Slashdot Mirror
The Hype of the Rings
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!
are they going to make a Hobbit movie to go along with them ?
THERE IS NO DATA. THERE IS O
"All members of the cast have got a tattoo. When we had it done in a tattoo parlor in Wellington, New Zealand, we all swore never to tell anyone,' he told Reuters Television
What part of "swore never to tell anyone" did he not understand?
Actually, the text of the Guardian review is here.
No shit its been pirated already. im sure ive seen some releases of it floating about the divx/vcd trading groups for at least a week. i mean, this has got to be one of the biggest films for a long time, its hot stuff to get your hands on.
:) i wouldnt watch a crappy copy of it.
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, 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!
what self-respecting /.'er doesn't know how this movie ends?
(Lemme open up by saying I may or may not agree with what I am about to say. This sort of duplicity makes me an excellent candidate for political office.)
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 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.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
> 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>
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I just hope they didn't recycle Jar Jar Binks and use him as Gollum.
We name our servers after LOTR caracters... one day someone asked what type of network we were using. The answer:
Tolkien Ring
Beware TPB
I think Space Balls had one of the more astute observations when it comes to movies...
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).
BOSTON SUCKS!
I'll admit I was worried after reading stories like Feedback: Not the subtractions, but the additions about changes made to the story during the making of the film.
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.
The Yahoo article doesn't mention this, but this month's print issue of Empire Magazine did. The Fellowship actors' tattoos all depict the Tengwar symbol for 9. (Tengwar being Tolkien's Elvish alphabet; you can see what it looks like here.)
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
I mean, if you're a big enough fan to spend however long it takes to download a 700mb DiVX AVI, aren't you probably going to go to the theater several times, just so you can see it on the big screen, the way it was 'meant' to be seen? Aren't you also going to buy the 2 DVD Box Set collector's edition next year and have all-night Fellowship of the DVD parties watching it over and over again with all your closest geek buddies?
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
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
It was brilliant chosing for Boromir someone who wanted to play Aragorn. That's the perfect way to get into the character...
Oh, wait. This movie looks cool. Never mind! Give them your money!
Trust me, I'm going to pay to see the movie.
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.
Actually, the studio recoups [part] of it's money by selling BK the *rights* to make cheesy light-up goblets. BK hopes to recoup thier investment by luring people into their resteraunts to buy overpriced sugar water and greasy potato sticks along with the offensive drinking vessels.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Um, just going through the first 10 or so of the main characters listed on IMDB for this film, you might like to reconsider:
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.
That's because rotoscoping was a retro-technique that Linklater dug up, not because Bakshi was _that_ cutting edge. It was invented in the mid 70's IIRC. Bakshi just appropriated the technique (and improved it) for his own use.
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
After the success of the hobbit, Bantam books sent a letter to Mr. Tolkien saying, "we want more hobbits" because of the popularity.
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.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
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
I would give an attribution if I had seen one. Probably it's evolved from several sources.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
There's a page out there where you can download the font for the various tolkein languages.
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?
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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?
Will I retire or break 10K?
"I am really disappointed to hear of the changes that have been made to a story that has stood on it's own for 50+ years. One of the things about the story is the depth that Tolkein gave to the characters, and the variety of characters (ie Tom Bombadil) "
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.
the Credit-where-credits-due department writes:
That should be credited to the Harvard Lampoon's Bored Of The Rings, a sporadically funny parody from the late 1960s.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I can just see Jones internal struggle:
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.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
I was fortunate enough to see the movie in late November. (no spoilers follow)
:-))
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
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...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Funny, I just happened to re-read Tolkien's view on a movie version of LOTR last night. In a 1957 letter to his agent in response to an offer from an American studio, he basically said two things (a) he had no philosophical objection to movies and wouldn't mind if someone tried to create a screenplay/movie version (b) however, since he didn't trust Hollywood, his specific instructions were "either Art or Cash", meaning either full artistic control, or enough cash up front to drown his sorrows.
So I would say ol' JRR had pretty clear vision in these matters.
sPh
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.
What is LOTR about?
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.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
You ask a hard question. What is it about the books that make them special? That appeal to us?
... in fact, I almost worry that some people will see LotR and feel it's derivative, just because it's where the rest of these copies came from! [NO, I'm not trying to say Tolkien invented Elves. But the genre of modern fantasy did begin with him.]
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.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
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?
I dunno... What do you wanna do?
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 (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
Gakh Nazgi Golug durub-uuri lata-nuut,
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.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
This is so common, it's almost absurd to even bring it up. As Wilde said, "When artists get together they talk about money, when bankers get together they talk about art."
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.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
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!)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend