Lord of the Rings

Yeah, I mainly say "Tolken".

I always figured it was pronounced just like it's spelled: Tol - Ki - En. Just with a very smooth transition from the "Ki" to the "En", so that they sound closer to one syllable than two.

I've always pronounced it that way.

That's always how I've heard it in my head.

Ars Technica has a review of the Tolkien biopic.

It sounds pretty good so far. The Tolkien Estate has distanced itself from the movie, which is to be expected given the liberties the movie takes with history, but this could simply be chalked up to artistic license, and the director fully expects Tolkien's relatives to enjoy it.

The movie comes out May 10th.

io9.gizmodo review of biopic

Talks about some more negative aspects to the biopic.

Guess we'll just have to see for ourselves what the movie is like.

Edited by Aaymeirah on May 7th 2019 at 8:25:39 AM

From that review, it sounds like the biopic is trying a little too hard to connect the dots of Tolkien's life and work, as well as dramatizing facts about his life that just are not that interesting outside of a biography.

Isn't that true of most biopics, though? It's not like we live lives in deliberately narrative ways, we just sort of impose them on ourselves and others in retrospect.

Yes, my thoughts as well. Not everything in Tolkien's life is going to be "significant" in light of his art, and the notion that his group of friends are not interesting or relevant enough in light of his work is laughable.

It is interesting how consumers always seem to demand that their heroes have led Meaningul Lives to go with their Important Works. Not that Tolkien is not an interesting person in his own right (how many professors do you know that are studied at university, and have their lesson notes poured over by scholars?), but making everything in his life out to be some sort of foreshadowing of his books is a bit of a disservice.

Biopics are first and foremost stories based (however tenuously) on someone's life, not visual biographies. Narrative trumps accuracy.

Most of the reviews I am reading are saying that the biopic plays a little too fast and loose with the facts and misses some things that should be there. For instance he married Edith and finished his education before he enlisted in 1915. Edith and he both knew by that time that the War was not going to be over "by Christmas", as had been the popular notion in England when the War started. In other words, he had some realistic idea of what he was getting into and went anyway. They also say that his Catholic faith, which was really a central influence in his life, is downplayed, and that the War is treated too much like the defining event of his life. I'm sure it had a great influence on all of his work, but I agree generally that his love of medieval literature, his faith, and his marriage were all just as important, and longer-lasting, influences.

Film Brain reviews Tolkien:

His main critique is that the film fails to properly dramatize the facts of Tolkien's life. Another major problem is that the biopic could not refer to any copyrighted material, including Tolkien's own writings (presumably including his considerable scholarly work), or the movies. It is, as he describes it, like watching (and writing) with a lawyer breathing down your neck.

Yeah, with that in mind, this biopic was pretty much doomed from the start. How do you talk about the life and work of a famous author, when you can't even reference his actual work? It is an impossible task.

In the end, it becomes an almost pointless exercise, and Tolkien comes off as generic, because the movie HAS to avoid all the things that made him special. The filmmakers may have had the best intentions, but without the literary core of the author, what is even the point of making a biopic about him?

Edited by Redmess on May 10th 2019 at 5:15:06 PM

This review does make a lot of sense, I haven't seen the biopic yet and fully intend to once I am able. Merely to see things for myself and all, but a biopic about a person largely remembered for their literary works which can't even be explicitly mentioned? There seems to be a problem here.

yet another movie review

…If that stupid restriction came from the Tolkien estate, why did they even allow the film to be made in the first place?

At this point you might as well make the movie about a fictional author named K.S.S. Folken who wrote The Snobbit and The King of the Crowns.

Not sure how they could prevent it. J.R.R. Tolkien is a public figure (and, at this point, a historical figure); he's fair game for any movie to use.

Indeed, you can make all the films about Tolkien you want. You just can't use or reference his intellectual property without permission.

Which you would think would make the whole process just a tad awkward, given that's what he's most known for.

Of course it's awkward, but apparently some filmmakers will try no matter what.

I mean, isn't there some kind of fair-use legal close for that? Using copyrighted material is one thing, but just mentioning it in a context it's indissociable from? By what kind of nonsensical loophole can that be considered illegal?

I think this is more a case of wanting to avoid ANY legal attention at all, since a lawsuit could be seen as tainting the legitimacy of the film. That's my guess, anyway.

I'm pretty sure linking to things like that are against forum rules, so maybe you should edit that out?

That's VERY against Forum rules. Seriously. Delet this.

Hmmm. Now I have to wonder what it was that Aaymeirah posted, since I missed the whole thing and now all that can be seen is a thump and "that's against forum rules."

Edited by Bense on May 13th 2019 at 3:29:41 AM