I'm glad this topic was brought up.

In the movie when Gimli spoke how he wanted to go through the mines and see his cousin etc.

Didn't it appear that Gandalf already knew that the dwarves were already dead, and didn't want to bring it up to Gimli for obvious reasons. He just gave that look on screen when Gimli brought up his cousin, like he just knew. I could be wrong, did anyone else get that feeling?

In the books, it was Gandalf, not Gimli who wished to go into the mines of Moria. Gimli was faintly aware that something bad had happened and that they had disturbed something beneath the earth.

He was not chipper about going in, and tried several times to persuade the party otherwise. I imagine they changed it for the movie to make Gandalf seem wiser and more omniscient. However, it's one of my biggest problems, because it doesn't work. It would follow that Gimli would at least have an idea that things are wrong in the caverns, even if he doesn't know what, if for no other reason than no one's had contact with Moria for many years. Gandalf, on the other hand, being human would not be expected to know the regional problems with the dwarvian race.

The mines were legendary to Gimli's people but he'd never actually been there. Also, they make a point of mentioning that dwarf doors were secret and even their masters could forget how to open them (or some such wording).

Also, the movie didn't go into this but the whole reason the dwarves were in Rivendell was because they had not heard from Balin and the others that had gone back to re-colonize the mines.

Ah. I guess I go that wrong. For some reason, I thought that all the Dwarf people lived in the mines. I thought that was their capital city or something.

Yeah, Gimli lived in the Misty Mountains. His dad was Gloin who was part of the party that went with Bilbo in the Hobbit book.

Hmmm, you make it sound like you've read the books. But if you did read them, then you would know that

Actually, Gimli lived in the Lonely Mountain

Yeah, you'd think the Jedi would've felt it.

at least YODA.. he was around then

oops, yeah, you are right.

When you actually compare Jackson's version to Bakshi's animated version the dialogue is quite different. Both Gandalf and Aragon have been through Moria once before and Aragon states: "The memory is very evil, I do not wish to enter Moria a second time" while other members of the group agree, Gimli says: "My cousin Balin led a company of dwarves through there many years ago and there has been no word of them all this time"

Boromir asks "What does the ringbearer say?"

Frodo states "I do not wish to go, but I will go, if Gandalf advises it". In the Jackson's version the interchange makes it sound like it was another fault of Frodo's for choosing to go through Moria. The line uttered by Frodo in the Bakshi script puts the decision back to Gandalf, which is quite clever on Frodo's behalf.

Secondly, the time difference between when Bilbo leaves and Gandalf returns to the Shire. Gandalf in voice over states "17 years later" and we see a rapid changing of the seasons, as best depicted in animation form.

Why is an elvish spell put on a gate/door to the Dwarf Mines? It's interesting that in the Bakshi version Legolas has a line direct towards Gimli after Gandalf has opened the door "So all you had to do was say 'friend' and enter" Gimli than says "those were happier times."

The Watcher in the Lake is also quite different in that it seems to have been purposefully put there to guard against the door into Moria, instead of crashing and destroying door as in Jackson's version, the creature recloses the door with it's long tentacles. Pippin also exclaims to Gandalf "Whatever it was, it grabbed Frodo first out of all of us." Gandalf retorts "Be quiet Pippin!"

I also like how in the Bakshi version both Merry and Pippin are less depicted as boffoons as they do Jackson's version. They seem even younger than Frodo and Sam, what is the age difference supposed to be between all the hobbits?

Jackson changed this to make Frodo more pro-active. Otherwise he becomes a very passive character just following along with the tide.

The time was compressed to "put a fire under the story". Frodo takes months to leave after Gandalf's warning in the book. Just a bit of cinematic license. It doesn't interfere with the spirit of the story to make the danger a bit more urgent.

Back in the day, there was a closer relationship with the Elves. The elves loved mithril which was mined from Moria. That door was the entrance the Elves used. The door says "'The Doors of Durin, Lord of Moria. Speak, friend and enter', and small and faint is written: 'I, Narvi, made them. Celebrimbor of Hollin drew these signs.'"
Celebrimbor was the elf who made the Rings of Power. There is a possible error in the use of the word Moria because that name, which means "Black pit" was not used until Durin's Bane was awakened. This is Tolkien's error.

Creative license.

Hobbits come of age at 33, so this can reasonably be likened to age 21 in humans. Pippin was 28. Frodo was 50. I don't have my books appendices with me, so I can't tell the ages of Merry or Sam, since I can't remember that in the text of the story (all I have in PDF format).

In one of the docs on disc 3 of the Extended version, Peter Jackson (or one of the other people attributed this to him) said that he wanted to make it seem like the Watcher was trying to find the Ring in keeping with one of the themes of the story.

Not to be contray, but I think it does interfere with the spirit of the book in that it takes away from the idea of the slow, almost unnoticed build up of Sauron's power, but I do agree that it doesn't hurt the film and was certainly a reasonable and understandable cinematic compromise.

In a book, one has the luxury of taking one's time. This is a threat that comes upon Frodo almost immediately...once he decides to finally go. That is the spirit of the story/plot. Don't confuse it with the fact that Tolkien's method of telling it involved meandering a bit. We don't get a slow almost unnoticed build up. We get reports of black riders in the Shire or them directly (an immediate threat) once Frodo leaves (if i'm not mistaken, do we even know the black riders are there until we see them on the road after Frodo? I'll have to review it.). That's when we find out Frodo has waited too long. All we lose is his incredible procrastination, not the way the threat is presented. Procrastination is a story complication here, necessary to allow the black riders time to get there, not the story itself.

In the movie, they seem to imply

I don't believe this to be spoiler material. Gandalf and Saruman are Maiar, spiritual beings of the same order as Sauron. Each are, however, in the physical body of an elderly but rigorous human subject to all human weaknesses such as hunger, pain, weariness, even temptations such as desire for power and control. They age slowly, but do age. They have been in MiddleEarth for about 2000 years and were sent by the Valar to help the peoples of MiddleEarth to help themselves in the struggle against Sauron. So, in a sense, they are human, but much more, too.

No, I disagree.

Gandalf was not aware that the Black Riders had been released, or that Gollum had been taken by Sauron and tortured for information about the Ring.

All he knew was that the Ring Frodo found was the One Ring and that he should take it to Rivendell where they would decide further on what to do.

Evil had been building up in Middle Earth for scores of years with only a fairly recent build up in intensity. I believe that even when they reached Rivendell for the Council of Elrond that a disappointment about the lack of response to his summons was expressed.

Our story begins with Bilbo's birthday party and the suspicions the Ring raised in Gandalf once he saw how the Ring had affected Bilbo (not aging, and the "my Precious" comment and attitude). There follows a 10-17 year period during which Gandalf does research at Minas Tirith and spends time hunting down Gollum with Aragorn.

Upon his return to the Shire, Gandalf told Frodo to leave soon, not immediately; and he certainly didn't think Frodo was in any immediate danger or (as I believe was said in the book) he would never had sent Frodo out, almost alone, with the Ring. Yes Frodo procrastinated, but it's not like he was acting out of some blithe ignorance of immediate danger.

And I guess I'm really talking more about a theme of the story than it's spirit, but I think one of the more interesting and important themes of the book is how Evil can develop and strengthen itself right under the nose of good people who wish to ignore it, or who just remain purposely oblivious of the world around them. The time it takes before some of our heroes actually notice their impending doom and start acting on it, is, in my opinion, an important part of developing this theme. By showing Gandalf running straight to Minas Tirith, finding the scroll and coming back to the Shire to send Frodo running off to Rivendell in a matter of five or so minutes doesn't convey the same feeling of people not paying attention to things that they should.

But as I said, I agree that what's in the book wouldn't work for this movie, I just don't think it's as unnecessary to the book's story as it sounds like you're implying.

I love these debates

Ok, I'm not saying it is unnecessary to the book, I'm just saying it is not a compromise to the spirit of the story.
Read "Shadow of the Past" again. He doesn't say anything about the black riders, but he definitely talks about Gollum being captured by Sauron and tortured for info and says that the enemy is moving.

Looking in my copy of FOTR, between Gandalf leaving after the long expected party and his reappearance 17 years later is approx 4 pages. What happens on those 4 pages? Not much. Frodo continues the parties every year, a bit of gossip. That's about it. Nothing about Sam, Merry and Pippin. Just that they exist. Gandalf shows up and says that he'd been researching the Ring. Nothing that isn't accomplished by compressing the time a bit. All the story needs is to establish that a bit of time has passed. He tells Frodo to leave soon. There are a few pages of Frodo procrastinating, but nothing of any import happens between when he is told to leave and when he actually does. When he actually does leave, he is set upon by the Black Riders right away, so there is some urgency there. All we lose is his reluctance to leave, which might say a little about his character but it isn't significant to the plot. Thousand page novels can interweave thematic lines, but a motion picture doesn't have that luxury. Especially a theme that doesn't really add much more than flavor. It's not a theme that is really repeated in the rest of the novel.

The spirit of the story is not harmed by the time compression. Even the loss of Gandalf and Aragorn catching Gollum in that 17 year span doesn't add anything to the plot. It is just for exposition's sake. We don't know how PJ will present that exposition to us, but it doesn't matter if it comes from Gandalf. If you think about it, lots of LOTR is told second hand. It works better in a film to present events firsthand, otherwise the whole film becomes a series of flashbacks. It's not that big of a deal in literature because in the written word, we are "told" what happens so the author has a choice of presenting the information himself omnisciently or telling the event from a character's point of view. Films "show" us what happens so it makes less sense to have everything as a flashback unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

In the EE, Jackson, McKellan, and Christopher Lee all refer to the wizards are spirits in human bodies, which shows that 1) the makers of the movie consider Gandalf to be a Maiar, and 2) they don't consider that information to be particularly spoilerific.

I wouldn't use this as criteria to determine if it is spoiler material or not. It seems that their position is that everyone has read the books. Look at the Two Towers trailers which That is a HUGE spoiler...

Can primary characters be spoilers?

You've read the book, you know

But if you haven't read the book, seeing is a spoiler.

*Spoiler Half-warning: I'm about to argue that something is a spoiler, sketchily describe the spoiling info, and so maybe spoil TT for someone. But I doubt it, because New Line has done such a terrific job disseminating the spoil already.*

I think it's downright silly that they're featuring Gandalf the White so prominently in the publicity. This is a spoiler if anything ever was. (Sure, the presence of Arwen is even more of a spoiler -- but that's "spoiling" the film in a different sense.) The Gandalf thing is just plain disrespectful to the audience, in the proud and oblivious tradition of movie marketing.

I doubt anyone will have a bad time at TT because they knew about Gandalf's return. But I bet there will be lots of who would have had a better time if they hadn't known, which is what makes a spoiler a spoiler, no? There are more than plenty Gandalf-less scenes from which to construct advertising for this flick, and I bet there won't be anyone sitting in the theater who'd be sitting at home instead if they hadn't known Ian McKellan would be appearing in the film -- Oscar nod notwithstanding.

Me too.

I think we're halfway to being on the same page.

"[N]ot a compromise to the spirit of the story,"? Well, not the overall spirit, but certainly an aspect of it. Sure it's not touched on much in the rest of the book, but then once the danger is upon you and you've regretted that you didn't act more quickly or regretted that others were so indifferent, it's time to move on to addressing the task at hand.

I still think that the gathering clouds while people party and live thier lives is an important theme of the beginning of the tale. It can be applied to so many other real life stories and historical events. Leaving it out removes another layer of texture from the richness of the story.

Yes, taking it out is necessary for the film to be made in an entertaining fashion, and it certainly does no damage to the plot, but it's just an example of what can tend to make book to film translations a let down at times.

Of course, the performance of Sean Bean as Boromir, the scenes of Gandalf at Orthanc and the scenes with Saruman are all magnificent reasons why book to film translations can be such great things as well.

(And sorry about the timeline/Gollum mix up...I haven't read the book in a year, so I'm a little sketchy on some parts. )

I'm not sure they can keep something like the fact that a secret.

I mean,