Ralph Bakshi and the kind of people who like him

Some of the people who I know in LA worked with Bakshi. He's a very nice guy if you get to know him. Like every other animator out there(who isn't Disney) he thinks outside the box. But there are times where he is questionable though. Just dont bring up John K in front of him.

As for films. Im looking forward to Coney Island.

Wait, why shouldn't one bring up John K? He likes him.

He probably feels shame for being associated with Kricfaluski. I mean, you've probably seen how frighteningly close to Ren his actual personality is.

x2. From my own perspective while meeting Bakshi in person. I think he has bittersweet feelings for him. Sure, he admitted that John is talented as well as a funny guy to work with . But he feels that the Mighty Mouse reboot he did was more of 'John's Mighty mouse than my Mighty Mouse'(these are words Bakshi said to me when I was at the comic con when I saw him).

There's a reason why Ren and Stimpy were sometimes freaked out by the fire chief in Fire Dogs. The chief is based off of Ralph Bakshi.

I wouldn't call it shame. Just bittersweet about how things were when it came to working with John. I know that a similar thing happened with Milton Knight and Sonic the hedgehog.

edited 10th Apr '13 5:43:21 PM by playedforkeeps

Yeah, I'm anticipating Coney Island as well. I understand that he's a nice guy, and he's just dispensing some truths, I just take issue with it when people try to ascribe a single direction to take animation.

Nitpicking, but what do you mean by "every other animator that isn't Disney"(do you mean the studiostyle , the animators)?

And actually, Disney DID think outside the box. Remember, when he and his studio emerged, they were pretty original and innovative. Everyone else tried to imitate THEM. Bakshi just elected to do his own thing in his own style when Disney was, otherwise, pretty much the only big screen animation in the West.

Disney is by now a prisoner of its own style. If Disney tried releasing an animated movie in, say, Bakshi's style, most of the public would be like 'what the hell, this isn't Disney!' and it'd flop. Things like Kim Possible and Phineas And Ferb, that depart more from the standard Disney visual style, started in the small screen and aren't automatically associated by the common citizen with Disney the way, say, Mickey or Aladdin are, so I think Disney should keep on changing their image working 'starting from down, going up', so to speak.

Can't argue with that, when Disney has something unique on their hands, it does often get screwed up, and as an extra kick in the teeth, people often criticize them for deviating in the first place. Speaking of non-Disney characteristic properties, Gargoyles doesn't evokes Disney either. While I certainly understand the worry of people, it does baffle me when people feel that shows like Gravity Falls and Motorcity should have be on Cartoon Network. On one hand I understand that CN has a lot more leeway(and seems less likely to screw over shows...comparatively speaking) than Nick or Disney, and the former two shows would be more characteristic of their style. On the other hand, if Disney can't break through that perception, then it creatively stumps and keeps them in the cycle unless they bring something fresh to their old properties

Anyway sorry for the Disney deviation, this is about Bakshi! Has Ralph ever established what he'd want his films to look like if he wasn't constrained by his budget? I feel that it's one of those What Could have Been's

Disney can always make a movie and release it under another label if they really want. That's what for example Touchstone is for, after all. I'm all for thinking out of the box, but I think that Bakshi makes the mistake to believe that out of the box is automatically good. He would need someone who reign him in, so that his movies are more cohesive and not just "out of the box" - plus, I question how out of the box most of them really are, a crappy version of Lord of the Rings with a lot of gore and skin is still just a crappy version of Lord of the Rings.

It's not crap,...that film is still more faithful to the book,the Frodo isn't a coward like the book,it has a lot going for it.

Speaking of which,Happy 35th '78 Lo TR.

edited 29th Jun '13 10:17:37 AM by terlwyth

Ah, sorry, I was referring to "The wizard" (there are so many Lot R motives in this one), forgotting that it could be confusing because he also did a "proper" version of it.