Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
It's funny.  Laugh.

An Interview with JRR Tolkien and Other Tomfoolery 104

Lord of the Links writes: "These wackjobs pretend to interview JRR Tolkien with a ouija board as well as slapping together other nonsense, like photoshopped Ringwraiths from the movie doing bizarre things. I laughed once or twice, especially the diary by Gollum. The girls side left something to be desired, but the script revisions were kinda funny. If you feel like feeding into the Lord of the Rings hype, check it out."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Interview with JRR Tolkien and Other Tomfoolery

Comments Filter:
  • Slashdotite: What distribution of Linux do you use?

    JRR: Crazy Web folk...
  • About the movie... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Leeji ( 521631 ) <slashdot@@@leeholmes...com> on Saturday December 15, 2001 @06:09PM (#2709233) Homepage

    I wonder how they're going to deal with the transition between the first two books (at the end of the first movie.)

    I had a mild feeling of resolution at the end of the first book, but it felt a little more like a pause in the tension, not an end of it.

    When it comes to a movie, however, we'll have to see if they gimmick it up to make it more bite-sized.

    • by zerocool^ ( 112121 ) on Saturday December 15, 2001 @07:34PM (#2709415) Homepage Journal
      What i want to know is what are they going to do about Tom Bombadill...
      I mean i understand them having to leave him out for the sake of time, etc, but without the scene from the barrow downs, where does Merry get his sword from? That sword is important later in the 3rd book where he uses it to kill the leader of the Ringwraiths... That's what i'm worried about... Tolkien's writing was so interwoven that everything tied in with something else.

      ~z
      • maybe they'll equipt at Rivendell... so they all get elvish gear... or later on together w/ the cloaks
        • No, we don't see the fellowship equipping in Rivendell (though we do get to see when Bilbo gives Frodo his armor) and there is no scene in the movie involving the cloaks.
          However, I hear that the scene where the Fellowship is given their cloaks will be included on the DVD.
      • by dimator ( 71399 )
        Dude, if they can give Arwen a major role in the movie, I don't think they're too worried about a sword appearing in the wrong place...

        This movie has always been an interpretation of the books, one man's point of view. As far as I'm concerned, the only things that will ever do the books justice ARE the books. I feel bad for the folks who havent read the books and are going to see the films...
    • by Skipio ( 13086 )
      Actually, I did find the ending to be quite good (yes, I've seen the movie). The ending is very similar to the one in the book but some material from the beginning of the Two Towers has been moved to the first movie. The ending is still a bit of a non ending but I found it to be done most tastefully.
      My friend, who hasn't read the books, found the ending to be a very much of a cliffhanger and he couldn't wait to find out what would happen next.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Well, having gone back and reading the books
        again, I don't think the shifting material is a problem.
        In the introduction (this is the Houghton-Mifflin 50th Anniversary version)
        that the story is one book, and the three volumes were
        published separately for convenience. Tolkein actually had it
        planned out as six books at one point.
    • I have heard that the death of Boromir (chapter 1 of book 2) will be the end of the first movie.
  • Why make it up? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Oily Tuna ( 542581 ) on Saturday December 15, 2001 @06:10PM (#2709235) Homepage Journal
    Why bother faking an inteview with JRR?

    Plenty of people claim to know what he thinks [bbc.co.uk] about the file.

    Peter Jackson reckons he'd like it.
    JRR's biographer reckons he'd have ignored it.
    His son, Christopher Tolkien reckons he'd have hated it.

    So there you have it ....
  • "phtoshopped" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheFrood ( 163934 ) on Saturday December 15, 2001 @06:13PM (#2709246) Homepage Journal
    Mod me down for being OT if you must, but...

    ...other nonsense, like photoshopped Ringwraiths...

    Is "photoshop" falling into common usage as a word meaning "to digitally modify [an image]" similar to the way "xerox" is now synonymous with "photocopy"? (Even if you're using, say, a Canon copier.)

    Personally I'd rather hear them referred to as "gimped Ringwraiths".

    TheFrood
    • Re:"phtoshopped" (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Bud Dwyer ( 527622 )
      Is "photoshop" falling into common usage as a word meaning "to digitally modify [an image]" similar to the way "xerox" is now synonymous with "photocopy"?

      Indeed. This usage has existed for a good 5 years, anyway.

      Personally I'd rather hear them referred to as "gimped Ringwraiths".

      If I heard "gimped Ringwraiths", my first thought would be of Ringwraiths who'd had their ankles broken, or perhaps had had polio as children.

      Anyway, "gimped" won't be replacing "photoshopped" any time soon. Gimp will have to break out of the Open Source ghetto first, and I don't see that happening. The serious graphics professional accepts no imitation for Photoshp. Period.
    • I'd rather hear them referred to as "JASC Software Paint Shop Pro 7.04, saved in JPG format Ringwraiths"
    • Is "photoshop" falling into common usage as a word meaning "to digitally modify [an image]" similar to the way "xerox" is now synonymous with "photocopy"?

      This has been true at least since the All Your Base photoshopping craze [google.com]. Read More: A Google search for "photoshopped" [google.com]

      Yes, I say "gimped" instead.

    • Personally I'd rather hear them referred to as "gimped Ringwraiths".

      Especially when they actually are using GIMP [gimp.org] in the film industry =)

      "Rig and wire removal..." hmm, maybe Matrix postproduction folks could try this =)

  • Not at all. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Thingily ( 542628 )
    Peter Jackson does NOT reckon Tolkien would like the movie adaptations of his works. In an interview he gave to the BBC, Jackson said that he thought that Tolkien would be 'upset with the liberties he'd taken with the script' but that Tolkien 'would probably be glad Jackson had interpreted the major themes correctly.' A two-year old could interpret the major themes correctly. I personally think that Tolkien would come after Jackson with a spoon and a white-hot hazelnut for cutting out important characters and inserting clichéd catchphrases into the greatest fantasy epic ever written.
    • so don't go see the movie
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Thank you, Adolf Stallman.
    • Then again, Tolkien didn't think what he wrote would ever appeal to anyone and needed tremendous push from his family and the editor in order to ever publish the thing. He wasn't really a great judge of his audience, was he?

      My personal guess is that if he got to see the joy and excitement the film is inevitably going to spread to kids and adults alike, he would feel it is a good thing. Of course he would still grumble about characters and plot details lost - all writers do.
  • Why not interview Tolkien by method of infinite monkeys? We would have a dead accurate interview with Tolkien and as an added bonus, not raise sceptics' concerns.
  • ...Tolkien probably wouldn't be a very happy man, apparently the notion of movies didn't appeal to him at all. He was disgusted by the idea that people would see the scenes and not develop them in their own imaginations, a far better idea he believed! I believe the film rights were sold to his son? or someone... does anyone know more about that...? Joe xxx
  • by pyramid termite ( 458232 ) on Saturday December 15, 2001 @07:10PM (#2709364)
    A long time ago, the Orcish race was minding its own business in the mountains, playing with rocks and peacefully eating grubs and scorpions as is our wont. Without even the pretense of giving us beads or a piece of paper called a treaty, first the Dwarves, then the Elves and Men, invaded our caves and forced us out by swordpoint, all for the pretty little rocks they called gold and silver and mithril, none of which we ever cared about. Ever since then, our legitimate claims on our birthright have been ignored, while our people have been forced to stay in the reservations of Moria and Mordor, when once they claimed all of the Misty Mountains as their home. We are branded terrorists and evil by the Wise and their scrolls of wisdom while our true story goes untold. Tolkien, master propagandist for our oppressors, has told several blatant lies about our kind, leading the average LOTR reader to conclude that we were spontaneously generated out of Sauron's refuse heap somehow, and never have such things as women, children and families. He accuses us of senselss massacres and cannabilism, all the while ignoring the genocide and oppression our folk have suffered. The movie compounds the error by making us look green and slimy with mummified eyes, a gross racial stereotyping that would have the NAACP up in arms were it applied to people of color. Don't fall for the Elvish propaganda of Peter Jackson and J.R.R. Tolkien, but discover the truth for yourselves. We, like other 3rd Middle Earth peoples like the Trolls, the Balrogs, the Werewolves (Wargs, indeed - not once do you find in LOTR our Warg comrades being described as anything but howling animals), and the Great Spiders have been maligned by a baseless libel and demand that the record of history be set straight.

    Sincerely,
    Gorbag,
    The Orc Liberation Front
  • they're UGO!

    Wait a second....
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Tolkien was a devout Christian [christlife.com]. Actually, he was the person who brought C.S.Lewis to Christ. As such, he's probably in Heaven right now, and not likely to be reached via Ouiji Board. Instead, it may well be that C.S.Lewis's "friend", the demon Screwtape [cslewisclassics.com], may be up to his infernal tricks. Kind of like "on the Internet, No one know's you're a Dog!"
  • Good Tolkein Books (Score:3, Insightful)

    by namespan ( 225296 ) <namespan AT elitemail DOT org> on Saturday December 15, 2001 @08:39PM (#2709592) Journal
    You may not get to find out what Tolkein would have thought about any film version of his works, but two good books for getting a feel of Tolkein are:

    The Inklings

    and

    The Personal Letters of J.R.R. Tolkein

    both by Humphrey Carpenter. I read Inklings this summer and found it fascinating (includes stuff about C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams, too). Letters is a bit harder to plow through, but good sampling reading.

    Incidentally, anyone know when those animated "Hobbit" and LOTR films were made? (late 70's? Early 80's?) I'll bet people had some bad things to say about those. I remember orcs singing cheesy songs like "Where there's a whip ! There's a way !"
    • Incidentally, anyone know when those animated "Hobbit" and LOTR films were made? (late 70's? Early 80's?) I'll bet people had some bad things to say about those. I remember orcs singing cheesy songs like "Where there's a whip ! There's a way !"

      Ralph Bakshi's [ralphbakshi.com] rotoscoped "The Lord of the Rings" [msn.com] (which covered "Fellowship..." and the first half of "The Two Towers") came out in 1978; the same year as Rankin-Bass' [rankinbass.com] made-for-TV version of "The Hobbit." Finally, "The Return of the King" (also made by Rankin-Bass) came out in 1980
  • that was terrible (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sv0f ( 197289 ) on Saturday December 15, 2001 @10:17PM (#2709791)
    The "interview" with Tolkien and the other Ring-related stories on that site were dreadfully boring. The funniest thing I saw was a smallish picture of Gary Coleman as "Merry" [ugo.com].
  • Hype? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by heptapod ( 243146 ) <heptapod@gmail.com> on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:09AM (#2710111) Journal
    Lord of the Rings is just about hype but Star Wars is nowhere near being hype? IMO talking about "hype" for LotR is tantamount to saying this is a flash in the pan bereft of any aesthetic merit.
    George Lucas promised to film the prequels back to back and release one each year for three years. What's fat minivan dad up to now? Five years until he does another prequel? What? Lucas doesn't want to produce a piece of shit and needs to take his time creating special effects and developing plot which still falls far short? Effects in TPM were no better than what was seen in Harry Potter, the plot was non-existent despite Lucas' PR making spoof posters of "Plot Does Matter". Peter Jackson has created an awe inspiring movie with a richly textured plot which effectively conveys themes of friendship and sacrifice incorporating fantastic visuals and effects which enhance the movie without taking center stage or obviously being computer generated.
    Lord of the Rings is news for nerds, whether on film or paper, and it still doesn't have a topic devoted entirely to this phenomenon. Lord of the Rings is highly deserving of this, and in light of 1999, moreso than Star Wars.
    • by rifkin ( 536743 )
      I think that LotR is gonna become uber-mainstream now, become all commercialized and all that gooooood stuff. Kinda like Star Wars.... heh
  • by msm1th ( 68753 ) on Sunday December 16, 2001 @12:27AM (#2710149)
    (after you see this movie. Oh, and star wars episode 2. and terminator 3. thanks.)
    • (after you see this movie. Oh, and star wars episode 2. and terminator 3. thanks.)

      Okay - this *is* on topic because a movie story is the only place this thread makes sense.

      I'm just going to point out that I *will* gladly boycott the MPAA... but not WETA, Peter Jackson (whise "Meet the Feebles" is great), Iam Holm, Cate Blanchett or even that windbag (gotta love 'im) Ian McKellen. I am *not* a studio, and thus I cannot boycott the MPAA. I *am* a musician with one album from a prior band - my next one (which is admittadly an "if" prospect) will *not* be associated with the RIAA, but I will continue to buy albums... I like James Taylor, and I'll pay him... I like Lords of Acid, and I'll pay them. I know that some (even a good chunk) is going to a orginization that I think is neigh organized crime, but it's their problem, and they are bound in contracts. Same for movies - I have an even worse view of the MPAA, since I've followed and read the actual subpoenas of Valenti vs. 2600 and read transcripts of several interviews. They guy really is both a prick and a crimelord operating just on the inside of the law, quite possibly by buying the law.

      But that dosen't mean I won't support Peter Jackson and his cast and crew's effort to bring one of my favorite books to screen. I know that part of that ticket is going to a crappy originization... hell, for all I know, one of the actors is a Scientologist (a group that I personally abhor) and will tithe some of his income, but that does not mean that the work as a whole is not to be supported.

      --
      Evan

  • by Alakaboo ( 171129 )
    Someone mentioned in a reply to an earlier article that the casting for Boromir was poorly done, because the actor really wanted the role of Aragorn.

    Well, having just finished reading Two Towers, I'd like to point out that Boromir himself was jealous of Aragorn's status.

    The casting seems appropriate then, doesn't it? :)
  • I couldn't get passed the first part, the damn pop-ups kept, well, popping up even after I closed them.
    How many time do I need to tell them I don't want to go to tas vegas.

The end of labor is to gain leisure.

Working...