Can anybody explain to me the difference between linguistics and philology?
The question arose when I was reading an article at salon.com about Tolkien's book "The Lord of the Rings."
(http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolkien/index.html)
It is rather interesting although I don't necessarily agree with everything in it. It is worth noting that for the upcoming film of the movie, the elvish characters will be speaking in Tolkien's invented elvish [or should I capitalize that--Elvish?] language and there will be subtitles. That's quite a task. For the voice of Gandalf the actor has been trained to mimic Tolkien's own voice, from recordings of the author.
Those books (including "The Hobbit") were pretty instrumental in awakening my own interest in literature and language. Gollum was the first character I guess that I ever encoutnered who had a distinctive way of speaking that set him off from the rest of the characters.( What has it gots in its pocketses?) I'm looking forward to the film. From the previews it looks to be pretty exciting -- the Ringwraiths on horseback looked especially scary.
Yes, my preciouss...
I think liguistics is the study of the structure of language, whilst philology is the study of language variation over time. The latter term also has a more generalised sense of love of learning and the classics.
I'm with you in looking forward to the films, Alex.
Speaking in Elvish, and subtitled? This sounds exaggerated. There's very little Elvish speech in the book, the odd greeting like elen síla lumenn' omentielvo, plus the two songs. I see no reason to subtitle the songs since most of the Fellowship who heard them didn't understand Elvish either.
Are they inventing new dialogue? This is quite possible. There might be scenes where Tolkien just described, say, Elrond and Gildor having a private talk away from the others, without writing down what they said. A screenwriter could invent the words and get them translated into Sindarin.
The Elves spoke the Common Speech in the presence of others, as did all people. Or are they thinking of inventing some background chatter in Lórien? I suspect that the only subtitling will be of one or two lines.
I went to a movie Saturday night and spent quite a while just standing in the lobby staring at the beautiful, backlit poster for the first of the Ring movies. It shows a hobbit, presumably Frodo, holding a quietly shining golden ring in the palm of his hand, looking out of the poster with a look of wonder/dread in his eyes. OOOhhhh, I just can't wait.
Now I want to re-read (for the 6th or 7th time) the series, but I may wait so I'm finishing them up just as the first film comes out in December.
"Less haste, more speed, precioussss"
In reply to:
Alive without breath,
As cold as death;
Never thirsty, ever drinking,
All in mail, never clinking.
Gollum's voice is so wonderful. I remember my mother reading me that book and adopting a scary voice for his weird, hissing speach. Wouldn't it be cool to get to play the part of Gollum? *sigh* back to work...
I went to a movie Saturday night and spent quite a while just standing in the lobby staring at the beautiful, backlit poster for the first of the Ring movies.I like that poster too, Hyla. If anyone else would like to see it, click here:
http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/pictures/fellowship_teaserposter.jpg
Thank you for that link, Rapunzel! I hadn't seen the poster yet.
Ah... and for me, like mav said, philology = historical linguistics.
Consider yourselves lucky! It won't be coming out in December here, but probably 3-6 months afterward...sigh. The drawbacks of living in Europe.
Hyla hallucinates
It shows a hobbit, presumably Frodo, holding a quietly shining golden ring in the palm of his handhmmm... I never pictured hobbits as being that... handsome (or wearing lipstick, for that matter).
I never pictured hobbits as being that... handsome
Yeah, it didn't match with my image of the wee folk either, but it ain't perty enough to be an elf or ugly enough to be a dwarf. I hope the hobbits haven't been made too beautiful, but even more, I'm glad that they don't look like they've been made too cute. The last thing I'd want is for the ring to be carried to Barad-dűr by a couple of brave little Ewoks.
IMHO, Gollum is one of the great characters of literature. I looove his speech pattern. Don't share his love of seafood, though.
Nassssty fisshesss.
I haven't been to a movie in a couple of years, but I shall make every attempt to get out to see the Lord of the Rings series.
That poster definitely poses a much sexier Hobbit than I ever envisioned. Must be the lighting ...
That poster definitely poses a much sexier Hobbit than I ever envisioned. Must be the lighting ...
I don't know, though - I have always had the impression that there were stereotypical class-differences between the hobbits. Sam Gamgee and his Gaffer always come over as rough-hewn country-bumpkin-looking (although Sam is shown to have a good intellect) hobbits, as do many of the hobbits at Bilbos elleventy-one'th birthday party. But Meriadoc and Peregrin, and, indeed, Bilbo and Frodo are made out in a much more gentlemanly sort of mode. One only has to read the descriptions of Merry and Pippin in their respective uniforms at Aragorn's "coronation" to realise that they are fine-looking fellows, whereas Frodo is made to seem actually beautiful, especially toward the end of his journey.
So the fine features shown in the poster (thanks for the link, Rapunzel - may your hair grow ever longer and more golden!) aren't very much at odds with my percaptions of Frodo.
thanks for the link, Rapunzel - may your hair grow ever longer and more golden!
Thank you, Rhuby. I hate to ruin anyone's mental image of me, but... my hair is actually chestnut brown!
I hate to ruin anyone's mental image of me, but... my hair is actually chestnut brown!
You must then obviously submit a picture posthaste to Max's website. 
In reply to:
You must then obviously submit a picture posthaste to Max's website.
Can somebody post the URL to Max's website?
http://maxq.airscapenet.com/index.htmlYou'll want to send him any picture as an email attachment. It must be either a .jpg (preferable for best handling of photos) or a .gif.
Back to the movie for a moment: I understand the Zildian Army were invited to play the Orcs (sp?) but some damnfool thing in East Timor kept them from accepting.
Max, do you have a cameo role?
Max, do you have a cameo role?The producers apparently made an a brooch, but Max said "My agent deals with this, preciouss, so give him a ring.."
Over the weekend we went to see a film called "Dungeons and Dragons." It was dire beyond words. I was looking forward to the film version of The Lord of the Rings, but if that's the best Hollywood can do with dwarves and elves (whatever was the lead elf wearing?) I think I'll give it a miss. Fortunately, there were no hobbits on screen though there were a few references to halflings in the script. Goodness knows how Jeremy Irons got caught up in it, in fact until I saw the cast I refused to believe it was him. Tom Baker managed to rise above some pretty awful lines but he was only on screen for about 5 minutes.
Bingley
I saw the trailer to the first movie in the LotR trilogy and it looked very good. The scenery was very nice and it looked authentic (if you can call fictional settings authentic). The elves looked pretty much like elves too. Frodo is played by Elijah Wood (who is not in real life a short, hobbit-like person). I didn't even realize it was him on the poster. He played Huck Finn in one of the recent movies and he's been in other movies that I can't think of. Overall I'd say that it will be a good movie, but I'm definitely going to have to re-read them before I see it. I just bought them on barnesandnoble.com.
Does anyone remember the animated version of Lord of the Rings that came out some years ago? It was quite advanced for its time and was aimed at a much older audience. It is hard to describe but some scenes seemed to have animation going on over real objects and sujects. I thought it was very good. I hope the movie is up to par.
the animated version of Lord of the Rings
I remember it. Everybody was animated except the humans who were some sort of computer altered live action thang. The result, to me, seemed to make the humans so much less real than the other characters that I couldn't appreciate the movie.
The animated version of TLOTR was something of a disappointment for me, especially since it stops more or less abruptly in the middle of the tale. Apparently they were planning on finishing it up but they never got funding for the continuation of the project. I think the humans were filmed with live actors and then the film was painted over for "animation." (Or "deanimation" maybe.)
There was also an animated version of "The Hobbit" but it was rather childish and full of irritating songs, if memory serves.
Yes, I remember the animated version. As I recall, it got dreadful write-ups, but I didn't think it was that bad, just rather rushed trying to fit everything in but having to miss a lot out.
Bingley
I hated the animated version of LOTR; I was soooo disappointed in it. It struck me (and, I'll agree that I have not seen the movie since its initial release, and maybe my memory fails...) that the movie focused on the fighting and left out the interesting stuff. And, of course, it stopped suddenly in the middle of the story.
it stopped suddenly in the middle of the story
You have no one to blame but yourself, Sparteye. If you had liked it they would have finished it for you.
Hey Faldage! I just thought of another icon we need on this board!
You mean that one you get when pausing the cursor over a button? I think the code is [swivel]
I think it's what Rowan&Martin used to refer to as the fickle finger of fate, Max
one finger extended. What sort of an emoticon is that?
Umm, no, I don't think I have to say it. .|..
Lord of the rings
USA 1978. Directed by Ralph Bakshi 133 mins
Disney first held the rights to Tolkien's epic in the late '50s, so it's surprising that we had to wait so long, particularly since Kubrick and Boorman both tried unsuccessfully to set up productions. Mercifully, the book has escaped the typical Disney demolition; Bakshi's version, using animation and live-action tracings, is uniformly excellent, sticking closely to the original text and visually echoing many of Tolkien's own drawings. Use of British voices, together with the sensitive Leonard Rosenman soundtrack, augments the impression of authenticity; and Bakshi wisely chose to leave Vol. 3 for a later date, which allows him to avoid simplification to the point of superficiality. (The Time Out film guide)
Disappointingly stolid, overlong and confused cartoon version of a modern classic which may well deserve all those adjectives. Parts of it are charming, and the method of making cartoons from film of actors photographed in the ordinary way is certainly ingenious though it denies the cartoon characters their own full richness. (Halliwell's film guide)
Bakshi's first film was the fully animated, very R-rated 'Fritz the cat' (1971) based on Robert Crumb's drawings.