Heh, heh, heh. Nay, that we don't, old lad. They're a dashed disgrace, and an abominable offence to Tolkien's memory and scholarship.
Also, hey there.
Howdy! I so strongly disagree. I love them both. They're different, and the books are better ... but books are always better. The Hobbit movies were a disgrace though, I'll give you that.
Ay, there we agree entirely.
As for the LOTR movies. . . let's just say I'm not alone in my distaste for them. I've read that the late Christopher Tolkien, curator and editor of his father's notes, despised the adaptions. I feel they simply took too many liberties with the fundamentals of the story and characters. However, to their credit, whoever was in charge of casting chose fairly good actors to portray most -- but certainly not all -- of the characters.
I was really disappointed in The Hobbit movies. Wonderful moments here and there, but all of the added narrative and characters were just... (I'm being polite.)
I know all of Tolkien's children absolutely hated the films. And I totally sympathize. They completely transform the mood and energy of the story, and they completely cheapen (almost mock) several of the most prominent moments in the novels. Originally, after watching Fellowship, I was a little upset, even. (Can't begin to explain how hard it was for me not to go off at a few of the scenes. Especially at the end. "Let's hunt some orc." Really!? Like...yeah!?!?)
Now, I have an appreciation for them. One thing I had always dreamed about was making a film of LotR. I was in uni in the '90s when they were first announced, and I was excited, but felt a little like goal had been swiped. After all of it was done, and the nearly 12 hours of behind the scenes / making of stuff was released, I realized that the books, as written, would simply never work as a film. It might be possible now to do the story more justice by making an ongoing series, but trying to do a feature-length film of the complete story would simply be insane and make a horrible movie. (Just Fellowship would be over 20 hours long simply to get through all the dialogue as written. The Council of Elrond scene, alone, would take over 4 hours.)
Ironically, I think The Hobbit, as written, would make a fantastic film! (Still being polite, Jackson.
)
Heh heh heh...
I can't resist the temptation, I just can't. It's too perfect.
It's the land of unicorns
I can't resist the temptation, I just can't. It's too perfect.
This is brilliant!
Got the same suggestion from YouTube. I sense a conspiracy.
I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion. - Alexander the Great
They also pronounce it incorrectly, which is frankly shocking to me considering all of the other pronunciations they get right. It should be "Yor-leen-yas" (similar to the Scandanavian "J", if that helps). The ancient character it refers to was Eorl the Old.
Tolkien clearly indicates in the appendices that only the accented "E" is pronounced as a separate syllable, Éowyn (Ay-oh-win) and Éomer (Ay-oh-mare).
Hmm. Where did you read that about the pronunciation? According to Tolkien's guide in the Red Book, ng is given the hard value, as in finger, except when used terminally, where it counts as in sing.
Eorlingas. Taken directly from a "Eorling" (a descendant of "Eorl the Old"). There's the terminal usage.
However, even if we wanted to fight the hard sound in there, there's one more issue: dipthong.
Technically "-eengas"...but when spoken, the 'ng' will vanish somewhat into the 'a'. So rather than hearing "Yor-leen-gas," it would be natural to pronounce, hear, and interpret a 'y'. Yor-leen-yas.
Same effect as 'gnocchi' in Italian. Put ones tongue into position to pronounce the 'ee'-like sound of 'ng' in Italian...and you're going to invariably wind up sounding like the 'ee' sound bleeds into the 'o'. So, even though it's spelled "gnocchi", it will sound like "gniocchi" when actually pronounced.