| Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #303277 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 10:00 |
|
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:40:17 +0100, Tamf Moo <liddlelellow [at] yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>> I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
>> the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?
>
>well, Arvind has already owned up about his inability to get it, despite
>endless trying. my Oslovite father, who has lived in the western, uvular
>part of Norway for over 25 years, is unable to get it right, too*. what
>tends to happen is that they try too hard, and end up with something
>more like the german "ch" than the r.
This is why everybody should always use the English "R." Our "R's"
are always easy to pronounce. :-)
Morgoth's Curse
|
|
|
| Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #303280 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 11:17 |
|
In message <news:665pb2l4lqsmbbj6c5epr8kfu7lnedcb02 [at] 4ax.com>
Morgoth's Curse <morgothscurse2002 [at] nospam.yahoo.com> enriched us
with:
>
<snip>
> This is why everybody should always use the English "R." Our
> "R's" are always easy to pronounce. :-)
"You ahh of couwse wight!" ;-)
(Now, how many foreign accents are parodied by mispronouncing the Rs?)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking with which we created them.
- Albert Einstein
|
|
|
| Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #303287 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 14:39 |
|
Morgoth's Curse wrote:
>
> This is why everybody should always use the English "R." Our "R's"
> are always easy to pronounce. :-)
>
> Morgoth's Curse
Here in New England we often dispense with them entirely.
Pete H
|
|
|
| Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #303288 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 14:40 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>
> "You ahh of couwse wight!" ;-)
>
> (Now, how many foreign accents are parodied by mispronouncing the Rs?)
>
That's not an accent; that's Elmer Fudd, you silly wabbit!
Pete H
|
|
|
| Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #303299 ] |
Di, 18 Juli 2006 15:44 |
|
pmhilton wrote:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "You ahh of couwse wight!" ;-)
>>
>> (Now, how many foreign accents are parodied by mispronouncing the Rs?)
>>
>
> That's not an accent; that's Elmer Fudd, you silly wabbit!
>
Who are you calling a silly wabbit? That's _my_ accent.
--
dewek
|
|
|
| Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #304398 ] |
Do, 20 Juli 2006 09:16 |
|
Morgoth's Curse schreef:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:40:17 +0100, Tamf Moo <liddlelellow [at] yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> >> I wonder if it would be equally difficult for one who hasn't learned
> >> the uvular r as a child to pronounce it correctly?
> >
For some it is, for some it isn't;-) The difference in individual
ability to copy the pronunciation of languages and dialects is
remarkable.
> >well, Arvind has already owned up about his inability to get it, despite
> >endless trying. my Oslovite father, who has lived in the western, uvular
> >part of Norway for over 25 years, is unable to get it right, too*. what
> >tends to happen is that they try too hard, and end up with something
> >more like the german "ch" than the r.
>
For some people (singers) it is essential they are able to pronounce
certain sounds, or they can forget about an international career. So
logotherapists have come up with exercises to help pronounce any sound.
A funny one for the pronunciation of the uvular r is take a sip of
water, then gurgle with sound.
> This is why everybody should always use the English "R." Our "R's"
> are always easy to pronounce. :-)
>
The English "R" is very easy indeed: skip it. The American "R" is
remarkably different. I can pronounce it, but because of my native
language, it is not as easy for me as the uvular or the thrilled "R".
Henriette
|
|
|
| Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #304503 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 14:36 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> ...There always seem to be those from who want to misrepresent the
> anti-film camp (a term that is itself a gross generalisation) by using
> the simplistic soundbite: "Anti-film people want the book translated
> literally to the screen and don't understand how a film is different
> from a book."
>
> Can we _please_ get past this kindergarten level argument and accept
> that the many of those who have problems with the films are _not_asking
> for a literal adaptation, and they _do_ understand that films are
> different from books. What they object to is how some specific changes
> were (a) completely unecessary and (b) detract from the good bits of the
> film.
>
> A faithful adaptation (not literal) would identify a set of core themes
> and stay true to them, without diverging merely for the sake of it, or
> to allow some special effects scene...
Precisely. What a failure these moving pcitures are, but, more than
anything, what a failed opportunity.
PS Anyone see anything from these moving pictures inhabiting any
cultural landscape (other than a mockery of Gollum's "my precious" from
time to time)? Anything? Anyone? The very difference between the
impact of the original work, and this "translation." Everything
important about the books was Lost in Translation.
It truly is almost as if Jackson, Boyens and Walsh said "Let's just
distill this down to it's major action points, and build back up from
there in our own sense and sensibilities."
Problem there is (leaving aside the very callign it LOTR, when it is in
fact something else), Tolkien's work gives us all the richness such
that when battle comes, we move through it in intimate relationship
with the large and small consequences OF battle.
Not battle for battle's sake; these aren't flawed beings with whom
we're supposed to relate; these are archetypes by which a mythology
emerges. There's nothing in Viggo's performance that lends itself at
all to the Aragorn/Dunedan/Strider I know.
Thus, a different work. Not a "Translation." An entirely different
work. ANd that's fine; just CALL it that - call it "Peter Jackson's
World of Fantasy - and stop calling it LOTR.
It is simply NOT that.
|
|
|
| Re: The Book and the Films (Was Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK) [message #304510 ] |
Sa, 22 Juli 2006 22:55 |
|
"pmhilton" <pmhilton [at] mfx.net> wrote in message
news:44BCD66C.8000300 [at] mfx.net...
> Morgoth's Curse wrote:
>
> >
> > This is why everybody should always use the English "R." Our "R's"
> > are always easy to pronounce. :-)
> >
> > Morgoth's Curse
>
> Here in New England we often dispense with them entirely.
>
> Pete H
That's right! And then for cosmic balance we might add them when we say
words that end in "a." The capital of Maine (Augusta), for example, can
sound like "auguster."
|
|
|
| Re: question about ending of LOTR:ROTK [message #304528 ] |
So, 23 Juli 2006 21:31 |
|
Mel.Brennan [at] gmail.com <Mel.Brennan [at] gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Not battle for battle's sake; these aren't flawed beings with whom
> we're supposed to relate; these are archetypes by which a mythology
> emerges.
I agreed with most of what you said, but particularly this bit.
> Thus, a different work. Not a "Translation." An entirely different
> work. ANd that's fine; just CALL it that - call it "Peter Jackson's
> World of Fantasy - and stop calling it LOTR.
Tolkien sold the film rights. They've paid money to be able to call it
that. You won't win this argument. I agree, though, that "Peter Jackson"
or "New Line", and "film/movie" should be appended everytime it is
discussed.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
