I think another component is the difference expectations of the audience. For the book, Tolkien could have to some amount thought readers would be familiar with Gandalf from the Hobbit. And so they would be more familiar with his character and how suspicious this is. For a huge blockbuster movie, you would not assume the audience knows about Gandalf previously. Which means they have less of a handle on his character and could think things completely out of left field.

The only real quibble I had with PJ's version was how ridiculous Gandalf looked spinning up to the top of Orthanc .

Notably, Jackson’s approach was not new. Bakshi also interlaced Frodo’s POV from Book 1 with Gandalf’s speech at the Council of Elrond. The BBC radio series went even further and interlaced both those and the external account of the Black Riders’ interactions with Saruman and Grima.

I wonder what a restaurant menu would list for breakfast, 2nd breakfast and elevenses? Peter Jackson, I imagine should be consulted since those terms are not in the books. Though in the Hobbit, Bilbo does have a second breakfast I believe before Gandalf shows up and prompts him to join Thorin and Company.

I think Tolkien had another motive in mind for Gandalf’s temporary incarceration. In that time, the Hobbits meet the two greatest beings in Middle Earth: Bombadil and Goldberry!

You fill my nerdy heart with joy

There's also the conversation between the Gaffer and a Black Rider.

Whenever anyone says the films didn't have time for character development & suspense, remember that Jackson inserted 20-minute battle scenes which are over in a few sentences in the books. Jackson's priority was spectacle, Tolkien's was story & character.

Great comparison

A difference I've noticed in Peter Jackson's telling of the story versus the original is that Tolkien nearly always had a hobbit at hand for events told in the "present" tense (there are exceptions - notably with Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas "side missions"). There were no hobbits around when Gandalf visited Saruman so this is told in flashback at the Council of Elrond. Gollum's journey to Mordor and capture by Aragorn are similarly revealed. The romance between Arwen and Aragorn and Elrond's objections to it are left in the appendices. Private conversations not involving hobbits, say, Aragorn and Boromir's interactions at Lothlorien or Gandalf and Elrond's in Rivendell, are left to the imagination. The re-forging of the shards of Narsil into Anduril, shown in the film to Howard Shore's swelling score is simply described as having happened in the books. This list goes on. It is, I think, part of the reason Merry and Pippen were separated in LOTR. Tolkien wanted a hobbit witness and participant to both the mustering of the Rohirrim and the siege of Gondor. One reason for Jackson's great success in the LOTR trilogy was bringing to life not only what fans had seen in their minds eye when reading the books, but also showing them things Tolkien himself had left out, only implied or described in tension-free flashbacks. In general, this approach served the films quite well, but ultimately, I would argue, its over use led to the failure of The Hobbit films where Bilbo was ultimately relegated to side-character status. Thorin was never intended to be a quasi-Aragorn.

I just realized its a lot like translating between two unrelated languages, you have different grammar which makes how you stress things differently. Like in English we put a certain amount of vocal stress into the most important word in a phrase which completely changes the meaning. For example; "I didn't steal *her* money" is different from " *I* didn't steal her money" which is different from "I didn't steal her *money* " In Latin this wouldn't make any sense, it would sound like you were saying the same thing over and over again. Instead because each word has a suffix which marks it's relationship to the other words in the sentence, in order to stress something, you would simply say it sooner in the sentence, this is called free word order. For example; "Carthago delenda est" *carthage* must be destroyed "delenda est Carthago" carthage must be *destroyed* I mention all this because we can almost compare the different ways of story telling the film and the book to this. The movie shuffles in hints because the "grammar" of cinema means that long exposition of Gandalf's story in the council would be bad, where as the "word order" of the story is freer in book form.

Thanks for the vid!

Melon Geek: Again, and excellent contrast between the books and the movies. I understand why the medium dictates the condensing of the timeline and the changes to the unraveling of any mysteries. However, certain things were NOT necessary in telling the epic through a visual medium. I speak here of the battle between the wizards in Isengard. This is all very Harry Potter--before Harry Potter was ever filmed. (In The Hobbit movie also, the White Council attacking Dol Goldur is likewise too unlike Tolkien.) There are several ways the treason of Saruman could have been shown without this nonsense battle. Saruman could have used spells to cloak the exits so that Gandalf ends up imprisoned on the pinnacle. Instead we are served a telekinetic wrestling match, which the book never so much as hinted. Plus in the movie, Saruman takes Gandalf's staff and doesn't return it---so Gandalf escapes without it. Yet in Rivendell, Gandalf is there with his staff. (Jackson's treatment of the staff gets worse in the Return of the King and The Hobbit.) You are right, the movie doesn't have the luxury of the time that the book takes to tell the story. But some changes are not excusable. Keep up the great work, my dear melon! Namarie.

it's a good idea to occupy Gandalf for most of these stories with other things. otherwise he'd overshadow the other characters as they struggle .

My first Thought when I found the title of this video, was of Gandalf disappearance in the Hobbit when he leaves them on the edge of Mirkwood. I actually liked what PJ did with showing his adventure there instead of leaving it a total mystery like the book did. 🤷‍♀️😄

Interesting take on the differences. I’ve saw the movies before reading the book. I haven’t read the hobbit yet but saw the films.

While I get that you have to make changes to the story due to the medium, but one of the problems I have with the difference between the book and the movie is the pacing. I liked the slow pacing of the books (I read them first) whereas in the movies, they were running everywhere which didn't make sense to me. In the books, the story actually takes about 30 years or so instead of a "few months" at most. I have similar complaints about the Hobbit adaptation as well is the pacing was off badly (I actually read the Hobbit in less time than it took to watch the movies).

Was there a breakdance battle in the books also?

I am sorry to be so rude and ask a question like this but you are among very few people on my list of genuine Tolkien experts. I got suggested a video about a special scene from Fellowship of the Rings. It is where Gandalf meet the Balrog and he get whipped off his feet - hanging from the edge of the destroyed bridge and look at the Fellowship and then say: "Run you fools"... well the video said that it have been changed into "Fly, you fools" and I just couldn't believe it!. I had to check and sure enough Gandalf is saying "Fly, you fools" when I stream the chapter from Prime - he is saying "Flee, you fools" when I grab my 2 disc DVD from 12th of November 2002. Here is the strange part; I honestly recall Gandalf saying "Run, you fools" and are quite certain because I have been selling DVD/VHS since 1999 and recall that we in August 2002 had a midnight release with the store open and big arrangement with wine and food because Aragon is from my country Denmark - in that occacion SF Film had released an extended trailer that we had looping in the store for a whole week - this special scene was feaured in that trailer so I am 100% certain to recall Gandalf is saying "Run, you fools" before he let go of his grib and fall into the void with the Balrog - even today I can hear his voice express that sentence in my head. Is this important? I don't know - I just know that I have to at least ask someone if they also recall what I do - if so, then the sentence have been altered since the release of the original first manufactured DVD material. I am sorry to come off like a crazy woman and hope that you can help me out.

Honestly, I think you could have put off the explanation of Gandalf's disappearance. A lot was added that wasn't there in the book. Like the palantír, which should not have come into play so soon (realising "oh shit, Sauron has a palantír, I bet Denethor does too given things he knows, is he compromised?" is what spurs the flight to Minas Tirith. While it couldn't be done exactly that way for the film, I do think it was brought in far too early), that awful wizard fight which should have been cut at the point Saruman closes the doors, trapping Gandalf, and the industrialisation of Isengard. Skip those bits, and you can have a tighter story of the capture and escape that doesn't bog things down. Since most of the council's exposition is absent anyway because whole histories and storylines are removed for pacing, the council can still move quickly, and it tells the other characters why Saruman the Wise is not being consulted in the matter, something which is markedly lacking. We know why, Gandalf and probably Elrond know, but no point that I recall does anyone else query it. Another alternative would have been Frodo's dream in the House of Tom Bombadil (obviously removed to another location) where he saw Gandalf trapped on the tower but didn't really know what he was seeing. Something that doesn't tell us clearly, but the puzzle pieces fit once we get the reveal. It all just seemed too much like not trusting the audience to me. While obviously changes had to be made (and a lot of things cut) to condense the story into three instalments in a different medium, I'm often sceptical when people say "this was the way it had to be done", given we don't have any examples of good attempts to do it another way. Maybe this was the best way to go, maybe a different vision could have been just as good or better. We can't know. It also depends on where the focus is placed, as that dictates how scenes are managed. Jackson's was on the absolute power of the ring, which by its nature changed otherwise sound story beats that would definitely have worked on film if a more appropriate focus was adopted. That isn't to say that the films didn't do a lot of things well, just that a lot of changes people deem necessary for the medium actually lessened their cinematic impact for me, where the new medium gave them extra tricks with which to enhance them. Maybe in another 20 years or so when everyone with a bit of drive and the right tools gets the chance to portray their visions, we'll really see what does and doesn't work. I think I've strayed a bit off the topic, so I'll end here, as I'm capable of a lot of strange tangents. Ultimately, people enjoy the films, and they got a lot of people into the books as well, so by all metrics they got a lot right, regardless of nitpickers like me.

There are a couple of parts of the movies where portraying simultaneous action lowers the suspense. Gandalf's disappearance is the lesser of them. I think the most important is when Aragorn takes the Paths of the Dead. In the books you don't know what is coming up the river when the corsair ships arrive at the Pelennor Fields; in the movie you know it is Aragorn. I think it weakens the effect.

It's all better than TRoP....

The films are for 21st century short-attention-span adolescents; the books are for readers of the 1940s/50s, people who would have learnt Latin at school, people with low time preference and significantly greater attention spans.

1st viewer 🙂!