Posted: August 30, 1998 at 21:46:29: by Gary
: remains in the story. And I hope that some of the "leisurely" ramble through the Shire is kept. I don't see the need for constant dramatic tension. The best movies pause and are reflexive at times before moving on to the meat of the story.I have every faith that these INTERPRETATIONS will contain plenty
of reflective pauses and leisurely sequences. But when it comes
down to it they only have 6 hours to tell the story. SOME
stuff has to be cut. There is really no option. : scary to me. Tolkien style? Pure Tolkien? Verbatim in only some places? Why, why, why? Tolkien's dialogue is good enough for me. Because, this INTERPRETATION has to be SHORTER than the books.
Some dialogue must be shortened. There is no other way to do it.
It will be painful, but necessary. : "For example, the Aragorn/Arwen romance is a lovely part of the story ...but if it was filmed exactly as Tolkien wrote it, they would have maybe 10 minutes screentime together over 6 hours of
: Yikes. I don't know about this. I suppose it will provide more insight into Aragorn's dilemnas...that could be interesting. But on-screen romance? Yuck. Ick, kissing. That's girl stuff. Ick ick ick. : In general, though, I think Jackson has the right ideas. I am especially glad that he puts to rest the Connery rumor. I only hope that he sticks to British/Irish accents for the speaking characters. I think he's gong to do a hell of a job and I can't wait to
see it. Of course the book will still be 'better'. But
damned if this won't be a great movie. Purists of course,
always have the option to stay home and read the books for
the thousandth time, and not see the film.
| 
