The Hype of the Rings 626
With the Fellowship of the Rings just around the corner, the Slashdot Submissions bin is overflowing with stories about the
film since it premiered in the UK already for you lucky brits. If you don't mind a little spoilage, here is
the guardian's review, the BBC review, the telegraph review, some pictures from the premiere, and one last review. Also, Scifi.com is reporting that
the film has already been pirated. The reviews have their nitpicks, but on the whole its looking good. M : LOTR tattoos!
what about the Hobbit? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what about the Hobbit? (Score:2, Funny)
domc
Re:what about the Hobbit? (Score:5, Funny)
Screw the Hobbit. I want a movie version of the Silmarillion!
Heh. I can just see it now: "Hundreds die at movie preview, cause uncertain".
Followed shortly by "Tedium declared weapon of mass destruction by UN"
Brandon
Re:what about the Hobbit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why has the Hobbit been ignored for so long, whilst they are making LOTR for the second time?
In contrast to LOTR, the Hobbit is ideal film material. Its short, nice tight storyline, gripping throughout, doesnt lag anywhere, get tired or have dull spots and is a kids classic.
I dont see why they didnt make the Hobbit first as a primer/tester for the LOTR.
Re:what about the Hobbit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because The Hobbit is a fundamentaly differnet story. It is not the prequel, it is a chidlrens book. It was designed and written as one, and thats what it is.
LOTR is a much more complex, muhc darker and much more involved story. There are LOTR fanatics, but few Hobbit fanatics, although there are the real men, Tolkein Fanatics who study both.
All the same, the Hobbit is not so well loved, adored, fantasized over, obssesed over etc. It is an inferior bok and an inferior story, if onyl relative to the true masterpeice.
Re:what about the Hobbit? (Score:4, Informative)
I would argue that, while Tolkien probably didn't plan it, the four books help draw the reader into an unwilling adventure, much like Gandalf had to with Bilbo. Going from a children's book - with Bilbo's much less severe adventure - preps you for the detailed and difficult adventure Frodo must face. Children's books - good children's books - are often marked by a quality that makes them good reading for all ages. Thus, children's books by Dr. Suess, J.K. Rowling, Tolkien, etc. are still readable and enjoyable by adults. It's the same impulse that allows many Disney and Pixar movies (and even Sesame Street - remember H. Ross Parrot?) to be enjoyed by parents and their children, while Barney or The Teletubbies don't exist on that level and aren't designed to elicit emotion from parents while entertaining them, too.
I think it is safe to say that Tolkien realized this when writing LOTR and realized that he had characters and a story that were strong in the first book, and that allowed him to build upon that and create a more "adult" book many years later for the readers of the "children's" book of years past.
Basically, what I'm saying, is that the two go hand-in-hand, The Hobbit and LOTR. Just because one was written for children doesn't mean that it doesn't have a major part in the groundwork and preparation of the other.
Re:what about the Hobbit? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:what about the Hobbit? (Score:3, Informative)
> whilst they are making LOTR for the second
> time?
Ignored? Rankin-Bass did the Hobbit back in
1977. A travesty, granted, but no worse than
Bakshi's LotR.
Chris Mattern
Reminds me of Star Wars (Score:3)
I think what might happen is if the trilogy is a success is they might go back and do a hobbit movie.
But after they finish the LotR series (it's really NOT a trilogy), what two stories will JRRT's descendants write to fill in the gap between The Hobbit (i.e. episode 1) and LotR (i.e. episodes 4 through 6)? And what changes will be made in LotR: Special Edition?
Re:Reminds me of Star Wars (Score:3, Funny)
Bilbo Baggins
Frodo Baggins
Jar-Jar Baggins
And on your local television station... (Score:2, Informative)
It opens next Wednesday -- wanna try to /. a movie theatre???
Re:And on your local television station... (Score:2)
> I think that Peter Jackson has "got it", although I'm waiting in dubious anticipation for the lists of "All the things that suck about this movie".
From my limited exposure to the trailers, the impression I get is that it's strangely lacking in "atmosphere". Kind of like a made-for-TV movie.
Re:And on your local television station... (Score:2)
One thing you have to remember about trailers is that they come out before the film has finished post production. So they may have quite a different look and feel from the real movie, as atmospheric effects and colour balance is tweaked in post production.
Glasses At BK (Score:2, Interesting)
This sort of thing often drags some of the enjoyment out of these films. Sell. Sell. Sell. I guess, someone's gotta come up with crap for eBay and Flea Markets.
Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap (Score:4, Interesting)
So far, I've seen the Burger King glasses, the action figures, a great many re-published copies of the book with the movie as the cover. I've seen the board game, the cartoon, the ten-minute TNT blip, the one-hour Sci-Fi blip. The bedsheets are on order at my local K-Mart, the costumes are being put on back-order, the card game is selling briskly, and the pornographic feature based upon the film is in high demand at the local adult bookstore.
All this stuff (with the possible exception of the porno) goes to help defray the insanely high intial costs of the trilogy. Keep in mind, for those of you who've been living in a cave since, oh, the last millenium, that they a) shot all three films at once and therefor WILL be released; b) they cost a LOT of money. If you think that $6000 for a Microsoft-proof laptop [naturetech.com.tw] is a painful yet fun investment, think that the studio coughs up mega-million dollar budgets with shocking regularity. In fact, I'm torn on whether the casinos or Hollywood are the folks to duplicate for the handling of insanely large quantities of cash.
The crap has a double purpose. It gets people Movie Stuff, and simultaneously promotes the film.
Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap (Score:5, Funny)
There's a porn version!? Where in the hell do I get that. Waitaminit. Hot hobbit-on-hobbit action? Nevermind.
Re:Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap (Score:2, Funny)
I KNEW Sam was gay!
Sellout... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sellout... (Score:3, Funny)
> I'm just sick of seeing those commercials for the light-up goblets; it cheapens the film before it's even out.
<cynical>Yeah, but if they wait until after it's out they'll miss the Christmas action-figure rush.</cynical>
Re:Sellout... (Score:5, Funny)
it was the scene where Bill Pullman meets Yogurt in the underground desert complex and he's showing off all the SpaceBalls stuff..."Moychendising, Moychendising, Moychendising!"
so expect LOTR The Toilet Paper, LOTR The bedsheets, LOTR The Crayon Set and best of all, LOTR The Flame Thrower (the kids love this one).
Re:Sellout... (Score:2)
$300 Million (Score:2)
Re:$300 Million (Score:2)
Re:$300 Million (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$300 Million (Score:4, Interesting)
Straight to video would waste the potential theatrical take, even if the first movie tanks, there's still enough die-hard Tolkien fans and pure fantasy fans for the second and third films to bring in enough revenue to cover the theatrical release and some money on the side. Hey, didn't even "Dungeons & Dragons" make money?
My guess would be that if the first film tanks, the second film would be released with the same production values (maybe not as much hype), but would be released to video much sooner. The third film would probably be rushed out the door with much lower production standards (worse special effects, cheaper soundtrack, no redubbing lines to cover on-location mistakes, certainly no more new photography (yes, I know they're done with principle shooting, but I could see them going back for more if need be)) and go to video quickly as well. That way, New Line will still get the theatrical take, but can start bringing in video revenue quickly to start making up the losses. Never the less, all three will be made and will make it into theaters.
Note that I don't expect the films to tank. I expect "Fellowship of the Ring" to do quite well, "Two Towers" to do a little less well, and "Return of the King" to do better than "Fellowship". I don't know if the theatrical take will reach $300 million, but I wouldn't be surprised. Even if it just breaks even in the theaters, New Line wins big with all of the merchadising and potential video revenues.
-sk
Re:$300 Million (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you're not implying that the movie will make only $150 million. There's as much hype around this movie as there was for Episode 1, and the reviews are actually good! Even if the movie was a total stinker it would take $200M, which it isn't, so one can expect the total revenue for the movie to hit at least $300M. When you consider that Episode 1 made something like $450M it isn't ridiculous to see a figure like that.
Straight to video
Straight to video is impossible. According to interviews with New Line execs theatres which want to show LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring MUST purchase all three installments and show them for a minimum of six weeks.
I expect "Fellowship of the Ring" to do quite well, "Two Towers" to do a little less well, and "Return of the King" to do better than "Fellowship".
Any particular reason you say this? I found Two Towers to be my favorite installment of the trilogy. The action was always non-stop, the ending is absolutly epic (but i won't spoil it) and the potential for great CGI abounds. If anything I'd say that this first installment will gross the least, if for no other reason than Fellowship was my least favorite volume.
Re:$300 Million (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, I'm responding to a guy who said that if New Line didn't make most of the initial $300 million on FotR, the other two would be released straight to video. I was merely pointing out that the studio made a decision that they would need to only make $100-150 million per movie to do well. They wouldn't judge that a movie is a flop just because it didn't break into the Top 20 Grossing Films of All Time. Also remember that Gladiator only made $180 million. $150 million isn't that shabby. Do I think it will make more? I think FotR has a good shot to break $200 million, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Look at the Top 20 Grossing Movies of All Time [imdb.com] (US Box Office - yes it's Amerio-centric, sue me). One of the things that they have in common is that they were all social phenomenon. Everyone saw Staw Wars and Forest Gump, every teenage girl saw Titantic 20 times, everyone talked about Sixth Sense, everyone cried when Home Alone got a sequel. Ok, ok, Twister is an exception (how did that get in there anyway?) Now, will FotR become such a phenomenon? It very well could, but to say that it will is to set yourself up for Pearl Harbor. New Line isn't betting that FotR will out-gross Independence Day, it's betting that it will out-gross Die Hard 3, and hoping it'll out-gross Jerry McGuire. But if it only outgrosses Crocodile Dundee II, they still win.
That was essentially my argument. Thanks for backing me up. Again, I'm responding to a guy who said that if New Line didn't make most of the initial $300 million on FotR, the other two would be released straight to video. I was saying that straight to video would be stupid because of the loss of potential money out there for a theatrical release. Now I know that a straight to video would be stupid also because of the contract involved. (BTW - don't think the contract is a complete assurance that all three will get the six week theatrical release. If FotR were to be a complete flop and only bring in $1 million revenue, you can bet New Line will be renegotiating the contract sooner than you can say, "But the contract says...!") I didn't mean any disrespect to TT. Revenue doesn't have any relation to quality though. Empire Strikes back was the lowest grossing Star Wars film (including Ep. 1) but is arguably the best of the four so far. I think FotR will do well because of all of the hype over the past two years, RotK will do well because people will have had two years to see the other two and get primed for the finale. TT will do less well if for no other reason than because it's stuck in the middle. No offense, but basing revenue projections on your own like or dislike of a book or script is a sure-fire way to be wrong.-sk
Re:$300 Million (Score:3, Informative)
Tsk tsk. The studio has already secured the money. Big studio films are pre-sold to theatre chains years in advance, often just on the basis of one big name or even (gasp) the budget. Films with a budget of $20 million+ don't lose money any more, ever.
The LotR trilogy will already have made its money back for the studio. The actual box office take/DVD/VCR/Book-of-the-film/collectible figures/card game of the film are just gravy.
So, the new inscription goes like this... (Score:5, Funny)
I would give an attribution if I had seen one. Probably it's evolved from several sources.
Re:So, the new inscription goes like this... (Score:5, Funny)
I forgot to mention that I had a dream the other day, where I walked into a Burger King after the release date of the movie. All the workers had nametags (like they do now), but their names were written in the Tengwar of Feanor.
I think I woke up shaking at that point; I'm not certain.
Re:Sellout... (Score:3, Funny)
I agree completely. I much prefer to go to a nearby small local restaurant, where I can be away from the unnecessary hype of the Lord of the Rings movie...
Except, of course, that the restaurant in question is named "Butterbur's"...(I kid you not!)
That lasted a long time... (Score:4, Funny)
What part of "swore never to tell anyone" did he not understand?
Re:That lasted a long time... (Score:2)
Re:That lasted a long time... (Score:2)
Maybe they had them done on their backsides so they wouldn't show in most things....!
Re:That lasted a long time... (Score:2, Funny)
Corrected URL (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the text of the Guardian review is here. [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Corrected URL (Score:3, Informative)
pirates (Score:3, Interesting)
some of these people have links right in the film industry and can easily get films before they are released. just dont count on dvd quality though.
so its no suprise that people are flogging copies of it already. its probably been running rampant through south east asia for weeks. i know when i lived there it wasnt hard to get movies on vcd before they were released.
cant wait to see this movie in the cinema though
Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:3, Interesting)
Please, geeks, leave your computer, go to a theater, mix with fellow geeks and lovers and LOTR and watch this in a theater, 40 feet wide in Dolby, as it was meant to be seen. Who knows, you may even like meeting other people!
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:2)
That little caveat aside, I have to agree with the general sentement that copyright law has gotten well out of control and far exceeds it's historical basis. As it says in the US Constitution, the law should secure exclusive rights for the author or inventer FOR A LIMITED TIME.
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:2, Insightful)
Onto your wider point: I think the system we have, with copyright expiring after a while, is the correct system: that way the artist knows his immediate family profit from his work and not faceless corporations.
I don't see why not... (Score:3, Interesting)
Case in point.... if your an anime fan: I just bought 2 $25 DVD's this week. One was the Utena Movie and the other was the 'Oh My Goddess' movie. Neither is 'perfect' in the way that most fanboys will perceive any one of the 3 LOTR movies. Still, they are fun movies. Before they were released in the U.S., however, I obtained low-quality DivX and VCD anime fansubs of these two titles.
Even though I 'pirated' the movies, the American dub/sub houses and indirectly, the Japanese studios, still got their money from me.
Therefore, I encourage *true* Tolkein Fanboys and everyone else who plans to eventually legitimately see or buy this movie to download it to your heart's content
False delimma (Score:3, Interesting)
I might also download the crappy DiVX, but I'll pay to see it first.
The two aren't necessarily exclusive, 'ya know? I can't see *any* fan of Tolkien being happy watching only a low-quality copy of LoTR on a computer screen.
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:2)
There's a small crew where I work that burns all kinds of movies and swaps 'em. I've watched a few, but for me there's nothing like sitting third row center at an AMC Torus screen with the THX thumpin'.
My wife and I average 2 movies per month and almost all of those are full-price Friday evening shows. And you know what? I don't care. I get that much value out of the sensory and crowd experience. Obviously, YMMV.
GTRacer
- I hate storm drains
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'm going to. I should be getting my region 0 DVD grey import this week, but I won't be watching it until the 19th. But I'm doing this out of respect for Peter Jackson and the cast and crew of this film, not because I'm deluding myself that J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the similiarly themed book would have cared, or that his estate has any interest, rights or say in this film.
[bbc.co.uk]
Michael White, biographer of the Oxford professor and Lord of the Rings creator, said the author would have hated the film.
"I think he would have just closed his eyes to it," White said of Tolkien, who died in 1973 aged 81.
"He had a hatred of all things Hollywood and did not believe in the idea of imitation being the best form of flattery."
However, Tolkien's son, Christopher, who owns the rights to his father's literary legacy, denied reports that he was unhappy with the way The Lord of the Rings films are being made.
He had remained silent about the films, but reports claimed he was unhappy with the way the film-makers interpreted his father's books.
Tolkien sold the film rights to his cult fantasy books in 1969 for just £10,000 - meaning his family, and those in charge of his estate, were left with no control over how the movies were made.
It looks like a good adaptation, and I'm completely OK with the removal of elements and the filling in of backstory (like Gandalf's imprisonment by Saruman). However it's had too much added and changed (without the input of the creator) to be an actual canon version.
A petulant rock chick defending a passive Frodo is most definitely not the same as an elf lord unveiled in his fury and a desparate but defiant Frodo. It denies Frodo an important piece of character development just to get some tits and ass on screen.
A troll that appears in the book as a foot and an arm didn't get turned into a frenzied CGI showcase by accident. This is the most minor of my quibbles, but it's an easy way to add drama, and I'm a little disappointed that Jackson chose it rather than playing within the limits of the original source.
Replacing the elemental hatred of Caradhras with machinations of Saruman is a major shifting of the characters, not a minor plot tweak. This is implied as being on the limit of Sauron's abilities, let alone Saruman's. It actually demotes Saruman to a simple "bad assed mofo" role, rather than taking the harder but more rewarding route of focussing on his delightfully sinister powers of persuasion.
A skeleton knocked down a well accidentally is not a stone thrown down it on purpose. Again, minor point, but why change it, other than ego? The original situation is functionally identical and leads to exactly the same result.
And those are just the changes and additions that I know about. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely stoked about this adaptation, but on its own merits, because of the cast (petulant rock chicks aside), the crew and the director, and not because I think I'll be seeing the book "Fellowship of the Ring". The destination appears to be the same, but the journey looks to be different enough to jar.
Roll on the 19th when I can find out for sure.
Funny, I just happened to read Tolkien's view on (Score:5, Interesting)
So I would say ol' JRR had pretty clear vision in these matters.
sPh
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:3, Interesting)
> Tolkien, the author of the similiarly themed
> book would have cared, or that his estate has
> any interest, rights or say in this film
This URL [guardian.co.uk] seems to differ with you:
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:3, Insightful)
I own a copy of the Lord of the Rings, but I still went to alt.binaries.e-books and downloaded the trilogy in several electronic formats. Same thing with several other books I own. Hell, I'm even scanning in a book (for personal reasons) that's been out of print for a decade and won't come out of copyright for another 75 years if the author were to keel over today. In 75 years, there might be only a handful of physical copies of the book, but the electronic version will continue to live.
You know what, I still plan on buying at least one more physical copy of LotR at some point, if not more. If the authors and publishers would offer the books in their own electronic format that I was confident I could reuse when I upgrade to a new machine, I'd buy them (no typos after all.) The electronic format allows me more freedom to enjoy the writing without having to lug around an eight pound book along, especially since I've already got the laptop/pda/whatever. The holier-than-thou freaks in alt.fan.tolkien be damned, I want a more useful version of the book I've already paid for, and will pay for again if only they would put it in a format I want it in.
If I'm so inclined, I'll d'load a DivX rip, thank you very much. Because I'll go see the movie in the theater, probably more than once. And once the DVD comes out, I'll probably get that as well, and when the Director's Cut Special Boxed Edition of the film trilogy comes out, I'll get raped again (There's no more surefire way to ensure a DVD gets a "new, enhanced" edition than to buy the "old, crappy" version.)
The Tolkien estate, Peter Jackson, and New Line will get enough of my money on this that I think they'll overlook if I've got a DivX version sitting in drawer somewhere (I'm not going to watch it again after I get the DVD.) I've got a rip of a certain big sci-fi movie that I never watch anymore thanks to the DVD, but I don't think any 'stormtroopers' are going to knock down my door. I think of it this way: Since the USSC ruled timeshifting was legal in the Betamax case, I'm just timeshifting in reverse.
Look, I agree with you that if someone grabs a rip and doesn't see the movie in the theater or buy the DVD, they're an ass. But to make a blanket statement that everyone who d'loads it is an ass is a little myopic. For many of the rippers, the powers that be are going to get their money, but they just want to see it now. Just because someone rips it, doesn't mean that they aren't going to leave their computer, go to the theater, mix with fellow geeks and lovers and LOTR and watch this in a theater, 40 feet wide in Dolby, as it was meant to be seen. So get off your high horse and let me infringe copyright seeing as I've paid and will pay enough to enjoy something in my own way.
Ah, hell...there goes the karma...
-sk
Re:Please, let's not spread the DivX (Score:2)
EFGearman
--
spoilers? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:spoilers? (Score:3, Funny)
Dont believe the hype... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dont believe the hype... (Score:5, Funny)
"Weesa loosa ring to kwazy hobbit? Uhoh! Pretty ain't gonna lika dat!"
Re:Dont believe the hype... (Score:3, Funny)
Extra bits? (Score:2)
TWW
You'll hate it (Score:2, Informative)
Nazgul chasing hobbits on a dock
Probably at the ferry after they leave Farmer Maggot's house.
Re:You'll hate it (Score:2)
Re:You'll hate it (Score:2)
> If you want it to be absolutely true to the book, the way Harry Potter was, don't see it.
IMO that took HP down a couple of stars in my ratings. What makes a good book is not the same as what makes a good movie.
I haven't read the HP books, so I'll concede that they might be very good. But I went to see the movie with my n&n, and commented to their dad that I thought it was overlong and full of fluff that didn't contribute to the movement of the flick. He said it's because the movie was previewed to audiences of kiddies who raised hell about it not being faithful to the book, so they went back and 'fixed' it. That 'fix' is probably exactly what I didn't like about the movie.
So I'm dubious about LOTR. Where they're not faithful to the book (Arwen the Warrior Princess) I'll hate it for that reason; where they are faithful to the book, I'll hate it for being overlong and stuffy.
The best way to go would be to read good books that aren't derived from films and watch good films that aren't derived from books. Alas, Hollywood's formulaic writing doesn't produce many good yarns that way.
Difficult decisions had to be made (Score:3, Insightful)
hmmmm
Be true to the book....
or more Liv Tyler
Be true to the book....
or more Live Tyler
....
I had to be a tough choice.
OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters (Score:5, Funny)
Tolkien Ring
Beware TPB
Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters (Score:5, Funny)
We name our servers after LOTR caracters... one day someone asked what type of network we were using. The answer:
Tolkien Ring
We clearly need a new moderation selection: Groaner
Re:OT: naming servers after LOTR caracters (Score:3, Funny)
That does it.
Slashdot Admins, please read!. We need two more moderation ratings!
First, we need a "-1, Bad Pun".
Second, we need a "+1, Bad Pun"....
Why the earlier opening in UK? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why the earlier opening in UK? (Score:4, Informative)
Elijah Wood - American
Ian McKellen - British
Viggo Mortensen - American
Sean Astin - American
Liv Tyler - American
Cate Blanchett - Australian
John Rhys-Davies - British
Billy Boyd - British
Dominic Monaghan - German
Orlando Bloom - British
Hugo Weaving - Nigerian/Australian
Sean Bean - British
Ian Holm - British
Christopher Lee - British
The characters aside, this is a very British film. The rights to the films were sold in 1969, but the Tolkien family/estate still has a lot of influence.
Peter Jackson Interview (Score:5, Interesting)
But after hearing last nights interview with Peter Jackson on World News for Public Television, my fears have been allayed. Jackson was asked what John Ronald Raoul would have thought about the movie. Peter said (approx.), "I hope he'd see the love we put into it over the years. But I think he'd be grumpy about many of the changes we had to make."
He seemed to have a deep understanding of Tolkien the man, and was quite aware that he'd meddled with literature that had been canonized. The seriousness with which he approached his task impressed me.
Re:Peter Jackson Interview (Score:3, Informative)
Reuel.
The tattoos (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The tattoos (Score:2, Interesting)
> Tengwar symbol for 9.
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness band them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Re:The tattoos (Score:2)
But then again, they were nine because they were chosen to match up against the nine Ringwraiths, and the wraiths *are* those nine Mortal Men from the poem.
full poem in black speech: (Score:3, Interesting)
Udu takob-ishiz gund-ob Gazat-shakh-uuri,
Krith Shara-uuri matuurz matat duumpuga,
Ash tug Shakhbuurz-uur Uliima-tab-ishi za,
Uzg-Mordor-ishi amal fauthut burguuli.
Ash nazg durbatuluuk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatuluuk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Uzg-Mordor-ishi amal fauthut burguuli.
and here it goes in other langs
Here's the Polish version:
Trzy Pierscienie dla krolow Elfow pod blekitnym niebem,
Siedem dla wladcow krasnali w ich podziemnych palacach,
Dziewiec dla smiertelnikow, ludzi smierci podleglych.
Jeden dla Wladcy Ciemnosci na jego czarnym tronie
W krainie Mordor, gdzie zalegly cienie.
Jeden by wszystkim rzadzic, jeden by wszystkie odnalezc,
Jeden by wszystkie zgromadzic i w ciemnosci zwiazac
W krainie Mordor, gdzie zalegly cienie.
And (for those who didn't read the original), English:
Three Rings for the Elvenkings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf Lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for mortal Men, doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them.
One Ring to bring them all and in darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie.
So it looks in French:
Trois pour les Rois d'Elfes sous le ciel d'azure,
Sept pour les Seigneurs Na?ns dans leurs demeures de pierre,
Neuf pour les Hommes mortels destin?s au trepas,
Un pour le Seigneur des Ten?bres sur son sombre trone,
Dans le pays de Mordor ou s'?tendent les ombres.
Un Anneau pour les gouverner tous, un Anneau pour les trouver,
Un Anneau pour les amener tous et dans les ten?bres les lier
Au pays de Mordor ou s'?tendent les Ombres.
In German:
Drei Ringe den Elbenkoenigen hoch im Licht,
Sieben den Zwergenherrschern in ihren Hallen aus Stein,
Den Sterblichen, ewig dem Tode verfallen, neun,
Einer dem Dunklen Herrn auf dunklem Thron
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn.
Ein Ring, sie zu knechten, sie alle zu finden,
Ins Dunkel zu treiben und ewig zu binden
Im Lande Mordor, wo die Schatten drohn.
In Danish (there may be errors):
Tre har elvernes konge i dybeste skove,
Syv har dvaergenes herrer i sale af sten,
Ni har mennesket doedeligt, doemt til at sove,
In har den natsorte fyrste for ondskab og min
I Mordors land, hvor skygger ruge.
In Ring er over dem alle, In Ring kan finde de andre
In Ring kan bringe dem alle, i moerket loenke dem alle
I Mordors land, hvor skygger ruge.
And in Spanish:
Tres anillos para los Reyes Elfos bajo el cielo.
Siete para los Senores Enanos en palacios de piedra.
Nueve para los Hombres Mortales condenados a morir.
Uno para el Senor Oscuro, sobre el trono oscuro
en la Tierra de Mordor donde se extienden las Sombras.
Un Anillo para gobernarlos a todos. Un Anillo para encontrarlos,
un Anillo para atraerlos a todos y atarlos en las tinieblas
en la Tierra de Mordor donde se extienden las Sombras.
In Swedish:
Tre ringar foer aelvkonungarnas makt hoegt i det bl?,
sju foer dvaergarnas furstar i salarna av sten,
nio foer de doedliga, som koettets vaeg skall g?,
en foer Moerkrets herre i ondskans dunkla sken
i Mordorlandets hisnande gruva.
En ring att saemja dem,
en ring att fraemja dem,
en ring att djupt i moerkrets
vida riken taemja dem -
i Mordors land, daer skuggorna ruva.
And in Dutch:
Drie Ringen voor de Elfen-koningen op aard'
Zeven voor de Dwergvorsten in hun zalen schoon,
Negen voor de mensen, die de dood niet spaart,
Een voor de Zwarte Heerser op zijn zwarte troon
In Mordor, waar de schimmen zijn,
Een Ring om allen te regeren, Een Ring om hen te vinden,
Een Ring die hen brengen zal en in duisternis binden,
In Mordor, waar de schimmen zijn.
Croatian version:
Prstena Tri za vilin-kralje za koje zvijezde siju,
I Sedam za patuljke-vladare kamenih dvora mochi;
I Devet za ljude, usuda kletog shto zarana mriju,
Al Prsten Jedan za Cara Mraka na prijestolju nochi
U zemlji Mordor gdje sjene se kriju.
Prsten Jedan da zavlada svima, Prsten Jedan shto trazhi i sezhe
Prsten Jedan da spoji se s njima i u tami ih svezhe
U zemlji Mordor gdje sjene se kriju.
Russian version:
Tri elfijskim wladykam w podzwiezdnyj priedel
Sem' dlja gnomow karjaszych w podgornom prostorie
Diewjat' smertnym cziej wyweren srik i udel
I odno wlastelinu na cziernom prestolie
W Mordorie gdie wiekowiecznaja t'ma:
Sztoby wsje ich sozwat', woedino sobrat'
I jedinoj czernoj wolej skovat'
W Mordorie gdie wiekowiecznaja t'ma:
In the language of Klingons of Star Trek:
elDa'joHmeHvaD chalbingDaq wej Qeb
nawqo'joHmeHvaD naghjuHmeychajDaq Soch
HumanmeyvaD jubbe' HeghmeH qichbogh Hut
joHvaD Hurgh quSDajDaq Hurgh wa'
Qotbogh Qibmey morDor puHDaq
Hoch che'meH wa' Qeb, tu'meH wa' Qeb
Hoch qemmeH lan HurghDaq baghmeH je wa' Qeb
Qotbogh Qibmey morDor puHDaq
In the Quenya language:
Cormar neld' Eldaranin undu telume,
Otso Casarceruin ondomardeltassen,
Nerte Firyain; firien martine,
Mine Loonaherun, lnamahalmaryasse,
Mordrev' ardasse yasse lumbor caitar.
Mine corma turien ilye te, mine corma tuvien te,
Mine corma tultien ilye te ar morniesse mandien te,
Mordrev' ardasse yasse lumbor caitar.
First Esperanto version:
Tri ringoj por la elfo-regoj, sub la chielo;
Sep por la dvarvo-moshtoj, en haloj de shton'.
Nau por hom' mortema, kondamnita de mortpelo;
Unu por Malluma Moshto, sur Malluma Tron',
En la lando Mordor, tenebra pro malhelo.
Unu Ring' por regi chiujn, unu por venigi,
Unu por sklavigi kaj mallume enchenigi,
En la lando Mordor, tenebra pro malhelo.
Another Esperanto version:
Tri ringoj por la elfoj sub la hela chiel',
Sep por la gnomoj en salonoj el shton'.
Nau por la homoj sub la morto-sigel',
Unu por la Nigra Rego sur la nigra tron'
Kie kushas Ombroj en Mordora Land'.
Unu Ringo ilin regas, Unu ilin prenas,
Unu Ringo en mallumon ilin gvidas kaj katenas
Kie kushas Ombroj en Mordora Land'.
In Japanese:
Mittsu-no yubiwa-wa, sora-no shitanaru erufu-no -ni,
nanatsu-no yubiwa-wa, iwa-no yakata-no dow fu-no
kimi-ni,kokonotsu-wa, shisubeki kidame-no hito-no ko-ni,
hitotsu-wa, kuraki mikura-no mei-no tame-ni,
kage yokotawaru morudru-no kuni-ni.
Hitotsu-no yubiwa-wa, subete-wo sube,
hitotsu-no yubiwa-wa, subete-wo mitsuke,
hitotsu-no yubiwa-wa,
subete-wo toraete,
kurayami-no naka-ni tsunagitomeru.
Kage yokotawaru morudru-no kuni-ni.
Slashdot poll (Score:2, Funny)
[ ] Not go and see any of the films - it would corrupt my imagination
[ ] Wait until 2002, and see all three films in one 9 hour sitting.
[ ] Stop being a nincompoop and go and enjoy the film.
This may look like a joke, but I am serious. I will stand bye the
Also, some more purist than me are apparantly a bit pissed off. They cook tomatoes in the film (gasp - a new world fruit!) and the elves have a penchant for polyurethane garden accessories. Furthermore, how come is it that I post all but one of the links given in the parent (about 12 hours ago), but my comment gets rejected?
Just one question (Score:3)
If this ring was so incredibly important, why did they give the job of getting rid of it to a small person with no military experience, who had never been outside his home village before in his life? Why didn't they at least give him a frekaing map?
Great casting for Boromir (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop the MPAA! (Score:5, Insightful)
At least *someone* is immune to all the hype... (Score:2)
The person I talked to had apparently never heard of either the book or the movie. It was all "Fellowship of the what?" And this person works at a movie theater. Sheesh.
New world foods (Score:2, Informative)
So are poatatoes and tobacco.
Lord of the Rings (Score:2, Informative)
Ash nazg durbatulúk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatulûk
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
Interesting that they've had some serious linguists working on the film though - here's [elvish.org] the discussion site for their languages.
I gave up waiting for their merchandise, and just had the ring poem printed on some of my own-design T-shirts. Much cooler than having corporate-inspired stuff!
I am very tempted by the replicas of Sting [bytheswordinc.com]. Unfortunately they weigh far too much to fight with, and they're really easy to dint. Oh well...
maegnass ess nin, dagnir yngyl im (my name is Sting, I am slayer of spiders)
Lovely links (Score:2, Informative)
p.s I thought the Bashi film was terrible.
Mayhem, blood, and gore! (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course I don't expect it to be completely true to Tolkien's writing. Movie makers tend to take liberties with everything. (I would say that Pearl Harbor and Titanic come to mind, but that would mean I would have to admit having seen them!) I'm going to go see this movie with the sole purpose of being entertained. I'm not going to analyze how it deviates from what Tolkien wrote. I'm going to see this movie purely for the entertainment value. Unless they MAJORLY change the story, I think I'll be happy with what I see. Then again, the wrong filmmaker could MAJORLY change the story.
I'm waiting to pay my $7 until the week AFTER it opens though, just to miss most of the hype.
Entertainment Weekly review - "A" (Score:2, Informative)
Download the fonts! (Score:5, Informative)
http://home.earthlink.net/~darrenv/tolkein.html
It dosen't look quite as cool as the guilded cursive elven runes on all the merchandise, but what do you want for free?
DVD release (Score:2)
Changes etc... (Score:2)
I think changing the characters is even worse. Having Arwen take the place of Glorfindel is a MAJOR change, one which can and probably will ruin the movie for me.
Yes, I am a fanatic about this. But after waiting for 20 years for someone to have the nerve to make this movie, the least we can expect is that they remain true to the story.
Re:Changes etc... (Score:3, Informative)
depth? Hmmmmmm different strokes I guess. 300 pages into FotR, I'm finding them all pretty much interchangable - in large degree again because no one ever says anything other than reciting 3 page long poems or giving dire warnings.
As for Tom Bombadil, he was dropped for a reason. If he appeared on a movie screen, half of the audience would start laughing at him and the spell would be ruined.
Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3 (Score:2, Informative)
"I cannot read the fiery letters," said Frodo in a quavering voice.
"No," Said Gandalf, "but I can. The letters are Elvish, of course, of an ancient mode, but the language is that of Mordor, which I will not utter here. They are lines of a verse long known in Elven-lore:
Re:Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3 (Score:3, Informative)
That should be credited to the Harvard Lampoon's Bored Of The Rings [amazon.com], a sporadically funny parody from the late 1960s.
My Sort of Review (Score:5, Informative)
They did not do the impossible. The length and breadth of Fellowship of the Ring could not be compressed into a 3 hour movie. Nor could they manage to please of all us Tolkein fans, each of whom brings a mental picture of what Elves/Frodo/Gandalf/Dwarves/ Aragorn/etc. *really* looked/acted like.
I will guarantee that each of you will walk away disappointed in *some* aspect of the movie. I also expect it to be a *different* piece of the movie for each person.
What they managed was the remarkable. The movie works, and works well. They have successfully translated a book almost totally unsuited for a movie into a rivetting, astonishingly beautiful piece of cinema.
In other words, keep expectations in check, and you should enjoy yourself immensely. Go, waiting to see what part they adulterated/messed up, and you risk letting your inevitable disappointment in one section overshadow the considerable success of the movie as a whole.
As an aside, I suspect that there's a lot of (non-existent) advertising revenue in a site that allows each user to vote on the five things that they feel the film did wrong. I figure there'd be at least five hundred possible complaints. On the other hand, my comparison with other people's list have found an almost complete lack of unity about what the points are! (How could nobody else realize that they've totally destroyed the Shire scenes by making Bilbo's eyes the wrong color
Synopsis of the story for those who don't know: (Score:5, Funny)
It goes like this. A bunch of peaceful little guys are minding their own business in their village at the beginning of the first book. The mysteriously disappearing/reappearing wizard Gandalf shows up and says bad things are coming. Several of the little guys decide to head off from the village. Here's where the story gets underway.
Disclaimer - YES, I'm kidding, dammit! But you've got to admit, there IS a grain of truth to it...
Anyone who DOESN'T know the story (both of you), it actually IS a good, complex tale. I just couldn't help noticing this pattern in it...
At The Risk of Losing Karma... (Score:4, Insightful)
I read The Fellowship Of The Rings for the first time this summer in anticipation of the movie. I have to say that it was one of the most boring books I have ever read.
Don't get me wrong! The story was great - there were many memorable moments - but it was told in a very tedious manner.
For example, you could probably edit out everything 95% of the text between the death of Gandalf and the arrival at the elvin village without losing any coherence.
All of this probably means that the movie will be better than the book, so I haven't lost all hope!
Any thoughts?
Re:At The Risk of Losing Karma... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read long books before -- the Wheel of Time series comes to mind, weighing in at something like 6,000 pages so far -- so I promise that it has nothing to do with a short attention span or lousy imagination. They're just boring.
The writing is mediocre, and Tolkien *really* likes listening to himself talk. The books just aren't that good. Fine, they helped set the direction for modern fantasy. I won't dispute that. Study them for the historical value then, but all of this gushing about them being the best fantasy novels ever is, IMNSHO, misplaced.
Re:Harry Potter (Score:2)
> So, will it beat Harry Potter?
Only if they successfully market it as a kiddie movie. Adults who have read LOTR will see it in droves, but kiddie movies have the advantage that the adults have to go along anyway when they take the kids.
The despised TV actionware/gobletware commercials seem to imply that they are trying to market it to the kiddie audience, though.
Re:I really want to see this movie.... (Score:2)
Re:Ralph Bakshi (Score:3, Interesting)
And to be honest, the Bakshi version is a butchering of the story. He himself admits it. He started animating the first one under the auspices of a studio who then changed their mind and canceled the project. He was almost finished the first movie then, but he thought that it wouldn't make sense by itself without the others. So, on his own time and money, he quickly wrote in and animated the most important scenes from the last two books, giving it the 'squeezed' feeling that bugged me even back when I was a kid. The results were less than stellar by his own admission.
-Seraph
Re:Ralph Bakshi (Score:2)
So was Disney. In Snow White and The Seven Dwarves [imdb.com]. That was in 1937. Rotoscoping is nothing new at all, and wasn't at the time of Bakshi either.
The irony overwealms (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite its greatness, LOTR was made to meet the demand. It was written FOR THE MONEY!
It sucks that J.R.R. Tolkien stooped to the level of making money? Okay. Then I guess you better not read anything he ever wrote published by Bantam books given his consent. That means it was for the money, otherwise he would have just given it away for free.
I suppose all that leaves is his unfinished works, which he only showed to his friends and family and which was published after his death.
Art and literature are seldom for their own sake, for we are all forced to work until we eat dust.
You might say that marketing dilutes creativity. Who are you to say what is creative? Most of the marketing people I know put a lot of creative thinking into their work - commercials are no exception; a lot of creative effort has been put into using the characters in a way to sell the product. Perhaps if you looked for the "art and literature" within the commercials, you wouldn't get sick looking at them.
What Irony? (Score:3, Informative)
Shakespeare wrote tons of plays in order to keep the audiences rolling in. It's nothing shocking that they bear a lot of similarities to each other, it made them quicker to write! Some people resorted to writing much quicker plays, but there's a reason he was so successful.
Dickens was paid by the word. There's the reason why his books are so long and drawn out, he got rewarded to make them long.
Bradbury wrote Farenheit 451 (in the basement of the building I'm in now no less!) and the whole of Martian Chronicles just to help pay the rent. Asimov wrote the Foundation and robot stories to pay for his tuition.
Every single artist from the Renaissance had a patron who paid for the art.
Does any of this get in the way of the fact that the art is great in and of itself. Long after the money has evaporated, the work is still there for us. That's part of what makes it great.
fun question to try to answer (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a fairly straightforward plot about defeating evil. That said, that's NOT the important element of this story that makes it so popular, IMHO. The scale is immense, however, both in time and space, and that IS a big element, I think. I think you ought to go read the books (preferably before seeing the movie) and find out for yourself what the story is about.
Why is LOTR popular?
1. Detail, detail, detail. That scale I mentioned above is present here to. The depth of detail in these books is amazing. You get an entire world, it's history, and nearly all the important people of that world make an appearance at one point or another. You get the impression after reading it that you haven't missed anything from that world.
2. The plot is essentially, small, defenseless person saves world - becomes big hero! So, it's got the necessary element to appeal to pre-teens who have no voice in our world.
3. Wise old man appreciates young would-be hero. Again, something most pre-teens yearn for that they don't have.
4. Nothing is out of place - in other words, the world exists and is consistent with itself, and is wholly separate from reality. No one swears - everyone talks funny like they're supposed to. No one ever steps out of character. The warriors never take their armor off, etc. You are never, ever, rudely reminded of the real world, and there is never any attempt to make a real world "point". Pure fantasy.
So, points 2-4 pull you in, and point 1 makes you a fan for life. The detail and thoroughness really is quite extraordinary.
Re:What are these movies/books about? (Score:3, Interesting)
As has been pointed out earlier, the books are heavy with the themes of friendship, duty, honor, and sacrifice. These may not be easy themes, but they are universal. The story hits you in the same way a War Epic might -- innocent young man from small town goes into the hell of war and comes out a different man. He is chosen, by the ambiguous hand of fate, to carry the ultimate load on his shoulders. Along the way, he fights the good fight. He nearly dies several times. He meets up with true evil. He faces the ultimate temptations.
And at its core, it's about good struggling against evil for the right of everyone to live freely.
It's also an incredibly self-consistent world. It feels like real history, not a cheesy fantasy where the rules change every hundred pages. If you're a details nut, this book will send you in a tizzy. It's what other authors hope for when they try to develop rich backgrounds for their books.
There's also the fact that it introduced the concept of modern fantasy. Trolls, dwarves, elves, wizards, magic swords, orcs
The last item for my little checklist is its cross-generational appeal. The story has been around long enough where grandparents and grandchildren both identify with it. My mother and I have wildly varying taste in entertainment -- but we're both silly excited to see this come out.
I hope that helps.