Los Angeles — Emerald Rose has scheduled a debut public performance in L.A. area, in advance of their appearance as featured entertainers at the Post-Oscar party for The Lord of the Rings (www.onering.net). The Celtic folk-rock band from North Georgia will perform a special showcase of their high energy music at 14 Below, a music club in Santa Monica on February 27 from 7:30 to 9:00. The show will be followed by a meet and greet with the artists at the club.
In 2003 the band played their first LOTR Oscar event at last year’s “Two Towers” Oscar party. The band has risen from the Atlanta area Celtic music scene, releasing 3 CDs to date and touring on the East Coast (USA) and in Ireland, building a passionate following at Celtic festivals, science fiction conventions and Irish pubs. For over seven years Emerald Rose has blended tradition, mythic themes and humor to develop a unique “Celtic American Folk-Rock sound.” Their songs have been featured on radio shows ranging from “The Thistle and Shamrock” and “Green Island” to “The Dr. Demento Show”.
Emerald Rose was discovered by The One Ring at DragonCon, an annual Atlanta SCI-FI convention in 2001 and is proud to be the headline band at the post-Oscar party for the second year.
And you thought The Lord of the Rings was only a story . . . entire families are smitten by the hobbit habit, says Arabella Warner
My 15-year-old son was approached recently in the playground by a prefect demanding he hand over his ring. Jewellery is not allowed at school and he thought that his Lord of the Rings trinket, bought at a pop festival last summer, was about to be confiscated.
“Just as I thought,” said the older boy. “It is the ‘One Ring’.”
Turning it lovingly in the palm of his hand, the boy began to read the feathery, Arabic style script engraved on it.
“Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul,” he read, in menacing tones. “It is the language of the Dark Lord, though the script is in elvish. Keep it safe.” And with that he handed it back and walked off.
How thrilled J. R. R. Tolkien would have been to eavesdrop on that exchange. When he published The Lord of the Rings in 1954, his motivation was, in part, to find an imaginative landscape for languages he had invented. Now, 50 years on, the world seems to have gone mad — or ambar i alassëa as an elf would say — for his book. Although in truth, it took the film to do it.
Since the third part of the cinematic trilogy based on Tolkien’s opus, The Return of the King, was released last December, there has been talk of little else in our household. While the stirring soundtrack pounds as a backdrop to my older son’s GCSE revision, my 11-year-old spends much of his spare time painting miniature dwarfs and orcs from the Lord of the Rings Warhammer collection, boasting on the phone to his cousins that his Riders of Rohan will wipe the floor with their army of Uruk-hai. It’s not just a boy thing either. I recently overheard my 14-year-old daughter in earnest discussion with three friends about the relative attractiveness of the films’ actors. “Orlando Bloom’s well hot,” said one, of the man who plays Legolas. “Nah, he’s a poof,” said another. “Viggo Mortensen’s the one.” “Yeah, but have you seen him without his beard?” said a third. “He’s only fit when he’s Aragorn.” And we are not alone. A colleague has just given his seven-year-old son a Lord of the Rings birthday party in which a somewhat baffled entertainer was made to re-enact the Battle of Helm’s Deep for a group of jelly hurling warriors dressed as Aragorn, Boromir and Gandalf. A pricy afternoon: a Legolas suit costs £28.99 (bow and arrows extra).
Now it may seem odd that a seven-year-old should be thrilled by a film that is, by its 12A certificate, allegedly restricted to older cinemagoers. But smaller people have fully absorbed the phenomenon through its spin-offs: the video games, the toys, the dressing-up opportunities. On our high street, there is a Games Workshop, where children as young as seven are cheerfully deposited by their parents every Saturday morning to spend hours rolling dice and moving tiny models of the Lord of the Nazgul over the fields of Pelennor. When I popped in and quizzed an under-ten about the Rings, he instantly knew the names of all the members of the Fellowship, knew their destination and every challenge that faced them.
Put him in an exam room and he was way beyond GCSE and A level and was almost touching PhD Tolkien. “My favourite is the cave troll,” he said, indicating a model nasty. “That’s some wicked monster.” As it turned out he had seen all three films. The truth is, many a parent has turned a blind eye to the warnings on the posters about how scenes might be disturbing to the younger child and actively encouraged their children’s interest because they have bought into the whole phenomenon themselves. And that is the real cunning of The Lord of the Rings: it unites the generations. At my colleague’s party, the most energetic participant of all was the father, decked out as Saruman, who insisted on quizzing all the young guests on the details of hobbit husbandry. Peter Jackson’s trick has been simultaneously to introduce Tolkien’s imagination to a whole new audience, while not disappointing those already familiar with it. Because the book has always had a dedicated cult following.
During the Sixties and Seventies it was a counter-culture bible. The rock group Led Zeppelin took The Lord of the Rings as the inspiration for the lyrics to their songs Ramble On and Battle of Evermore, a rock venue in Covent Garden was called Middle Earth, and Marc Bolan’s partner in Tyrannosaurus Rex called himself Steve Peregrine Took after a Tolkien character.
Back then, students wore badges saying “Frodo is God” and “Gandalf for President”, they changed their names to Bilbo and Galadriel. Some saw it as a political text, the story of the Ring an allegory for the need to destroy nuclear weapons after the Second World War. More recently, just before the invasion of Iraq, an e-mail circulated globally bearing the message, “Frodo has failed”. An attachment showed a picture of George Bush wearing the One Ring of power, wielded in the book by the evil Lord Sauron. For me, brought up on the book, and read all 1,000 pages three times by my father, it was the complete alternative moral universe that I loved. Here was a detailed world of peoples, landscapes and languages, which was recognisable enough to be real, but fantastical enough to transport you somewhere else. Initially sceptical that anyone could film that imaginative sweep, I found myself just as absorbed in Jackson’s work as my children. What a vision, capable of turning a mass audience alleged to possess only a three-minute attention span into aesthetes who will sit through almost nine hours of cinema. Mind you, he was working with the finest source material. It was all there in the book: the battles and love stories, princesses and monsters, pin-ups and role models. Like many a parent I was thrilled that we had common territory that excited us together. Even as the film cycle concludes, there is no end in sight to this phenomenon. Via internet sites you can study language courses in Quenya, the ancient tongue of the elves, discuss the sexual leanings of the two friends Legolas and Gimli, and purchase any Lord of the Rings paraphernalia you could imagine. Including the One Ring. Except, as my son discovered when his was eventually confiscated and popped into a box containing several other specimens, it isn’t the one ring at all. There are thousands available in all shapes and sizes.
Rival studios must resolve distribution issues before the Tolkien classic can be made. Some key ‘Lord of the Rings’ stars indicate support for the project.
The Hobbits have returned to the Shire, Gandalf has hung up his cloak and the Oscars are looming. But the battle for Middle-earth is far from over.
As “Lord of the Rings” fans come to terms with the end of the movie trilogy, many are holding out hope that director Peter Jackson will return to the J.R.R. Tolkien classics and make a film based on the first book, “The Hobbit.” They may be in luck – Jackson and key cast members recently have made noises that they want to take on the cult novel.
But Time Warner Inc.’s New Line Cinema – the studio behind the “Rings” – is facing a potential battle to get “The Hobbit” to the big screen.
Under a series of complicated deals made over the past 30 years, New Line has the rights to make “The Hobbit,” but a competitor, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., controls the rights to distribute the movie in most major markets. No studio would make a movie of this scale without at least some of the distribution rights, so New Line’s only option is to haggle with MGM. Unsurprisingly, MGM – which these day makes few big-budget movies – is rubbing its hands with glee.
For New Line, it may be worth the battle. The first three films have reaped almost $3 billion around the world, dropping an estimated $1 billion to the studio’s bottom line. “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” also received 11 Oscar nominations this year, including Best Picture and Best Director.
But if history is any indication, “The Hobbit” could have some ways to go. A string of high-profile films have stumbled over rights snafus, and “Lord of the Rings” itself took many years to reach the movie theaters. Tolkien, an Oxford professor who dreamed up the idea of the hobbits while marking exam papers, sold the rights to his Middle-earth tales, including “The Hobbit,” to MGM’s United Artists in 1969 for an estimated $10,000 to pay off a tax bill. MGM subsequently sold most of the film rights to Hollywood producer Saul Zaentz, who made an often-derided animated “Lord of the Rings” in 1978.
After a series of twists and turns that included settling a lawsuit with United Artists, Zaentz eventually sold the rights to New Line after approving a treatment put forward by Jackson. However, MGM retained the distribution rights for “The Hobbit.” It’s unclear what rights Zaentz has going forward; he declined to discuss the matter.
MGM is no “shireling” when it comes to negotiating such deals. Owning one of the biggest film libraries in Hollywood, MGM often has found itself at the center of disputes over movie rights, including an eight-year legal battle over “Spider-Man,” which it eventually settled. This time, the rights to “The Hobbit” present a potential gold mine at a moment when the studio may be looking for a merger partner.
For its part, New Line says it will pursue a deal on “The Hobbit” only if Jackson takes on the project. The 42-year-old director invested seven years of his life making the “Rings” trilogy, shooting the three installments back-to-back.
“A big reason for the franchise’s success has been Peter. … He’s so passionate about the subject and we feel very loyal to him,” said Bob Shaye, New Line’s co-chairman.
With his long, curly hair and casual attire, Jackson often jokes that his time on the “Rings” has turned him into a hobbit. But he is moving on to new projects this year, starting this summer with “King Kong” for Vivendi Universal SA’s Universal Pictures. The New Zealand-born director could take on “The Hobbit” near the end of 2005. If that were the case, New Line would need to sort out the rights issue soon.
“I am certainly interested in making ‘The Hobbit,'” says Jackson, wearing his now-trademark knee-length shorts in a swanky Hollywood restaurant. “I definitely wouldn’t want to see anyone else do it.”
Ian McKellen, the 64-year-old British actor who plays Gandalf, is also eager to return to his wizard’s hat and gray beard. Aside from Gandalf, there are only two key characters from the “Rings” who are also central to “The Hobbit”: the hobbit-turned-bad-guy Gollum (played by Andy Serkis) and Frodo’s elderly cousin Bilbo Baggins, who has a small role in the “Fellowship of the Ring,” played by Ian Holm, as a 111-year-old hobbit. Frodo himself doesn’t figure into the story.
If book sales are anything to go by, there’s certainly appetite for another film. Tolkien’s American publisher, Houghton Mifflin, says 24 million copies of the “Rings” and “The Hobbit” were sold in 2001 and 2002 in the U.S. alone. Fans have since been digging deeper into the Tolkien trove, with sales of his less-popular Middle-earth tale, “The Silmarillion,” climbing in the past year – a sure sign that fans are far from sated.
“Jackson’s films have led a Tolkien resurgence among Americans and now they want more,” says Clay Harper, Houghton Mifflin’s Tolkien projects director.
New Line and MGM have yet to sit down to seriously discuss “The Hobbit.” When they do make it to the negotiating table, it is likely that MGM will want to retain some sort of cut. A possible proposal could include the two sharing the costs and splitting the profit, with New Line taking the domestic distribution rights and MGM taking the international rights. Such a split isn’t unusual – in the case of the “Rings,” New Line used independent distributors for the international release.
“We’re open to any discussions that the other rights holders would like to have,” says MGM Vice Chairman Chris McGurk.
New Line says that if it can’t do a deal with MGM, it may go back to the drawing board and either its own prequel filling in the period between “The Hobbit” and the first “Rings” book, or a sequel that follows on from “Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.” However, that option faces a number of potential complications, including the Tolkien family. While the family still benefits from sales of the books, they signed away their say on any films based on “The Lord of the Rings” or “The Hobbit” when Tolkien sold the rights to MGM. But a new prequel or sequel could be another matter.
Starting from scratch with a new story also would involve extending Tolkien’s fantasy world without the Tolkien vision, and his fans may object. “To take some elves and short guys with furry feet and invent new challenges for them that aren’t in the source material … would be a betrayal of Tolkien and Jackson’s achievements,” says Houghton Mifflin’s Harper.
A few days back I posted Juliet Waldron’s essay discussing whether the movies downplayed Frodo’s heroism relative to the role he played in the books. We got quite a few responses, many of them in agreement but also some people felt strongly that the movies did not ‘downsize’ Frodo.
Meredith wrote some interesting things to counter Juliet’s view: “…she was more negative to Peter Jackson’s version than deserved. Really, the important thing to understand is that Peej wasn’t interpreting Tolkien’s text, he was retelling the Peter Jackson version of the story, which plays out very well as a trilogy of movies, and brings out different aspects of the story the book doesn’t really explore.
“Overall, I think Peej’s characterizations are in some respects superior to Tolkien’s, Tolkien didn’t always have a realistic sense of the psychological effects of some of the stuff going on in his stories. For example, his Faramir is very different from the book’s Faramir, and yet far more of a believable person than the book’s Faramir ever was. His Boromir isn’t just a foil to Aragorn, but a person as well. Where the brothers exist as illustrations of the two states of Aragorn in the book, they exist as people in the movies. Do I mind the change? Not at all. Do I respect Tolkien’s original vision of them existing more as foils than flesh and bone men? Yes, because both are in their place.
“As in all retellings, the story comes to resonate with the time it is being told in. Peej’s Frodo is a hero for the modern era. Like many people in the modern world he feels overwhelmed by the challenges life has put before him. In this age of high divorce rates and an unstable job market, Peej’s Frodo is a hero that endures rather than overcomes, as we are expected to endure these things rather than overcome them. The world is a lot bigger and us a lot smaller nowadays. This makes him different from Tolkien’s Frodo, but does not necessarily make him inferior to him.
“I entirely disagree with her interpretation of the Osgiliath scene. Yes, Frodo went up on the tower to face the Ringwraith, heeding its call, but I think clearly he went up there intending to fight, as evidenced by his immediate attack of Sam. He is not attacking Sam because Sam is Sam, he is attacking Sam because he went up there with the idea to attack the first thing that came at him through his semi-trance-like state of mind.
“Overall, there are enough flaws with the original work that there really aren’t many more flaws with Peej’s telling. It’s simply a different telling of the story, reflecting modern sensibilities and ideals. One can take either story and say they enjoy it more, but I don’t think it’s fair for one to hold either version against the other, either, because Peej wasn’t disrespecting Tolkien when he told the Peter Jackson version of the story, because Tolkien wasn’t disrespecting the Icelanders when he told the J.R.R. Tolkien version of their traditional stories, because the Icelanders weren’t disrespecting their ancestors when they told the elaborated story version of those Icelander’s lives. Everybody’s got their own telling of it, every telling applies to the generation in which it was told. That’s how legends go.
Sulky wrote in to disagree strongly too:
“I myself feel the character was very well interpreted and have heard Peter Jackson state in many interviews that he feels Frodo is the true hero of the story – so enough of this ‘maybe the writers didn’t like Frodo’ talk. I have never heard Jackson state that the true hero is Sam, though many book readers and film fans have felt this. The key reason that Jackson cites Frodo as the ‘true hero’ is because he is the character who has to make the biggest sacrifice. It is interesting to hear this critic sniffing at the notion of Frodo as a ‘sacrificial hero’ as if to sacrifice oneself for the sake of Middle Earth isn’t brave enough for them. It seems they are ignorant to the fact that this is exactly what Tolkien intended Frodo to be and that it is precisely his ‘sacificial situation’ which most reveals Frodo’s strength. A hero is some one who RISKS their life for the sake of good (as Sam does). A sacrificial hero or martyr is some one who OFFERS their life for the sake of good. This is the key element of Frodo’s heroism and it is not taken away or even downsized in the films.
“It is interesting to see that one of the major ‘downsizings’ was considered to be his rescue by Arwen. It seems to me that this scene is wildly misinterpreted. Frodo’s resistance to the wraith poison is an internal battle of his strengh of will. It is because of his inner strength, that in the book and the film, Frodo survives his injury. As Gandalf remarks ‘You have some strength in you, my dear hobbit,’ and I don’t hear any character giving Arwen the credit for Frodo’s recovery. The point of this scene is Frodo’s inner strength, which does not require an external flourish of bravery such as Frodo jeering and waving his fists at the Black Riders. If you are able to pick up on subtleties as a viewer you might notice that Elijah’s eyes express the same contempt as the line ‘You shall have neither the ring, nor me!’
“Another so-called ‘downsizing’ which I feel has been misinterpreted is Frodo turning on Sam in ROTK. Again, if you are really concentrating you will see that it is the ring that turns Frodo against Sam, not simply Gollum (though Gollum does work as an agent of the ring). Though this does not happen in the book, it is plain to see where the writers drew their inspiration. Twice in the books when Sam offers to carry the ring, Frodo turns on Sam, insults him and rejects him. It is not that much of a stretch to imagine that his paranoia over the ring might cause Frodo to send his friend from his side. For me, Frodo and Sam’s separation in the movies does not ‘weaken’ the friendship. Rather it highlights the hobbits devotion to each other when we see both of them alone and desperate to find one another again.
“But I am sick of this focus on the ‘downsizing of frodo’. There a many additions in the movie that raise the status of the character! Though I love the books, Frodo’s choice to take the ring in the council of Elrond is made much braver and bolder than in the novel – in which he seems reluctant and is almost forced into being the ringbearer. To further support the movie, I can’t tell you how moved I was to hear Aragorn whisper the words ‘for Frodo’ before the Black Gates or to hear Merry cheering Frodo’s name when the dark tower collapsed. Though I’m sure the Fellowship are aware that Sam made the journey too, it is Frodo who actually bore the ring to Mount Doom for the sake of all Middle Earth. Nothing expresses Frodo brave and selfless ‘sacrifice’ more so than Pippin’s silent whimper – ‘Oh Frodo…’ It is also worth noting that the hobbit’s recovery and awakening is shown through Frodo’s eyes where in the book it is shown from Sam’s perspective. In fact all of the final twenty minutes of ROTK is centered upon Frodo where as in the book Tolkien switched the focus to Sam. And what could place Frodo more firmly in the spotlight as the movie’s hero than showing him writing a book entitled ‘The Lord of the Rings’? It is and always was Frodo’s story!”
Sulky sent in an additional comment that claimed the middle ground and made sense of the movie’s interpretion in those terms:
“How could Frodo be the one true hero? He could never have done it without Sam. And do the people who suggest Sam is the true hero really believe he could have done it without Frodo? Both these characters’ heroism is dependant on them working together! And would Frodo and Sam even have had the chance to achieve their quest if it wasn’t for the heroics of the rest of the fellowship, the Rohans and the Gondorians? I don’t think so. Most importantly the quest could not have been achieved without Gollum – or more specifically Frodo’s, Bilbo’s and eventually Sam’s mercy towards Gollum which is the real heroic factor.
“What Tolkien seems to be making very clear is that you can’t have one, incredible, evil defeating hero. It is the heroes unity against ONE all powerful foe that allows them to suceed. I don’t know why fans are so obsessive over the notion of ‘the real hero’. The idea of a fellowship of heroes is far more inspiring to me.”
Marianne writes: Movie critic Leonard Maltin offered his Oscar predictions on his show Hot Ticket this weekend. He and his counterpart Joyce Kulhawick offered their takes on who they believe will take home Oscar gold in comparison to who they think should win. Their comments are more favorable to Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King in comparison to other critics, who believe it will win but really don’t think it should. Maltin believes Jackson will win for Director, and that he is certainly deserving. That he, like we know, has done something immeasurable, and incomparable to anything else. He’s also predicting a Best Picture win as well saying it would be a crime to deny them the award. He also said that while he admires the other nominees, Return of the King just seems to be in an entirely different category, on a whole other level. Kulhawick said that she actually liked Seabiscuit better, but that she can understand a win for ROTK and would not be upset by it. As for the other nominee’s predictions they were as follows.
Best Actor Maltin and Kulhawick Will win – Sean Penn Should win -Sir Ben Kingsly
Supporting Actor Maltin Will/Should – Ken Watanabe Kulhawick Will – Benicio Tel Toro Should – Alec Baldwin
Supporting Actress Maltin Will – Renee Zelwegger Should – Patricia Clarkson Kulhawick Will – Renee Zelwegger Should – Holly Hunter
This was very refreshing to hear critics actaully happy with what they believe will win.
jasmine writes: The total sales of the ROTK pre-order tickets was 16,272, it has broken the record of “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone” in Japan.
Feb 7th the premirer screening day had 260,000 people were going to the theatre. Fuji TV announced an audience rating of the FOTR on TV(Feb 7th) was 21.3%(kanto area).
Sat Feb 14th ROTK was released on 736 screens in Japan. Only this day 510,000 people had together to see ROTK. It is very strong, high pace, over TTT(150%) and FOTR(220%).
For example Tokyo Marunouchi Piccadilly theatre has lots of fans’s long line in the night before, and the 1st screening on 7:30am over 200 people had not seats, they had to see ‘standing’.
Nippon Herald expect of the box office over 150 or 220 million.
