looks amazing for the budget, and there's a lot of fine detail in the art when we zoom in on objects.
The tone. The tone of this children's movie is actually more dignified than the Hobbit trilogy. We have the bells frantically ringing in Dale as dragonfire swallows everything. We see the old kingdom of the dwarfs and some of them interacting with royalty. The goblins are much more serious, and their design is much more frightening. Riddles in the Dark is dark and eerie. Bilbo seems unafraid in the scene you mention because he's armed with an elvish blade he knows Gollum won't come near, and Gollum is far away. Gollum explains what happened because the intended audience is like six. The spiders poison the dwarfs and are going to devour them. And Bilbo stands up to Thorin, reminding him of his brave deeds as the dwarf calls him a coward for not marching to suicide. More dwarfs die in this than the book. Thorin dies onscreen with his sword on his heart. For a kids film by Rankin Bass, this is a surprisingly mature take on things.
The pacing. It's rushed, but they got every important scene in there. How Gandalf and Bilbo know each other is less important than introducing the dwarfs, explaining the quest, and covering the major plot points. They made effective use of time and this has almost no filler.
Everything with the dragon is straight from the book. The people in charge didn't want to add anything that wasn't. In that scene, we see Bilbo has completely changed from the Hobbit who fainted at the mention of a dragon. Now he is relishing in making a legend of himself, speaking in mysterious riddles, and dodging Smaug's magic glare. As for the last battle, they animated it as well as they could afford to, and it's still more dramatic than the trilogy with bodies strewn everywhere and Bombur's line being "I still live" just before Bilbo ends up at Thorin's deathbed.
This movie is full of effort and it shines as the best adaptation so far. The screenplay won a Peabody. There's a good reason people love this so much. And again I have to say your review was garbage. Seriously, you didn't realize Bilbo was narrating because Gandalf gave him paper and a marker to make a log of the journey he could review later?
Thank you for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree. There are actually, many positive posts. I also left a long post, but not as detailed. For the time and budget, this was crafted with respect and love. I got the double album boxed set of the movie the following Christmas. I loved this film. It took transported me to another world. Bilbo's home, covered in tall grass, is great artwork. A great film for children. I was 10 when it first premiered. And it still holds up today. A little janky, but great for kids.
Excellent review.
I have clear memories of waiting to see this on network television and then watching this when it was broadcast on ABC (?). I still have the soundtrack album on 33-1/3 and can recite it word for word. I recall crying like a baby when Thorin died. The spiders, though animated, scared the bejeezus out of me as a kid. And when Bard stood like a rock and made that speech, then turned around and killed that goddamned dragon with a single arrow, I knew justice had been served.
Your review is perfection. I couldn't even make it ten minutes into this terrible, horrible, Millenial-based and biased, judgemental piece of dogshit review. Kudos. Stand tall.
All the boomers are really out in force in these comments lol. It's great that you like it, but the execution is awful imo. The visual style alone is horrific to me.
I can't see how anyone defends this film without their nostalgia heavily biasing them towards it. It's like millenials defending the Star Wars prequels lol.
@@boat1280 I don't see how you get there. The visual style is excellent and compare that to anything else that is for children now. The same goes for the prequels whose visual style is far beyond anything that anyone else is doing now nevermind Disney Star Wars which is visually dire in comparison. I knew that it wouldn't take long for the quality of the prequels to shine against the Disney material. That's aside from the storytelling which is also so superior to anything being done by Disney Star Wars, Marvel or anyone else because they don't really know how to tell stories. They are caught up in moments and feeling good and horribly bad "comedy" over telling stories with strong characters.
I actually liked Gollum in this movie. His character design fits well with the book where he's described as having big lamp-like eyes and flappy webbed feet, etc. and it's not really established that he once would have looked more like a Hobbit, so this weird amphibious creature isn't too far off. I even liked the voice, it gives you a sense of how old he is that you don't really get from Andy Serkis. I guess I mainly like the fact that it's different because it's interesting to see how different people interpret what Tolkien described in the books.
The Book hints that Gollum was once a hobbit. So why he is some frog i don't know
@@Herr_Schindler I don't think anything in The Hobbit hints that he would have once looked like Bilbo, unless I missed something that all comes from LOTR
@@alex_mcclay In the chapter "Riddles in the Dark" Gollum remembered how his grandmother taught him to suck the contents of eggs when he was still living in a hole in the ground. Like a hobbit
@@Herr_Schindler That doesn't suggest he would have looked like a hobbit it just says he once lived underground lol
In any case, he's described as having flappy webbed feet and big lamp like eyes in both The Hobbit and LOTR I don't see how this interpretation isn't valid.
@@alex_mcclay, bruh. You got to be joking
Most of your criticisms are just opinions and it's silly to bash a film for lack of technical achievements when it didn't exist like blaming an old computer for relying on dos and not windows before windows existed
…. Do you think other criticism is factual? Obviously these are his opinions lol.
@@Devyn89 criticism should be based on facts or else it is just being a grouch.
@@Devyn89
Opinions he’s treating like facts.
Like the art style being horrible is something he treats as a given. Or how he loses his mind and screams about rough drafts over a narration that’s clearly just repeating certain lines like poetry.
@@APinchofBazel Bruh even the Bakshi version was objectively better animated, this movie just looks lazy especially when you consider the quality of the books’ art style. Sorry this was your first exposure to LOTR but this is not good lol
@@epiczk0n141
Think you’re replying to the wrong comment my guy.
And a theatrical film looking better than a made-for-TV movie from the same time period?
Damn, what a concept. What a mind-blower.
In terms of the “stop, strike a pose, move mouth” style of animation, it’s worth pointing out that the animation was done by a Japanese studio called TopCraft (that would later, believe it or not, become Studio Ghibli). If you’re going to analyze the animation, it makes a LOT more sense to compare it to contemporary anime, rather than other Rankin Bass productions.
Not to mention, REAL PEOPLE often behave this way! The clip he shows of live-action Bilbo telling the troll story is mostly just Bilbo standing with his mouth moving, occasionally making other subtle movements.
This little movie, with it's flaws, will always hold a special place in my heart. I watch it several times a year. It's like chicken soup when you're sick.
It's actually one of my favorite bedtime stories.
Take some melatonin,turn it on and drift off to sleep.
Have yet to get past Smaug,my wife always finishes it and turns off the tv.
In my opinion, the goblin king song in the 1977 version is superior to the one in the live action movie. It just hits different, idk why.
I don't dislike the PJ Hobbit films. They're far inferior to his LOTR films in a lot of ways, but they absolutely have their merits. With that said, the goblin town song in the animated movie is way better than the one in the PJ movie. The style of voice for the Goblin King wasn't bad per se, but I thknk it was a creative error. I was not intimidated by that voice, and it didn't feel like it matched the visual in front of me. A lot of the songs in this animated movie are great, although I'll agree that The Greatest Adventure really shouldn't have been played more than twice.
@@Tyler_W Totally! You made a bunch of great points there, thanks for adding your input!
Ryan, I like your videos, but I disagree with you on rankin/bass, one movie they did that I like was “the last unicorn”, it was a theatrical production which means it had cleaner animation and big stars joke Mia Farrow, Jeff Bridges, and Christopher Lee, so they can do something of quality
I don't think he's going to get mad if you like any of their movies, he never said they're incapable of making likable products.
Seems like your nostalgia goggles are stuck. Its easy to love something and accept it is flawed unless you are incapable of objective, critical thought.
@@cult_of_odin first of all, have you actually watched "the last unicorn", its free on youtube, second of all, the rankin/bass fantasy movies were animated by top craft and the staff would go on to cofound studio Ghibli and the aforementioned film is the closest to a Miyazaki film.
You do know that this movie was 100 times more faithful to the book than Jackson’s money-grabbing trilogy. Over half the stuff in the Jackson trilogy is made up bs to fill time. Don’t even get me started on the stupid love triangle.
(Also your constant referring to “old people” is heavy handed and comes off as immature.)
These cartoons are more accurate then the peter Jackson movies
Yes and no. They are more accurate in that they didn't outright change anything, and the dialogue and narration are straight out of the book. BUT it also cuts out 90% of the depth, tension and suspense which is one of the big reasons the book was so good in the first place. Jackson, though he changed some things and went a little too over the top with the action and how much plot armor the characters had, actually added more depth to his 3 part version of the hobbit than the original book had by adding a lot of backstory from the appendices to lord of the rings. Especially in the extended editions. I thought that was cool.
It cuts out about 90% if it were based on the filler fluff story in the trilogy. It hits almost all the important beats of the book while including amazing songs in a 2 hour time slot taken up by 30-40 minutes of commercials.
@@davidsimon5088 This movie hits all the important beats of the book, but with none of what made those beats important. It's just a cliffnotes version and if you don't already know the story you'll just be bored.
Oh, did a 1 hour animated film cut out 90% of the shit in an entire novel?
Spoken like someone that has no idea how books work.
"Also, is it just me or does Gandalf look like a sexual predator in this shot?"
No, it's just you who looks like a sexual predator.
Ouch
The Hobbit live action trilogy was actually a pile of hot garbage.
Mate do u actually even know the proble PJ faced on making that trilogy? Apparently not. U SHOULD go and search info's about it
@@loonowolf2160 lol
Still the best version of The Hobbit. Nuff' said.
It wasn't a stretched-into-a-studio-cash-grab-DFX-infested "trilogy" that is, frankly, a waste of time. Rankin-Bass did what they could with a "Coca-Cola budget," while Peter Jackson had "Dom-Perignon-Champagne budget," THREE times! So, get on your Segway, since "walking is so 19th century.";)
I saw your Return of the King review first, and while I still enjoy that one I can admit as a fan of Tolkien and good animation that it is very, very subpar. THIS, however, is a heartfelt piece with a lot of qualities, so, no, you're wrong here. It doesn't "suck", it's simply a product of its time. RUclips reviewers can be negative but have good reasoning. You're too narrow minded in your focus, and thus unfair. But, whatever, RUclips critics are a dime a dozen after all.
Angry RUclips commenters are also a dime a dozen.
@@1SpicyMeataball RUclips replies that offer nothing to the conversation are also a dime a dozen.
Still better than rings of power.
No it'd not, bc the elves aren't supposed to be orcs looking mate
The animated movie is much better than Jackson's garbage.
I don't care what anyone says, this movie is an absolute classic, and one of my favorites from my childhood.
best comment i've seen so far.
The Hobbit movie was wonderful. I saw it in 2nd grade and after seeing it, I went to the library and checked out the Hobbit book. This film was inspiring and captured the book wonderfully. I'd still recommend this film over that Hobbit trilogy film set. The single animated film felt more accurate and proper in tone. Your beef with the film seems overly critical and just picky. You're way off on this one.
Same brother 🎯💯
Sounds like you’re just feeling nostalgic
@@Devyn89 I'm sorry, what?
Ngl I love this movie. And I love the Peter Jackson movies. I think it’s reached a point where any version of this story will make me happy, because I’ve spent my entire life just obsessing over it hardcore.
The only adaptation I can say I genuinely couldn’t enjoy was the 1960’s 10 minute hobbit short where they changed literally everything.
I also love this movie
The new Amazon show looks like straight trash also. But agreed animated Hobbit is a classic gem.
And on the same level as the 1967 Hobbit, I place the Rings of Power, which will never be Tolkien because the fandom has entirely rejected it on Tolkien's behalf!
Have you tried watching the live action Soviet versions of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Or the 1993 Finnish TV series of LOTR lol
Same! (I have also unfortunately seen the 1960's hobbit)
For gen x this film was both our first introduction to Tolkien and our first introduction to Japanese animation. It was enchanting in the day because we weren't saturated in fantasy films. This was something completely different.
Honestly I enjoyed the movie immensely and have fond memories of it. While you can complain about the songs, at least they're catchy and have a good flow to them. And the art and animation are at times impressive considering the time period. Smaug is still a favorite, his 'bored' voice is kind of the point-he's a character who has won and has remained undefeated on top of his treasure for decades. Of course the voice actor would sound bored.
The Hobbit novel is basically a children's bedtime musical with the number of songs in it.
Seriously, i feel like you either didnt read the book or forgot half of what transpired since bilbo himself wasnt exactly freaking tf out when he learned the ring makes him invisible, he was just like "oh...well thats cool" and thats it, and how gandalf just shows up to rescue them every time they're in danger from the goblins or the trolls, it really does happen almost instantly, also you can make anything seem annoying when you meme the fuck out of it to a borderline unfair degree
His voice changes at 4:52 to show that he’s an asskisser for Santa and mistreats his own when he isn’t looking. It’s exaggerated for comedic effect so children can understand. What’s inexcusable is that you don’t get that into your adult years.
You’re too cynical for your own good. Take a chill pill and enjoy the movie for what it is: a basic intro into the lore of the Hobbit for kids. I get it, you’re trying to be funny and ironic, but it just comes across angry, sad and like you’re above it all.
I was born in 1984 (NOT A BOOMER) and I was raised with this movie - I love it so much! You are just lame for not being able to appreciate older animation. And obviously, the Lemmiwinks song was based on the song from this film. This Gollum was the first Gollum I ever saw, and I do like it better than the Peter Jackson films.
Born in 82 and same
it would probably be warranted to say that he probably thinks Jaws is a boomer movie
This is by far one of the laziest and most poorly thought out criticisms I’ve ever watched.
Did anyone else get hung up on late 70s kids being called "Boomers"? Oh well. As many of that generation like to say, "No one noticed us then, and no one notices us now. We're used to it, and that's okay." ... Sorry, man, but I only made it about 8 minutes in, and it seems to me that you don't just dislike this movie; you dislike Rankin/Bass for reasons that I find unfair for the time in which those films were made. This was also made during a long-forgotten era of Fantasy (and children's) media, which was a big part of my childhood, so the visual style and childlike simplicity of the story it is holds nostalgic qualities for me. If you compare children's movies from the 70s with post-Millennium productions, then of course there's going to be a huge difference in technology, budget constraints, release formats, and audience expectations/marketing goals. We're from very, very different worlds. (I did hear that the digital "remaster" of this movie chopped the sound all to hell, however, so it's unfortunate that this is also probably a subpar copy.)
Greetings from a Xennial! :) (Millenials old enough to identify with Gen-X, formerly known as the "MTV Generation".)
Wow, that was one hell of a rant. Man, I was so cranky all last month. ...Went and found a good copy of the VHS, though, and I stand by my assessment. It's also worth it to consider that the very 1st edition of D&D was still on the shelves when this movie came out -- the game that was so misunderstood in media and by parents that it came to be associated with Devil worship in the 80s. Fantasy has come a *long* ways.
Calling 50 year olds "boomers" really bugs me to.
Gen X forgotten again
@@crispywan 1986 here. What does that make me?
Millenial, went and Googled it
Your faulty use of the word “boomer” was all I needed to know. The modern sickness seems to be rampant cynicism coupled with lots of nihilism. What a shame.
There’s a generation of kids (like me) that have a special place in their heart for this film. With all its flaws it’s all we had.
P.S. at least it’s not the Hobbit trilogy
I agree with many of your points fks sound mixing, pacing, bad voice acting, but I don't think that all of your points are valid, or fair to the film. Complaining about the animation isn't fair to the film in my opinion, as it was essentially made on a shoestring budget plus, the change pose then talk repeat formula isn't all that bad. It's in pretty much every anime ever made and people are fine with that, me included. It is also not fair to compare it to the Ralph Bakshi film, as that film had at least 10 times the budget. The greatest adventure being repetitive is also something I respectfully disagree with. When Bilbo enters Smaug's chamber, we don't need an exciting piece of music. The greatest adventure played at the beginning, and from there played every time Bilbo makes one step closer to completing his character arc. Him confronting Smaug is him completing that arc and therefore, I think it's beautiful that the most intense version of the song (ignoring the beginning) plays here.
But overral, very fun review, had me laughing out loud at moments, especially the keep it secret part.
Im fine
Yeah he also says when they are sitting with Elrond that a 'random ass song' is playing.. but that song is from the book lol.
I agree that there are some valid points as well but I disagree the most with him saying that there is no tension. As a child this movie constantly had me on the edge of my seat. I worried about many of the characters in more dangerous scenes. As an adult it feels tame but it’s a kids movie, that managed to have a grand epic feel without losing the fairytale charm that endeared it to me.
No, this is a classic gem and is more true to the lore then the movies.
If you're pointing out that the world is still waiting on a GOOD adaptation of The Hobbit, you make a very good point. If you're going to tell me the bloated movie adaptations were any better...well... there's a place on your body where the sun doesn't shine, and you can insert your opinion there.
I really like this version for many reasons: the voice acting goes full mythic mode, the characters are actually all really acurate, except smaug. Thorin for example is in the book nearly 300 years old. show me somebody without wrinkles in this age. And gollum was i think better then in the jackson films. Yes i said it. this frog design comes from the novel describing creatures that live in dark caves, who have had to adapt on their enviroment to survive. Give a corrupting ring to a guy that lives in the dark at a lake and he might mutate in this way.
The music i fell gives this movie a certain flare of mystical adventure (and maybe in case the visuals are terifiyng for little kids). Old childhood movies have this kind of atmosphere.
You also have to count in the fact that the hobbit was written before lord of the rings was even planned. This movie seems until the last scene stick to that so you can enjoy it without thinking that their is something missing.
But hey movie taste is different for everybody. I find it only funny that you seem to not like the Jackson hobbit version that much and still you bring up what they did better for some reason. Thats no complain, i just find it funny.
Gollum looked amazing, and I agree. This movie had an otherworldly quality to it, and for a 10-year-old boy in 1977, seeking such an adventure, this film hit the sweet spot. Nice post. Thank you.
The Jackson films are poor but infinitely better still imo. The fan edit "JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit" is legitimately great to watch.
As someone who's never seen this old one before, I find the entire visual style horrific and the music to be hilarious. But hey, generational differences I guess. There's probably stuff I defend from when I was a kid that future generations will hate.
Glad yall found joy in it
Also ten when this came out. A couple years later for Christmas I got a record of the soundtrack and large page picture book. This was several years before I ever watched a vhs movie.
This soundtrack has beautiful songs. Folk music was big then. Glen Yarbrough's singing seams to match seamlessly with Orson Bean's Bilbo. Also many of these songs are expanded from short poems and songs in the book. The fluidity of the animation wouldn't hold up today but for the time it was good especially for tv.
Yeah, but 20 or 30 years people will still think of Andy Serkis’ Gollum when they hear Gollum’s name.
@@hunterolaughlin I liked the animated Hobbits gollums voice. I can mimick it perfectly. But Andy Serkis' gollum is pure, perfected joy.
Ok I know I'm in the minority but I prefer this and the return of the king Rankin and Bass movies over the Peter Jackson ones.
I don’t blame you but I personally love LOTR PJ trilogy over the rankin and bass version but love this over PJ version anyday so we definitely can agree on that this guy literally has no clue what he’s talking about lol
Surprised you made that sexual predator joke for Gandalf and not the Santa visiting a kid's room thing earlier.
Santa visiting that kid in the dead of night is straight up stalker worthy. 😱
_this is the story_
_of Charlie the hero_
_He fought the beasts_
_and evil that_
_dwelled upon the land_
I can't blame the production company for rushed pacing on this. They had a two hour time slot with at least 30 minutes for advertising. What they accomplish on that end while still having great music is kind of amazing.
The music was in a popular style of the time and the songs are inspired and expanded versions of poems and songs in the book.
Glen Yarbrough singing and Orson Bean's narration and voice of Bilbo blend very well.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on that. This film sparked my interest in Tolkien's literary works as a child. I'll bet I wasn't the only one. I would much rather watch this than Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy even today. Even the music, while corny, gives this a unique quality. Maybe I'm watching thru nostalgic glasses, but to me this is fantastic.
It definitely has some flaws, but I watched it maybe 2 years ago and still very much enjoyed it for a lot of the same reasons I did as a kid. It has good and unique art style, voice acting and music. It's not a masterpiece, but for what it was trying to do with what was available at the time that it was made, it's really solid. This movie got me into Tolkien as a kid as well. I think I saw this right before the LOTR movies came out, so I was relatively young at the time, and I loved Tolkien ever since. One weekend when I was super sick, i basically stayed home to heal and listened to The Hobbit on audio cassette for the entire weekend.
You think both this and the Bakshi versions are bad, then you haven't seen what's in store for you in the animated Return of the King. Can't wait until you come across the scene with the singing orcs!
"Where there's a whip, there's a way" is an absolute banger
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I couldn't disagree more. This was an animated interpretation of The Hobbit. The great movies that comprise The Hobbit we're not entirely true to the books either so how could an animated version be?
@@BagOfH0lding And the Lord of the lash says nay nay nay.
I seem to recall musical goblins in the live action version.
@@ronnyrono782 Though I should note, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were chock full of songs. All the time, all over the place, on every kind of occasion. I don't disagree. Song style in particular was out of place. Doesn't stop me from singing it randomly. Again, song is an absolute banger.
That scene is kino
I'm sorry but I think you are objectively wrong on several points in this review. I know that art is ultimately subjective but there are several places where it feels like you are looking for things to complain about more than attempting genuine, critical dissection. That's all.
The Rankin/Bass adaptation of The Hobbit is both one of the critical pieces of media that drew me into Tolkien's works and fantasy fiction in general and a film that I still watch today. It is far more effective as a fantasy adventure story than the Jackson Hobbit films and has leagues more charm, feeling like a truly "fantasy" world.
But my personal feelings aside, it isn't perfect (as no adaptation of any work of fiction will ever be) but I dare say that it does exactly what it sets out to do and does not overstay it's welcome. The music is second-to-none for animated fantasy and everything about the character designs just feels so unique and inspired. Just the complexity and whimsy of the line-work alone clearly took a painstaking amount of time and effort. Some of it deviates from Tolkien's own designs (most notable in the Wood Elves) but I think this is done for creative reasons and I have to applaud the character designers for wanting to craft a very stylish fantasy world.
The voices are especially iconic, with top-notch casting to thank, especially John Huston's Gandalf and the inclusion of Glenn Yarbrough's bard. And there will be some who will cry foul on me for saying this but...I actually find the depiction and voice of Gollum in this film to be BY FAR the most unsettling and compelling of any on-screen adaptation. Andy Serkis absolutely deserves all the praise he gets for bringing Gollum to life in the Jackson films. No doubt about it. But Serkis' Gollum feels like a very different character and one that I think comes across almost too "cartoony" at times, which is an amusing thing to say when I talk about how an animated adaptation feels "less cartoony" than a live-action one.
Long story short, this film is the best piece of media related to the original story even to this day and potentially still one of the better pieces of animated fantasy adventure yet made.
To tell the truth I love this movie I don’t care what people say about this film. It’s part of my childhood that gave me inspiration of loving the Lord of the Rings stories. If it weren’t for that I would not have great imagination of Adventure going out to the world just to see beyond my home. The woods the trees birds and other wonderful animals. To all those naysayers “The Hobbit 1977” and “The Return of the King” is one of my top favorite animation film.
It seems clear what he’s doing if you pay attention. I suspect he knows deep down this is a good adaption. But he wants to make a video that gets a lot of views. So he says something he knows is provocative to get the views and attention he wants. You can tell becauxe he keeps pointing out the things that everyone loves in this adaption (songs, animation, loyalty to the books, etc), and often says things like “okay the goblin song is kind of a Banger….but uh….I mean why couldn’t the others be a banger?” See? He realizes he can’t actually find any real flaw, so he makes up a flaw, even stammering because he’s trying so hard to find one. I think it’s potentially dishonest because he probably makes money off these videos, and when we give him views since the title is provocative, he gains money for writing a poor review. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, but I think he should start examining his conscience more.
💡Never thought of that. You're right. The positive posts are overwhelming. I couldn't help but think...this review is off. Now I know why. He's a closet RankinBass fan.
Get help.
@@greysnake2903 be quiet
And I thought I had bad faith in others
It may not be the best adaptation, but it's a comforting and even nostalgic movie. Plus it makes sense for it to be an hour an a half (like most animated movies)
Cause it's adapting a book originally meant for kids. Atleast one adults can enjoy as well.
Also I personally like Gollum being frog-like. Cause before Toklien worked on LOTR and added the Hobbit to his extensive lore, it was a serperate story. No connections until years later.
So it's possible in this scenario Gollum is just apart of a race of sapient frogs. Sapient eagles, dragons, bears and wolves are canon. So why not frogs as well.
It makes no sense in making a book that takes less than a day to read into a film trilogy that takes like 7 hours to watch. Wasting all the talented actors, set builders, and of course the VFX artists time and resources.
This feels like such a throwback. Not the movie from 1977, this video. This style of online "review" is so far behind the times, isn't it? Takes me back to when Channel Awesome was a big deal and everyone was making stuff like this trying to be the next AVGN. Most RUclips critics these days don't walk you through a movie scene by scene and they usually try to have something to say about a film beyond sneering at it. I used to like these kinds of videos but I sure as hell don't miss them now.
I only like these types of videos if the thing being sneered at is genuinely terrible and morally reprehensible. Like when something is a CLEAR rip-off of a franchise, or bigoted propaganda. I just feel annoyed when it's creators making fun of something that clearly was made with care and passion.
Don't think this guy knows that the hobbit was original suppost to be stand alone LOTR wasn't event thought of
Much better than the Jackson Hobbit trilogy.
I'll take the cheesy ass love triangle over this old garbage
@@TorontoHighGuy thanks for your opinion!
@@TheBlueDragon86 don't mention it :)
I'll take both for certain aspects, so why don't we shake on a pint of guiness and agree on our love for Tolkien's world?
@@TorontoHighGuy google the meaning of having good taste. i have a funny feeling you will recoil in horror when you do
Must be glad people can't see the like to dislike ratio.
I can either watch 3 films that are 2.5+ hours EACH and get an absolutely bloated mess of a story that fails as an adaptation and sullies the good name of the LOTR trilogy OR I can watch an innocent, wholesome, enjoyable 70 minute animated musical that covers the same story....
Yeah, I'll go with the animated version.
When you describe one movie with only the negatives and one with only the positives, of course the latter will sound more appealing.
@@jaspergillgannon4991 Regardless of any subjective debate about quality...just considering 70 minutes of your time vs 7 hours of your time is enough of a tie-breaker.
After all...the whole point of The Hobbit is just to get to the perfection that is the LOTR Trilogy. LOTR is far superior to EITHER version of The Hobbit...which merely serves as an initial introduction into the world.
You can make that a grueling 7 hour slog, or you can make it a brisk and harmless 70 minute musical adventure.
@@ChrisPeteG I agree, however I don't like either myself. I think the only chance to get a proper movie adaptation of The Hobbit was with Jackson, who blew it. As he mentioned it in this video, I recommend watching the Maple Films Fan Edit of The Hobbit, taking all the PJ movies and cutting them into one lengthy edit. That's how it should have been.
@@ChrisPeteGCompletely untrue, the hobbit was made first as a stand alone story with no ideas for the sequel of LOTR even being made until a decade after the hobbit was published. The hobbit is not a prequel to LOTR, LOTR is a sequel to the hobbit. And the hobbits better too
@nicks1459 I never said Hobbit wasn't written first as a book, but functionally the Hobbit is still a prequel to LOTR just as LOTR is a sequel to the Hobbit book.
The Hobbit cartoon is the much more efficient path to get the whimsical backstory of LOTR before you watch the masterpiece of the trilogy.
Virgin rational ryan vs chad "the hobbit is a good movie that has problems"
I think Smaug"s character design is cool in this. I'm a big fan of dragons being a bit more than just big giant reptiles with wings. Throwing some mammalian features adds some nice flair and is kind of reminiscent of their depiction in medieval artwork.
This review is so bad it makes me think you must be doing it for the clicks 😂 Well done, terrible takes but well done lol
27:20 - Didn't the book itself described that those elves were different than elves from Rivendell and were more primitive and aggressive to a point where they just lived in shacks and their king resided in the cave? Like you can't really complain that they didn't did them like in LOTR when this is how they were described in Hobbit.
Fan edits with the Peter Jackson trilogy are the way to go. I also like the songs and whimsical nature of the animated hobbit and enjoy watching that on occasion as well.
The Mirkwood elves in this movie always reminded me of marijuana and idk why
Video recommendations like this are the result of RUclips removing the dislike button
At least your review on Ralph bakshi’s lord of the rings movie actually felt like a legit review nostalgia critics “review” on the movie felt more like a commentary video than an actual review not once did he point out the flaws of the animated LOTR movie not even the part when they called saruman “Aruman”
Course I’d take nostalgia critic reviews with a grain of salt anyways especially because in recent years he’s seem to become the very person he spent his entire RUclips career making fun of
Actually, he did point out the “Aruman” part. Both in his review and his Old vs New video.
@@eliza6178 well then shows how much I know
So…literally exactly like these videos?
Both are less reviews and more glorified commentaries, except Ryan stops more often to hyperfocus on trivial nonsense.
This comment was posted 9 months ago, and I've only just now figured out what the hell OP was trying to say.
Holy run-on sentences, Batman! You do realize that punctuation and capitalization are things for a reason, right?
@@beta_cygni1950 That's on you, dude. It took me only reading their comment on e to understand what they were trying to say, lack of punctuation and all.
Such a terrible take.
Listen, “You go my lad” is a banger and you cannot tell me otherwise.
I saw this as a kid, and it was my first exposure to Tolkien lore, and I loved it. Looking back from an adult perspective, I have suspicions about what influenced the production:
1) Hippie culture- You see a lot of psychedelia in the Bakshi version, and in the R-B we have tons of John-Denver style folk music.
2) The famous Book of Gnomes was published in 1976, and The Hobbit came out in 1977
3) PBS children's programming ruled the day, with very soft approaches meant to not scare or overstimulate children, and creates a very slow and dream-like feel
you do a good job of invoking historical context without really understanding how it effects the film or the artistic production. please stop making videos and do something else, thanks.
Yeah so remember this movie was made in the 70s....D&D wasnt a thing yet and the fantasy genre just wasn't something that took off until Conan the Barbarian a few years later. Regardless of how Tolkien deacribed them in the book, this movie reflects how people in the 70s thought of elves, dwarves, goblins, etc. THIS is the version that Gen X knew and grew up on, and then went on to refine the fantasy genre into what it is today. So you're welcome.
21:16 Dude, what are you talking about? English isn't even my native language and I can understand Gollum's dialogue perfectly. In general, I think you were a bit too nitpicking in this Video. Sure, the character designs could be better and the story would have needed more time to unfold but honstly, I think it's a well made movie. It's not the best or the worst, but one which is alright for that what it wanted to be. Keep in mind, it was before Jackson gave us the appearance of middle earth which we all know today, so I can forgive this movie. Weirdly enough, my Hobbit Book is filled with character illustrations which look like from this movie. And when you think this Bilbo is an abomination you should look up the Alan Lee illustrations...
I wish I would have the opportunity to watch this movie.
This movie is a million times better than Peter Jackson's crap movies and his crap movies are a trillion times better than this video.
I personally liked this movie
But I can respect your view
I can't, many things I could refute, however he makes a few fair points
This movie is what happens when you try to adapt with too little in resources
The trilogy is what happens when you force yourself to use more resources than necessary
It had a low budget but was still good for its time, animation quality improves over time. And transferring vhs to DVD always causes visual and audio problems. Your favorite things are going to be shit compared to new things and kids are going to shit on them because of it.
It had a $3 million dollar budget which is pretty good for an animated film in 1977
To be fair at least with the unusual design of hobbits they look like a different race to men compared to the live action movies where they look like usual men when not in shots with the men characters
Did you actually read the hobbit
Watching this video feels like watching a grown man tearing apart a local community theater play. Like geez.
I'll take the animated Hobbit any day.
That one line near the beginning of his review "If you showed this movie to someone before the Peter Jackson version existed and told them that it was based on one of the greatest novels ever written, they would probably go ...whaat?" Made me realize this guy is completely clueless. I was that person and I loved this movie and it made me want to find that book and read it. My family watched this movie many times on vhs and it was one of the first movies I showed my kids as soon as they were old enough to appreciate it. Is it a perfect adaptation? No. But it did it's job in showing what an awsome story Tolkien wrote and it started my love of Tolkien's writings. The movie is great, this review of the movie is what sucks.
yes! my first exposure to The Hobbit was actually the 2003 gamecube game, but I also watched this movie alongside it and read the book with my mom. I was obsessed with the movie, and to this day I find it very charming and comforting.
I really loved your videos on the Ralph Bakshi-movies, but i do not agree with your opinions about this movie. It's a really charming adventure which respect the lore and book alot. I think Tolkien actually would love this adaption. The singing, the music, the design and the overall magical feel. At times i think it's actually pretty scary. I only watched this movie as an adult, and i thought it was a truely unique, and i know i would have loved it even more had i seen it as a kid.
“I saw this as a kid” literally means “I have nostalgia issues and won’t evaluate what could be a maybe flawed movie cuz how dare you”
Even if it was bare bones, it's still great
Also let's see you do this in 1977
I'd like to see him try to do something CLOSE to this in 2023.
@@waddleburr8048 I know right? You can't shit talk without having the skill to do it yourself, that's why gamers who complain about graphics (especially pokemon of all things) need to take a chill pill
@@rockowlgamer631 like seriously though
You don’t understand the 70s, man. The Vietnam war was on going & being protested for years. The country was sick of war, & the peace movement was happening. People didn’t want to see violence in movies. Thats why the fight scenes are largely more of a suggestion that violence happened. People didn’t want their kids to see even monsters being stabbed. I grew up on these films, so I prefer the garden gnome dwarves and the 70s ballad back ground music. It sounds like an old friend. Yeah, southpark parodied the 70s The Hobbit film in the Lemmiwinks episode. It was hilarious to us GenXers who instantly got it. A little in joke. Smaug was voiced by Richard Boon. A famous actor in the 60s & 70s. He played bad guys. In the old days some actors only played bad guys, and people watched movies a lot more, so you would have a gut reaction when you even heard their voice. Its like hearing Darth Vader. You’re like Oh sh!t its that bad guy! So the film companies would hire an actor, often with that in mind. Especially for voice acting. That is lost to time. To us it wasn’t some bored guy. It was Richard Boon.
The only thing I don’t like about it was that Smaug looked like a cat
Yes I agree and for me I’m not a big fan of the look of the wood elves
Also it sucks that they didn’t include Beorn skin changer as I think that was the main thing that wasn’t included in the adaptation
@@JOVONO my thoughts exactly
Sounds like a Gen Z punk busting on Boomers like they are so fond of doing. This is a great movie and a part of my childhood that I remember fondly. There’s a reason why Millennials and Gen Z are looked upon as arrogant by their elders.
Absolutely and I am Gen Z and I completely agree but this is more a Gen X era film than a Boomer one but I know what your saying
Child thinks 1970s animation is bad. I look forward to your review of pong compared to gta5.
You can tell a kid reviewed this. Most likely a Gen Z
Not all of us are like this trust me