The White Council

Re: Peter Jackson answers questions

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: Here are some of the passages from Jackson's "interview" that bothered me:

OK, shoot.

: "We obviously have Sauron's various emissaries to represent him, but just how Sauron himself appears is still a puzzle we are trying to solve. I agree that you can't reduce him to being a big guy striding around in black armour - but he cannot be limited to a flaming eye either. It's tough. We'll keep working on it."

: Why can't Sauron remain just the Eye? That's something I cannot : understand.

A fair point. But I suspect that Jackson is concerned about how Sauron is going to come across in a film as a credible antagonist. What he may be alluding to might be rough glimpses of Sauron in his anthropomorphic form in flashbacks, i.e., of the combat with Elendil and Gil-galad. Perhaps a glimpse of a shape on the throne in the Dark Tower. Jackson will be best off leaving "suggestions" of Sauron, at least in the contemporary storyline. Which means, for the most part, a flaming eye. It will take a top-notch filmaker to make it work.

: "It is true that most of the cuts will come out of the first book. We have to reach Rivendell a little quicker than the book does, as that is the point that the story picks up. I don't agree that there's not much interesting stuff in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, but it does lack a urgency. That is one of the biggest problems with adapting the books - Tolkien gave his characters a fairly leisurely journey - I don't mean the length of the journey, but rather the lack of dramatic tension, especially pre-Rivendell. For the movies, we will have to make motivations a little tighter and more urgent. We have to focus on The Ring, Sauron and the threat to Middle-earth. There is not much room for : other stuff that is not directly connected to this narrative spine."

: See ya Tom Bombadil. Well, I expected that, so it's not too disappointing. What scares me is that the pruning could be too extensive. The Gildor and Farmer Maggot scenes will probably be cut too. But I hope Bree is kept 100% intact. I hope Glorfindel 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.

Very true. But again, you've got roughly two hours to get to the falls above Rauros. The pacing can't be too uneven. I figure he has at best 30-40 minutes or so to carry out the trip from Bag End to Rivendell. You're already talking about a good deal of "down-time" with "The Shadow of the Past" and the Rivendell chapters, which are absolutely essential and figure to soak up at least 10-15 minutes apiece (and they'll have to be cut enough as is). Bombadil and the Barrow wights are an obvious side trip that while adding much to the flavor of the book, aren't essential to the plot. Probably Farmer Maggot as well. You could make a stronger case for the meeting with Gildor in Woody End, but it's iffy. I'd agree that Bree and Weathertop are essential to the storyline, and I expect to see them included.

: "We have written the scripts in a reasonable "Tolkien" style ... on occasions using his dialogue verbatim. The older characters, i.e. Gandalf, Theoden, Denethor are pure Tolkien in their dialogue style. The younger hobbit characters slightly less so, but still not hip or modern. Sam will be pure Sam, and Gollum will be pure Gollum in style."

: Very scary to me. Tolkien style? Pure Tolkien? Verbatim in only some places? Why, why, why? Tolkien's dialogue is good enough for me.

And me. I hope he's careful about modifying the dialogue -- or worse yet, outright adding to it. Obviously heavy cutting is going to take place. I can live with *some* modification if the accent and ennunciation are otherwise correct.

: "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 film. So we have to find a way to include Arwen in more of the story,

: 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.

If Jackson is going where I think he's going, he's brought up a good point I hadn't thought of. Viewers won't have the benefit of the "Aragorn and Arwen" appendix, and their tragic romance is going to need at least a little more screen time to make it believable and something we can empathize with. So perhaps Jackson will not only retain every reference and event involving the two, but perhaps a flashback or two, possibly on Cerin Amroth or their first meeting in Rivendell, with a furtive kiss or two (no skin). I could live with that.

: 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'm cautiously hopeful thus far. If Bakshi didn't destroy the books for me, Jackson certainly can't. If it manages to be a reasonably faithful interpretation of Tolkien's world and good cinema (a tall order), he'll have accomplished no mean feat.