LOTR movies

[Amy Z]

Someone said (sorry, old thread and I can't find who):
 
> >It was made by Ralph Bakshi, and covered the sotry 
> >of the first two thirds of the book, as the producers somehow 
didn't 
> >secure, or lost, the rights to the rest.  

Joanne wrote:

> Okay. So these people made a movie and didn't get the rights to all 
of a
> book...is it me or does that sound very strange? Although, who 
knows, maybe
> that explains some of the book-to-movie disasters?

My understanding was that Bakshi basically ran out of money, not that 
he couldn't get the rights.

I actually look fondly upon the Bakshi version, but that's partly 
because it's so vastly preferable to the oh-so-cute animated version 
that also got done.  Bakshi's way of mixing live action and 
animation was interesting, and some things about it were good (I seem 
to recall Black Riders who could give me nightmares).  Other things 
were awful, and some were just laughable.  E.g. wasn't that the 
version where the filmmakers decided that having a "Saruman" and a 
"Sauron" was too confusing, so they decided to call Saruman "Aruman" 
instead, and then proceeded to sometimes call him "Aruman" and 
sometimes "Saruman," thereby making it even more confusing than 
before?

I'll go to the LOTR movie because I love the books--my dh is even more 
passionate about them--but we're both kind of dreading the experience.

Ian McKellen I will go see in anything, so putting together him and 
Gandalf is mindblowing as far as I'm concerned.  On the other hand, I 
don't recall who they've cast as Frodo, but I recall being really 
disappointed when I heard it.  The BBC audio version (complete) had 
Ian Holm as Frodo, and you're just not going to top that, IMO . . . I 
know, I know, he's a bit old nowadays!

Just tell me, did they make the elves wee and adorable, or tall like 
they're supposed to be?

Amy Z