Pippin Skywalker had a wonderful idea, and we’re really pleased that she sent this in to us:
“I found this site where you can ask philologists your questions…so I helped myself to one large Tolkien portion…and got a five course meal! Here inclosed are my questions and THEIR answers. Enjoy! 🙂 “
“What are your thoughts on Tolkien’s linguistic skills? Also…what is the secret of the art of mixing two languages to make a new one? Tolkien used Finnish and Welsh to create Elvish.”
ANSWER # 1: By Suzette Hadin Elgin
Tolkien was a scholarly philologist long before he began constructing Elvish, and his skills were impressive. However, there is no “secret of the art” that we could identify for you, no specific and systematic method for “mixing two languages to make a new one.” When you construct a new language you have to meet the specifications _for_ a language, as human beings understand them; there’s no way to do that except to select things you find desirable in existing human languages. Even when writers think they’ve invented some linguistic feature from scratch for their fiction, we can be 99 99/100% certain that it is already a feature of some existing Terran language. What’s satisfying is that in writing science fiction and fantasy the constraints on language-creation are so relaxed.
I’m not at all certain that Tolkien relied only on Finnish and Welsh, but let’s suppose that he did, for the sake of discussion. He would have selected from each of those languages the features that he felt best suited his purposes, and he would have combined them into a new language using the principles of Terran phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Because he was both a skilled philologist and a skilled writer, his choices were based on both linguistic science and esthetic judgment. As I’m sure you are aware, his purpose in writing the fantasies was to provide a showcase for his constructed languages.
ANSWER # 2: By Robert A. Papen, Ph.D. Professor
I’m not an expert on the artificial mixing of two languages (as Tolkien did) but I can tell you that quite a few social groups (or peoples if you wish) have created new languages by mixing two languages. There are more than 30 of these mixed languages spoken around the world. The most “common” ones are the mixed languages of the Roms or Gypsies. For example, in Great Britain, the Gypsies use a Romani (an original Indian – from India – language) grammar but English vocabulary. In the Basque country, they use a Romani grammar but with Basque vocabulary, and so on.
Other mixed languages that have been “discovered” by linguists during the past few years is a language called “media lengua” (middle language) which is a mixture of Quechua (native amerindian language of Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador) grammar and Spanish vocabulary;michif, spoken in WesternCanada and North Dakota, a mixture of Cree grammar and French vocabulary (actually, the noun phrases are in French and the verbs are in Cree) and Copper Island Aleut, which is a mixture of Aleut and Russian. In all cases, the mixture is always the grammar of one language and the vocabulary of another. How (and why!) these languages were created remains a relative mystery but one thing is for sure….the inventiveness of the human mind is more than amazing when it comes to language!
ANSWER # 3: By Carl Mills
J.R.R. Tolkien was a linguist, philologist, folklorist, editor, and student of medieval English literature. I still treasure his edition of Sir Gawain and the Grene Knight that I was required to read in graduate school. I understand that he also produced some minor fictional works of some interest.
Carl Mills Linguistics Program Director of Undergraduate Studies Department of English and Comparative Literature University of Cincinnati
ANSWER # 4: By Larry Trask
Not quite. Tolkien incorporated *elements* of Welsh and of Finnish into his Elvish languages, but the larger part of these constructed languages derives neither from Welsh nor from Finnish. (In fact, there were at least three Elvish languages: Quenya, Sindarin, and the solely reconstructed Proto-Eldarin.) As a linguist, Tolkien knew how to construct a natural-looking language while incorporating any features he took a fancy to. His invented languages are far more plausible than are most such creations. Perhaps only Marc Okrand’s Klingon comes close, but Okrand was somewhat handicapped by being obliged to incorporate into his language various Klingon noises produced arbitrarily in the early films and given English translations.
You can find some useful information about Tolkien’s use of Finnish and Welsh in this book, if you can get hold of it:
Jim Allan (ed.). 1978. An Introduction to Elvish. Hayes, Middlesex: Bran’s Head. ISBN 0-905220-10-2.
Larry Trask COGS University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9QH UK
ANSWER # 5: By Geoffrey Sampson When you say that Tolkien mixed Finnish and Welsh t0 create Elvish, it seems to me that this cannot mean more than that the overall appearance of the words was vaguely reminiscent of these two languages. It can’t mean that the individual vocabulary items were directly borrowed from either “real” language, surely. I have read the Tolkien books and while I don’t know more than three or four words of Finnish I do know quite a lot of Welsh, and if Tolkien had based his Elvish language to any substantial extent on Welsh I feel sure I would have spotted that.
I can’t comment on Tolkien’s prowess as a scholar of philology, but he was evidently regarded as up to the mark by Oxford University which is a better reference than any I could give! His “hobby” with his Inkling friends of inventing languages and mythologies, and writing novels in order to exemplify them, is something I feel more negative about. When there are so many fascinating real languages to study and increase our knowledge about, the idea of spending large amounts of time making up a hypothetical language (not for purposes of international communication, like Esperanto, but just as a hobby) strikes me as a colossal waste of human ingenuity, like building a model of Chartres Cathedral out of used matchsticks.
And although I don’t think the languages themselves were as closely related to actual languages as you suggest, the mythology — the dwarves and hobbits in Middle-Earth and all that — was quite obviously a close pastiche of the Norse myths, with even many of the names being taken over directly. To my mind it is far more worthwhile to study and make accessible the real body of myths which played a central role in the intellectual life of real societies for many centuries, than to make up a sort of private modified and tidied-up version, eliminating all the elements of “love interest”, etc. To me i t all smacks of the kind of false priorities which lead some people these days to become so fascinated by the workings of computers that they don’t get round to engaging with real life.
G.R. Sampson, Professor of Natural Language Computing
School of Cognitive & Computing Sciences University of Sussex Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH, GB
Ringer Huw did some research and got the rest of the story for Japanese Tolkien fans:
“It looks like LOTR fans in Japan will have a lot longer to wait for the first movie than in other countries.
The first teaser trailer is only now making an appearance in Japanese movie theaters ahead of current releases such as “Fifteen Minutes”, and a senior source within the local distributor says that FOTR will NOT be released in Japan until next year around 2002 March, if not even later.
The delayed release schedule is totally contrary to New Line’s stated goal of a worldwide simultaneous release on December 19th with the minimum necessary number of countries slipping into the New Year. The exception is particularly striking considering Japan’s status as the world’s second-largest economy and one of Hollywood’s biggest and most lucrative overseas markets.
As an independent New Line historically used a number of distribution companies in Japan including Gaga and Shochiku-Fuji. Despite now being part of AOL Time Warner, New Line continues to use different distributors for each picture rather than Warner Japan, and FOTR is being distributed by Herald Japan
A Japanese LOTR movie site has recently been set up to promote the movie here
A potential reason for the delayed release in Japan is the relative lack of popularity and awareness of LOTR. New Line may get better results if LOTR becomes a phenomenon elsewhere then arrives in Japan as the “next big thing from the West” (an old marketing ploy which continues to work well). Although the delay may make sense commercially, it is a kick in the face for fans who have been waiting in the expectation that FOTR will be shown here on December 19th or shortly thereafter, when it will open in every other market worth mentioning.”
Not surprisingly, the link to the Village Voice articles yesterday here and here heated up our email somewhat. Here are some responses – first from Grond:
“Just a quick note. I tend to agree about the point of the articles that you’ve referenced. They really sound alot like people feeling the overwhelming need to say *something* without really having any sense of why they are saying it beyond perhaps an unscratchable *itch* engendered by a phenonemon in which they cannot participate. Some part of their sense of wonder, perhaps their innocence has atrophied to a point that they’ve got a downright pathological need to belittle it.
The first article says nothing louder than *smarm*. It seems so obvious that the writer is talking to a small self important clique of fashionably jaded dorks that an outside reader can’t help but wonder what exactly he’s on about. It’s interesting to note that while at the same time as he brands the Tolkien fan community as *geeks* he then also (twice) equates them with *everyone* thus reducing them to the great herd of humanity who are unlike his audience the great unwashed masses. A laughable double standard.
The second article similarly seems to exist largely so that the reader might admire her own cleverness while missing the point entirely. She appears to fire around in the dark without actually touching on the simple fact that the Professor’s work is first rate *mythology*. That despite the critics and the self absorbed naval gazing of recent (read 20th century) *literati* Tolkien remains relevant as something that speaks to a usually sleeping part of our selves that sees the truth, if you will, in the proceedings of the tale.”
Next up is Karl Proctor:
We need some sort of rallying cry or slogan to herald the movement. “Tolkienism” or some such is too vague sounds like so many other “isms” that have gone before. “Ringers” is clever and sounds clandestine. We must think of something, for…
To Geek Or Not To Geek? That is the question. And if we be Geeks, then is it Ill or Well? If to be Geek is an Ill thing, and we have Geeked, then what are we to do? And if we have not yet Geeked, But Should, do we begin, and if so, How?
I had written briefly to Turgon on this topic of literary snobbery on the East Coast. This seems to me to be more of the same sort of thing. The grand “Journalist” trying vainly to explain away the immense popularity of the works of the Good Professor and succeeding only to vilify those of us who read and enjoy those works, referring to us as “geeks”. The Journalist can not, or will not, see the forest for the trees. Neither will the Journalist understand that the Good Professor was interested in topics that span all peoples, times and places: good and evil, life and death, love, honor and betrayal, the corruption that power brings with it, and the transience of life. The Journalist is concerned with their personal popularity with their Journalistic peers, writing “cleverly” (many times with disregard for fact or accuracy) and with whatever the tawdry issues of the moment may be.
If this is what it is to be Geek, then Geek I am. Geeks unite! Spit in eye of the Journalist. Thumb one’s nose at the Snob. And remember, how can they possibly be having as much fun as we are?”
The second is from Michael Lubin; he sent this to the editors of Village Voice:
“Thank you for two utterly pretentious articles about Tolkien. “Hobbit Forming” takes three paragraphs to say absolutely nothing. It reads like People Magazine with a larger vocabulary. “Lord of the Geeks” takes ten paragraphs to say slightly more. The only sustained idea in it seems to be author Julian Dibbell’s peculiar definition of what a geek is. Dibbell may well believe that “the 20th-century cultural mainstream” consists of those naive enough to take seriously literary critics’ self-proclaimed status as the guardians of literature. But when I was a child and the Star Wars movies came out, their fans were the in-crowd and anyone interested in literary criticism (which at that time included me) was a geek. I doubt this has changed. Perhaps a less grossly unbalanced picture of society might also lead to an analysis that would replace snobbish dithering with substance. This would, unfortunately, require Dibbell to actually read Tolkien, rather than merely repeating what others have said about him.”
Thomas Kelly also wrote to the editor of Village Voice:
“I enjoyed your two pieces on Tolkien mania for the most part. Although I found them a bit reductive and misguided at times, there was enough substance to them. Still, concerning Biddell’s piece, I think he was rather incorrect about Tolkien’s treatment of evil. Why is it that critics and journalists when writing about the “Lord of the Rings” always seem to throw the character of Gollum right out the door, before they go on to claim Tolkien’s concept of evil is childish? Gollum is only the key character to understanding the whole emotional complexity of the book. It is in his character that Tolkien not only argues that most of us are not innately evil but corrupted, and that there is a grey area influenced by the tides of personal need, but that “evil” itself has a crucial role in the interplay of nature itself, and even in the outcome of “good.” Obviously, Gollum is a foil of Frodo, and if you don’t get Gollum, then you don’t get Frodo, and therefore you don’t get the books whatsoever. Moreover, often Tolkien’s idealized forms and characters are simplistic, but they are more archetypal than anything if we remember he is writing in the spirit of myth. For every simple theme or character, there is a wine-dark deep and complex counterpoint. I wholeheartedly believe that Tolkien’s world is a varied and rich landscape, that is a dialectical mythos often lost on the conventional and prejudiced reader. And being half-Japanese, I’m growing tired of the allegations that Tolkien was some kind of racist-in-the-closet just because his orcs are described as swarthy and slant-eyed. Ask any Asian-American who has read and enjoyed the books and he’ll tell you, really, he finds the need of so-called “enlightened” white critics not at all welcome. It’s not that I don’t want to be reminded of it, it’s just I’m an adult and I can see when someone is hijacking an important social evil to make some lame point about a book that is in no way intentionally out to make me feel like I’m less than human. There are enough sensitive treatments of this grey area and a solid moral system in the book to assuage the more reasonable leftist. And if I have to read one more article that characterizes Tolkien’s books and his readership as juvenile idiots I’m going to kill someone! People love his books, who cares, big deal, get over yourself! Why are taste-nazis so threatened by that? And why must journalists who obviously read and enjoyed the books at one time feel the need to be apologetic about it? Are we all ten-year olds, embarassed about what our Harvard peers will think of us if we like certain “geeky” things? Come on! What is truly childish is the maintenance of an attitude that sanctifies snickering at another’s choice of creative mode and truth, and that reads the fantastical forms of myth as mere child’s play. How wrong can an unadventurous mind be!? But don’t get me wrong, I think the two pieces you posted are for the most part good, and I thank you for running them. Even though O’Hehir’s recent essay on Tolkien and the “Lord of the Rings” at Salon.com has it’s own faults, I recommend it as a good starting point when calibrating your next pieces on the subject. Sorry for my displeasure–I did enjoy your two pieces–but I am interested in thorough, reasonable and good criticism on the subject. Thank you for hearing me out.”
And this last from John Sutton:
“It amazes me how these mentally limited people start coming out of the woodwork when some big project comes about. Why do they feel the need to rub their two cents together and come up with some kind of “constructive criticism”? They go about looking down their noses and labeling everyone geeks and nerds…..and for what reason? Maybe they do this to take away from the pain of knowing they will never accomplish anything as meaningful in their lives. That their best in life will only amount to something…….average! Maybe they’re just mad at the world because at one point in their lives they were labeled a geek or a nerd. I think most of it stems from plain old jealousy. Jealousy that someone can have an effect on so many people and not even really mean to. When you take away all the fancy words they used, what was left……………they called millions of people geeks! ????????? “
or more than a half century, “The Chronicles of Narnia” captivated children with tales of Aslan, a tawny lion who ruled a wintry Narnian kingdom of dwarfs, fauns and occasionally errant English schoolchildren.
Mixing fantasy with Christian allegories and imagery, the author C. S. Lewis, one of the 20th century’s most influential interpreters of Christianity, created a saga that spanned seven novels, beginning in 1950 with “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” which have sold more than 65 million copies in more than 30 languages.
Now, borrowing a page from a literary upstart named Harry Potter, the Lewis estate and its publishers have started shaping a marketing makeover of Aslan and assorted Narnian habitués to expand readership and extend the brand.
They have struck deals to license plush Narnian toys. The series publisher, HarperCollins, revealed plans to create new Narnia novels by unidentified authors, to the outrage of some devoted readers. (What next? “Narnia Barbie in a school uniform?” asked one fan in a Lewis electronic forum.)
Most striking of all, they have developed a discreet strategy to avoid direct links to the Christian imagery and theology that suffused the Narnia novels and inspired Lewis.
“They’re turning Narnia into a British version of Mickey Mouse,” said John G. West, co-editor of The C. S. Lewis Readers Encyclopedia and an associate professor of political science at Seattle Pacific University. “What they’ve figured out is that Harry Potter is a cash cow. And here’s a way they can decompartmentalize the children’s novels from the rest of Lewis. That’s what is so troubling. Narnia is a personal creation, and they’re turning it into a corporate creation.”
The publishing strategy surfaced in a HarperCollins memo. “Obviously this is the biggie as far as the estate and our publishing interests are concerned,” wrote an executive from HarperSanFranciso, an imprint of HarperCollins involved in the Lewis publishing program. “We’ll need to be able to give emphatic assurances that no attempt will be made to correlate the stories to Christian imagery/theology.”
The memo was written in connection with the development of a public television documentary about the life of Lewis. The producer, Carol Dean Hatcher, had negotiated contracts to create an illustrated companion book and teaching video for Zondervan Publishing House, the Christian publishing arm of HarperCollins. Zondervan was also poised to donate about $150,000 for the production.
HarperCollins and its publishing arms were in the midst of ambitious expansion plans for Lewis’s works. They repackaged nine classic titles, organized two Web sites (www .cslewisclassics.com and www .narnia.com), developed an essay contest and asked contemporary authors to write new forewords. By the fall of 2003 they expected to publish simpler picture books for younger children and a new Narnia novel.
The negotiations over the documentary unraveled, Ms. Hatcher said, amid pressures from the publisher and the estate to eliminate references in the script to Christian imagery in the Narnia series.
“I was appalled,” said Ms. Hatcher, who is still trying to produce the documentary, “C. S. Lewis: An Examined Life,” with Oregon Public Broadcasting as the presenting station. “I think there are ways to approach C. S. Lewis and Narnia that have nothing to do with religious background. However, it is astounding to minimize that part of this; it’s like doing a video biography of Hank Aaron and refusing to acknowledge he was a baseball player.”
For its part, the Lewis estate insists that there is no calculated plan to reshape the author’s image. Simon Adley, managing director of the C. S. Lewis Company, noted that the publishers had successfully increased sales of Lewis’s “Mere Christianity,” an adult title that explains and defends Christianity.
“It’s fatuous to suggest that we’re trying to take the Christian out of C. S. Lewis,” Mr. Adley said. “We wouldn’t have made the effort that we have with `Mere Christianity’ if we felt that way. It’s just crazy. I suppose you could get a little depressed by this. I’m trying to get more people to read.”
But the response from Harper Collins was more ambiguous. Lisa Herling, a spokeswoman, issued a written statement noting that Ms. Hatcher had revealed “confidential in-house correspondence that was part of the incomplete process” involving Ms. Hatcher’s projects.
“One of the issues the correspondence addressed was whether the project would appeal to the secular as well as the evangelical market,” Ms. Herling wrote. “The goal of HarperCollins is to publish the works of C. S. Lewis to the broadest possible audience and leave any interpretation of the works to the reader.”
As a series, the Narnia books are valuable property for HarperCollins, which recently acquired the rights to publish all of Lewis’s works.
Lately, the Narnia series has flourished anew because of the Harry Potter halo effect on young readers searching for something else to read. In the last two years, sales have increased 20 percent annually.
That renewed attention brought new focus on an author untouched by marketing and image-making. Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Clive Staples Lewis was a professor of medieval and Renaissance English whose Oxford literary circle, the Inklings, included J. R. R. Tolkien.
In Lewis’s imaginary kingdom, the inhabitants are fauns, talking animals and children who find their way into a secret land by means of a hidden door in a wardrobe. Some plot lines are allegories for Christian themes. Aslan is the Christ figure, the “Son of the Great Emperor Across the Sea,” who defeats the devil figure — the White Witch — through his death and resurrection.
Since Lewis’s death, two movies, both called “Shadowlands,” have explored his life. One starred Anthony Hopkins as the writer and examined his late-blooming relationship with and marriage to Joy Davidman Gresham, an American poet and Jewish atheist who converted to Christianity. Her sons, David and Douglas, ultimately inherited the copyrights to their stepfather’s works after the 1973 death of Lewis’s brother, Warren.
A blunt-spoken, nondenominational Christian preacher, Douglas Gresham lives in Ireland, where he runs Rathvinden Ministries, a country home on 20 acres near Dublin. His brother, David, has played a less active role in the estate and, according to Mr. Gresham, lives in India and has embraced Judaism.
With Mr. Gresham as an adviser, the estate for years generally rejected requests to create sequels or spinoffs to the Narnia series. But that policy shifted as the C. S. Lewis Company took a more active role in managing the copyrights. The company is led by Mr. Adley, formerly a marketing executive at Scholastic, which publishes J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series in the United States.
In May Mr. Gresham posted a message in an electronic forum for Lewis fans.
“What is wrong with trying to get people outside of Christianity to read the Narnian chronicles?” he asked, adding, “The Christian audience is less in need of Narnia than the secular audience, and in today’s world the surest way to prevent secularists and their children from reading it is to keep it in the Christian or Religious section of the bookstores or to firmly link Narnia with modern evangelical Christianity.”
HarperCollins is still developing the new Narnia novels and has not announced potential authors. Mr. Adley, of the C. S. Lewis Company, said they would not publish an eighth volume in the series. But they will “fill in the gaps” with the reappearance of some existing characters.
“Increasingly, we’ve found that working in the marketplace we’re competing against new stuff,” he said. “The whole children’s market is geared toward anything new. You can only keep rejacketing something a certain number of times, and in the end you have to produce something new.”
28 Days (2000) Walk on the Moon, A (1999) UK Psycho (1998) UK Perfect Murder, A (1998) UK Thin Red Line, The (1998) UK G.I. Jane (1997) UK Portrait of a Lady, The (1996) UK American Yakuza (1994) Boiling Point (1993) Ruby Cairo (1993) Young Guns II (1990) Witness (1985)
Liv Tyler (Arwen)
Plunkett & Macleane (1999) UK Cookie’s Fortune (1999) UK Heavy (1995) UK
Ian Holm (Bilbo)
eXistenZ (1999) Alice Through the Looking Glass (1999) (TV) Sweet Hereafter, The (1997) UK Fifth Element, The (1997) UK Frankenstein (1994) UK Henry V (1989) UK Brazil (1985) UK Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984) Return of the Soldier, The (1982) All Quiet on the Western Front (1979) (TV) Alien (1979) UK S.O.S. Titanic (1979) (TV) Shout at the Devil (1976) Severed Head, A (1971) UK Fixer, The (1968) UK
Sean Bean (Boromir)
How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989) UK
Hugo Weaving (Elrond)
Strange Planet (1999) Matrix, The (1999) UK Interview, The (1998) Babe (1995) UK Exile (1994) UK Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, The (1994) For Love Alone (1986)
Karl Urban (Eomer)
Heaven (1998)
Miranda Otto (Eowyn)
What Lies Beneath (2000) Jack Bull, The (1999) (TV) Thin Red Line, The (1998) UK Last Days of Chez Nous, The (1992)
Elijah Wood (Frodo)
Faculty, The (1998) UK Ice Storm, The (1997) North (1994) Good Son, The (1993) Forever Young (1992) UK Avalon (1990) UK Internal Affairs (1990) Back to the Future Part II (1989) UK
Cate Blanchett (Galadriel)
Ideal Husband, An (1999) UK Pushing Tin (1999) UK Thank God He Met Lizzie (1997) UK
Ian McKellen (Gandalf)
X-Men (2000) Apt Pupil (1998) UK Gods and Monsters (1998) UK Cold Comfort Farm (1995) (TV)
Au Pair (1999) (TV) Secret of the Andes (1998) UK Bloodsport 3 (1996) Great White Hype, The (1996) Cyborg Cop (1994) Unnamable II: The Statement of Randolph Carter, The (1993) King Solomon’s Mines (1985) Victor/Victoria (1982) UK
Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (1995) Sweet Talker (1991) Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981) Mad Dog Morgan (1976)
Sean Astin (Sam)
Icebreaker (1999) Kimberly (1999) Deterrence (1999) UK Bulworth (1998) UK Low Life, The (1994/I) Where the Day Takes You (1992) UK Encino Man (1992) UK Toy Soldiers (1991) UK Memphis Belle (1990) War of the Roses, The (1989) Staying Together (1989) UK White Water Summer (1987) UK
Christopher Lee (Saruman)
Tale of the Mummy (1998) UK Jinnah (1998) UK Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) Safari 3000 (1982) Return from Witch Mountain (1978) UK Three Musketeers, The (1973) UK Nothing But the Night (1972) Julius Caesar (1970) One More Time (1970) Devil Rides Out, The (1968) Longest Day, The (1962) City of the Dead, The (1960) Dark Avenger, The (1955) They Were Not Divided (1950) UK
Bian Sergent (Ted Sandyman)
Braindead (1992)
Bernard Hill (Theoden)
Midsummer Night’s Dream, A (1999) UK True Crime (1999) UK Shirley Valentine (1989) UK
Brad Dourif (Wormtongue)
Shadow Hours (2000) Ghost, The (2000) Progeny, The (1999) UK Urban Legend (1998) UK Bride of Chucky (1998) UK Murder in the First (1995) Death Machine (1995) Color of Night (1994) Amos & Andrew (1993) Body Parts (1991) UK Mississippi Burning (1988) Blue Velvet (1986) UK Heaven’s Gate (1980) UK Wise Blood (1979) UK
Jim Rygiel (SFX)
102 Dalmatians (2000) Anna and the King (1999) UK Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) UK Last of the Mohicans, The (1992) Ghost (1990) Solar Crisis (1990) Last Starfighter, The (1984)
Howard Shore (Composer)
eXistenZ (1999) UK Dogma (1999) UK Analyze This (1999) Game, The (1997) UK Se7en (1995) UK Ed Wood (1994) UK Philadelphia (1993) UK Sliver (1993) Prelude to a Kiss (1992) Single White Female (1992) UK Postcards from the Edge (1990) She-Devil (1989) Dead Ringers (1988) UK Nadine (1987) Fire with Fire (1986) UK After Hours (1985) UK Places in the Heart (1984) UK Silkwood (1983) UK Videodrome (1983) UK
Peter Jackson (Director)
Frighteners, The (1996) Braindead (1992) UK
To get more information, use the sites I use like:
Just so you know, I also caught a Tolkein reference on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire two weeks ago. If memory serves, the question was for $64,000 and was along the lines of:
This author’s work was the target of a parady entitled “Bored of the Rings”
The contestant did get the answer correct, after telling the audience that he had read both “Bored” and “Lord of the Rings”. Regis said that even he had read both and knew that the Harvard Lampoon wrote “Bored”!
The the way, if anyone has not read “Bored of the Rings” , they should. It is one of the most brilliant satires I have ever read.
Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn)
Liv Tyler (Arwen)
Ian Holm (Bilbo)
Sean Bean (Boromir)
Hugo Weaving (Elrond)
Karl Urban (Eomer)
Miranda Otto (Eowyn)
Elijah Wood (Frodo)
Cate Blanchett (Galadriel)
Ian McKellen (Gandalf)
Andy Serkis (
John Leigh (Hama)
Dominic Monaghan (Merry)
Bruce Spence (Mouth of Sauron)
Sean Astin (Sam)
Christopher Lee (Saruman)
Bian Sergent (Ted Sandyman)
Bernard Hill (Theoden)
Brad Dourif (Wormtongue)