: Some compression is necessary, although some of the things Moriarty reveals are not defensible:

:

:   From this point on, the writers wisely focus all the action on
:   the Ring. Bilbo vanishes, leaving Bag End to Frodo's care.
:   Gandalf warns Frodo to hide the Ring carefully, only to show up
:   seven months later, dirty, exhausted, dishevelled. He knows the
:   true nature of the Ring now, and his explanation to Frodo does
:   a wonderful job of filling us in without burying us. Jackson
:   and company seem to have learned their lesson from the
:   adaptation of DUNE, where the exposition was so dense that
:   Universal actually handed out glossary guides with each ticket
:   purchased. Everything in these scripts is handled with a
:   feather touch..
: 

: Well, I wish that were true. There is no reason to replace Tolkien's seventeen years with "seven months later" in the script. Hopefully this will be corrected in the current script, as it will only lead to irrefutable criticisms.

::: "Indefensible"? "Irrefutable criticisms"? Hmmm. Seems like we each have our ideas of what is "precious". I think the change from seventeen years to seven months is just as defensible in a film adaptation as any other point: the most basic being that it adds urgency to the story. Gandalf's been out looking for Gollum - what difference if it takes him less time in the film than it did in the book? In film time is telescoped. We know from having read the whole story 20 times and the appendices 25 times that many things happened in those years (in a particular order) but the only thing really important to the main plot is that Gandalf got Gollum to talk. I suppose you could argue that the longer time period would show the effect of the Ring on Frodo (no visible aging) but with Elijah Wood in the role, who's going to notice that?

: : Maybe I'm being nitpicky, and maybe there are things that will
: : be corrected with the new scripts. I hope so. I will never
: : understand why filmmakers feel they have to redo the book.
: : It's just not neccesary.

: That's not fair. There is no way the book can be turned into a workable movie script without some changes. Wholesale deletions (such as the disappearance of Bombadil) are, IMO, regrettable but preferable to changing the history the way Moriarty implies a MAJOR point is changed (see above).

: I won't guess whether Arwen has something to do with confounding the Witch-king. It would certainly weaken the story if she did, but I have long expected that there would be differences between the films and the book -- it's an adaptation, after all, and it's Peter Jackson's adaptation. In a way, it's his story -- his version of the story. If you or I were to describe the book to a friend and attempt to provide visual cues, we would undoubtedly tell widely divergent stories.

:::As to fears about Arwen - I wish people would remember another woman character Tolkien created - namely Luthien. This is the model I hope PJ is using for his more active Arwen. She will NOT be Xena. She will be Luthien at Beren's side, brave enough to withstand the gaze of Morgoth. I'll bet she rides from Rivendell in search of Aragorn her beloved and helps when the Riders attack a la Glorfindel. And that would be cool by me.