Should Tom Bombadil have been in the movies?

[The Only Real Estel]

I'm thinking he definatly should have been. He might confuse some people, but he takes up a few chapters in the books! He's a pretty important character! If they're so concerned about getting the hobbits the right accents, you'd think maybe the'd stick Bombadil in (even just for a while...?). Oh well, that's my opinion, what's yours?

[Arien]

No....because although he was a main character I don't think there would be enough time to fit him in. There was no point in just sticking him in for one scene and then ending it otherwise we would be complainig that he did not get enough screen time. And his character is worth more than just one simple scene. The problem is while I am happy to go and see a six hour film of The Fellowship of the Ring most people arn't and Im sure if PJ could have done that he would of put him in, along with the other characters missed out. However........<P>I believe he would be very hard to portray rightly and then we would be complaining about that.(Are we ever happy???). I think he is better left in the books where our imagination can make him as we want.<p>[ April 18, 2003: Message edited by: Arien ]

[Tinuviel the Nightingale]

No I don't think that Tom Bombadil should have been in the movie, because yes, it would have been very hard to put a part like that in, and not have people get annoyed at him. No offence to anyone who loves good old Tom Bombadil, but I could see many people getting annoyed with his character. It would be a jar jar binks like disaster, but with a real person instead.

[The Only Real Estel]

Yeah, he would equal jar-jar if he sang! But if they made it like three and a half hours long he might fit in. Although I think I'll change my position and say no, if it's just a 3 hour movie, he shouldn't be.

[the guy who be short]

hes not that important anyway. i mean, he sings a bit, gives the hobbits a place to stay, and goes. he has n connection with the rest of the storyline. so it still makes sense when they leave him out. and yes, he would annoy people. i mean, have you seen al the "lord of the rings in 5 minutes" things? they all go something like this:<BR>tom bombadil: old tom bombadil...<BR>hobbits: weirdo<BR>t.b.: hey dol! merry dol!<BR>hobbits: shut up

[The Only Real Estel]

He also saved the hobbits lived from Old Man Willow and the Barrow-Wight, but I can see your point.

[elven maiden Earwen]

I would have liked to see him in the movie and Old Man Willow and Goldberry and the Barrow-Downs in the movie just to see what there like, but it would be very confusing to many people to see and guy with yellow boots all of the sudden if they hadnt read the book. Even though you miss out on lot of the hobbits journey they probely shouldnt have been in the movies to because they may not protray them correctly.<p>[ April 18, 2003: Message edited by: elven maiden Earwen ]

[Goldberry]

I love Tom Bombadil; he's one of my favorite characters. But I think it wouldn't really work out if he had been in the movie. Like the others said, he would have seemed annoying, and there wasn't really time to put him in.

[Liriodendron]

Since he wasn't, I think they (someone)should make a movie based on Tom. Start with the hobbits wandering into the old forest, and cover the whole bit in stunning visual detail. The ending shot, Goldberry....."small and slender like a sunlit flower against the sky."

[Mithadan]

Sending this thread to the Movies Forum.

[Durelin]

No, it's the 21st century with stinkin MTV. But quit busting Jar-Jar! JAR-JAR ROCKS! He kicks all your butts! You guys are mean. *mumbles*can't even keep quiet on a Tolkien related message boarsd...dang haters. <P>Anyway, I like old Tom, but, ya know, he just doesn't fit in with the true mood of the story when you must compress it into three movies. You can't waste time on him. Even if I do enjoy his songs. Maybe they'll do a childrens show! I can see it now! <I>Old Tom Bombadil, the Merry Fellow!</I> it could be like a mix between Barney and Pee-wee Herman. <P>Sorry. Got a bit carried away. Back to the subject...

[Deathwail]

I agree it would of been very hard for a real person to play Tom and not look like a moron doing it (Jar Jar style) i do wish they could of got the Barrow-Wight Ghosts in and the scary part of the tomb Frodo and the others where trapped in.

[The Evenstar]

No, I definetly think it was a good choice to keep him out of the movies, because he would have kept the main story from progressing,and would have halted the excitement a little, if ya know what I mean!

[The Only Real Estel]

Good points everybody. I do wish they could've put the barrow downs part in (& Old Man Willow too), but then they'd have to put up with a merry old fellow, dressed in yellow. If they're gonna keep the 3 hours, then no, no Bombadill. Now a longer movie (4 to 5 hours), I'd probably give him his dues than.

[Arvedui III]

I agree. Poor old Tom really doesn't have anything to do with Frodo going to Mordor, so he really doesn't need to be in a conventenal movie. But I'd be willing, if not happy to sit through a five hour version that inculded the whole Barrow-Down episode.

[Iarwain]

I mourn. Tom doesn't have anything to do with Frodo going to Mordor, but that is not a statment that only applies to poor old tom. We could eliminate a huge list of characters on the same grounds: Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn, Treebeard, Saruman, even Aragorn. His character has as much value as any other, if not more for the fact that it is purely unique. Tom's character has huge value in the fact that the Lord of the Rings is a legend. We may go to great lengths to explain away the existence of almost all the other characters in Tolkien's Middle-Earth, but Tom is the one which is impossible to explain away. He is a part of the story, and that is the only purpose of his exsistence in Middle-Earth. Removing him is removing one of the truths about Arda as a whole.<P>Iarwain<p>[ April 18, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Arvedui III]

True, but Eowyn, Theoden, and Aragorn all have somthing to do with how the story ends. I guess I should have said poor old Tom doesn't have anything to do with the resolution of the story, and it's best that way. I agree though, Middle Earth isn't the same without Tom Bombadil to enrich it.<p>[ April 18, 2003: Message edited by: Arvedui III ]

[Rynoah, the Overly-Happy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I believe he would be very hard to portray rightly and then we would be complaining about that.(Are we ever happy???). I think he is better left in the books where our imagination can make him as we want.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I agree. He would have come off as annoying, too optimistic.<P>However, I do wish they would have had at least a tiny part of him or a character like Bombadil just to show that Middle-Earth isn't this world "full of scum and villainy", to quote Obi-Wan Kenobi; that it does have some light-hearted aspects. I guess the Shire portrayed that somewhat, but I think Bombadil could have also added to it, even if his part was short (perhaps just have him free the Hobbits from Old Man Willow and send them on their way). If written carefully and portrayed any where near as well as Grima Wormtongue (who, I believe, would be a rather difficult character to pull off), he could have been brought into the movie quite well and then just quietly step aside for the story to continue. Even a short bit of him in the Extended edition would've been nice.<P>But I babble.

[The Only Real Estel]

Yes, Bobmadil would've been 'nice' to have, but we have to make some concessions. Although I don't really agree that it would've halted the action to much. Lothlorien halted the actio brielfly, and it was all right.

[Thulorongil]

I think that Bombadil should have been in the movies, as well as the Barrow-Downs, because of Pip's sword. If I recall correctly, Pippin's sword (taken from the Downs) once belonged to a Gondorian soldier (or something like that) and was a factor in Denethor being intrigued by the hobbit.<P>I do think, though, that keeping the movie being the whole first volume would be very long if Tom & the Downs were added, but if they had made the movie by "Books" (FotR was really "Book 1" and "Book 2") then there could have been a lot more room for all of the Shire events.

[Meela]

No.

[Frodo Brandybuck]

Although the chapters in FOTR containing Tom Bombadil are fairly large chapters, I don't think they would have added much to the movies. Don't get me wrong Tom Bombadil is great, and I love the chapters involving him, but they really don't add much to the quest of getting to Rivendell and destroying the Ring. So no. Tom Bombadil should not have been in the movies

[Liriodendron]

Tom certainly does not have the desire to interact with Sauron, he seems to come from before his/that time. He is a wonderful example of the magic of Middle Earth, or should I say Arda-unmarred. His connection to the living land, like the Ents, is some of the "core" magic of Middle Earth (to me and the best, most interesting part). He "sings" the song of the structural creatures of ME. (for lack of a better description! )His wife is the "river's daughter"! It's not "All" about the children of Illuvatar! (IMO) I'm glad he isn't in the movie I guess, because his character might have been asigned a "ring related" purpose, and I like him clean and fresh! Whatever!

[HCIsland]

I like Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Down chapters but the very fact that they could jump cut from Bucklebury Ferry to the gates of Bree without missing a beat shows that he does not do much for advancing the story. The chapters do a lot of giving us glimpses of the history of Arnor, but are not needed. The hobbits can get their swords from Aragorn and Merry has the elven blade to stab the Witch King with.<P>To do Tom and the Barrow Wrights justice would have taken at least half an hour of the movie. Tell me the half hour to take out! In the meantime the non-book reader is wondering exactly where this movie is going. It already takes an hour and a half to get the to the Council of Elrond and the forming of the Fellowship where the central plot is finally laid out.<P>I love old Tom, but I would rather have him taken out completely than to give him some token appearance that would never satisfy anyone.<P>H.C.<p>[ April 20, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[Iarwain]

Wise words, HC. I agree completely. My problem with debates such as this is with those who justify his removal by questioning the value of his character. By their standards it is almost impossible to judge what a worthy character is, as they call him annoying and say he is a bore to the beginning of the book. Tom Bombadil is a wandering minstrel, scorned by all for being what he is, a necessary anamoly without which this story would lose much of its mysticism.<P>Iarwain

[HCIsland]

Capturing Tom on film would be tough. He has a spirituality that extends beyond the petty concerns of Elves, Men and Wizards who, when the history of the world is written, are but a small part. I love the moment in the book where Frodo gives him the Ring and Tom does a little disappearing trick with it.<P>In a movie that is already packed with detail, would Jackson really want to throw in Bombadil, a character who's nature is still debated half a century latter? Talk about confusing an already confused viewer. <P>It's scenes like this where Lord of the Rings would make an awesome television series where Tom could be a guest star for three or four episodes and you could really explore and have fun with him.<P>H.C.<p>[ April 21, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[The Only Real Estel]

I would like to know if they're going to try to explain the hobbits blades of Weternesse or not. The blades were to be included the killing of the Witch-King, and it was from Bombadil that Merry got thw sword he used to stab the Witch-King.

[HCIsland]

Why do you think Merry and Pippin got the elven blades from Galadriel rather than just some belts?<P>H.C.

[Daewen]

I believe that since Tom Bombadil's role consisted mainly of singing rather repitious songs with the words "derry dol" and "merry dol" in them for a few chapters he didn't need to be in the movie. I know that he saved the Hobbits from the Barrow Wight, but since Frodo began his journey instantly in the movie, rather than constructing a well thought out plan and leaving months later as he did in the book, it gave a sense to the veiwer that he was in a great hurry to get to Bree, and would obviously not cut through a woods...a "haunted" woods at that. Besides, as some of you may recall, Gandalf, in the movie, instructed Frodo to stick to the roads, so again going through the woods would not only take longer but now would also be disobeying Gandalf...which was not a wise thing to do in both the book and the movie. Some of you may be thinking that Tom should be in the movie just because he supplied the Hobbits with their swords and all, but Peter Jackson was able to work that into the movie anyway. Although it may have been interesting to see how Tom was portrayed in the movies, it would have made it <I>much</I> longer and it would have brushed off the sense of urgency and impending doom that Frodo's rushed departure had created.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Besides, as some of you may recall, Gandalf, in the movie, instructed Frodo to stick to the roads, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Actually, he said to stay off the roads. I think my first encounter with a Ring Wraith would be enough insentive for me to cut through the woods.<P>H.C.

[Earendil Halfelven]

Ahhhh...good ol' Tom. When I first read LOTR, he was the most boring character that I ever had to read. I would have skipped him totally, but I didn't want to miss anything. But now that I read them again, he isn't so boring. <BR>I think PJ made a good decision about not putting him in. But even if they had filmed Tom, it would have been a good idea to leave it out of the theatrical version, but then put him in in the special extended version.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Hail <B>Iarwain!</B><P>* bows a greeting *<P>Cease all such talk now of scorn and deriding<BR>For I dreamed that a minstrel came down the path gliding<BR>Smooth as a skipping stone on a pond bounding<BR>Spread bright song, shed soft light as the corner he was rounding<BR>Turned back from his realm taint of dusk's shadow falling<BR>As the first owls of night in the willows were calling<BR>Framed as he was in a glow white and yellow<BR>... Old Tom Bombadil, you're a merry fellow! <P>Yes, I actually dreamed the above. * nods remembrance while lighting a fresh conversational bowl of Longbottom Leaf *<P>Tom Bombadil = transcendence. He embodies the importance of being, not doing. The House of Tom Bombadil serves the same purpose as the safe havens of Rivendell and Lothlórien ... a spiritual retreat where time meets timelessness ... providing renewal, refreshment, encouragement, the forging of good memories to look back on and draw strength from later when the road darkens. Old Tom’s childlike fascination with and awesome knowledge of all things "natural history" kindle infectious enthusiasm, openness to inspiration, and optimism towards future possibilities.<P>I personally know someone whose personality bears a strikingly eerie resemblance to Tom Bombadil, and so can put a face to a name. This friend of mine happens to be a Natural Historian / Historical Interpreter working for a well-known park system. As part of his living history program, he plays fiddle for people to dance to, tells stories, cracks jokes, banters good-humoredly with fellow historical re-enactors (myself included!) and park visitors alike. Even the singing is true to form! He’s become a famous and well-respected colorful character locally throughout the parks, and teachers give him high marks for the programs he presents to grade school students in class.<P>In my eyes, Elves making merry and singing lightly in jest does not diminish their respectability, but rather vouches for the kind of personal integrity and humility that allows one to laugh at self and with others. I would say the same for Tom Bombadil. I'd even venture that it takes courage to be oneself in such a way, to show sincere lighthearted whimsy. In a world where people judge according to appearances and often seek to project an aura of dignity the better to make a powerful first impression, and look for an expected air of answering sizing-up dignity in those they meet ... how very refreshing to simply enjoy life! <P>As for whether or not Tom should have been in the movies ... how does one portray such transcendence?<P>At your Service,<P>Gandalf the Grey<p>[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Gandalf_theGrey ]

[Meela]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> When I first read LOTR, he was the most boring character that I ever had to read. I would have skipped him totally, but I didn't want to miss anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I skipped him entirely. I attempted to read the section, but he absolutely terrified me, so I jumped the rest.

[Liriodendron]

Why? I don't understand! Was it the rhyming and/or singing? I was just upset that all Tom's rainy day stories and explanations of the way things were, and what the lesser (animals, plants) creatures of ME thought was just hinted at. The hobbits got stories! I wanted stories!

[HCIsland]

My wife and I have finished reading The Hobbit to our seven year old at night and have moved on to Fellowship. We just finished A Short Cut To Mushrooms and he's very intrigued with how different it's getting. I can't wait until Tom, he'll love him.<P>H.C.

[Sharkû]

This thread need not have been opened or replied to with the abundance of Tom-stuff there already is; just a reminder.

[Frodo 007]

Tom should so be in the movies!!!I know it would take longer but i wouldnt care, but i guess some people would and thats why they didnt put him in the movies!!!

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Iarwain- Eomer, Theoden, Eowyn, Treebeard, and Saruman and many others do play parts in Frodo going to Mordor (actually Aragorn does play a larger part since he brought them to Rivendell, you see what I mean). They all provide a distraction so while Sauron is busy looking towards Gondor, he does not notice the pitter patter of four hobbit feet and a flap of two. But Tom does play a part also, he saves Frodo, once, and possibly twice. If old Tom were never there, the quest would never have started in the first place<P>I do not think that tom should be in the movies. I would like him to, believe me. But it works when you leave him out. I shudder to think how they would have butchered him if he was in the movie. And besides, Tom is my favorite part in the book. It might alter my view and ruin it if it was portrayed a certain way in the movies. It wasn't in the Bakshi film, which actually introduced me to Tolkien. It was the only part in FotR that I read unaffected by any other influence, because there were no influences. So I'm kind of grateful that Tom isn't in the movies. But I do think that if Arwen got to be in the film and have that modified part, I think Tom deserved his part.<P>Thulorongil: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> because of Pip's sword. If I recall correctly, Pippin's sword (taken from the Downs) once belonged to a Gondorian soldier (or something like that) and was a factor in Denethor being intrigued by the hobbit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>And merry's sword too, with the Witch King. They probably are going to use the one Merry got from Galadriel though, as HC pointed out. And Galadriel did say the daggers had seen battle before so maybe we'll have that history of it told in RotK.

[Arwen_Evenstar]

In a book somewhere it said that PJ was thinking of putting in a scene where the Hobbits were walking through the forest when they saw a blue hat and heard singing and got scared and ran off, may have been a movie guide of some description, but he didnt for some reason or another...maybe because it would confuse people who hadn't read the books....i dno....backup would be apreciated!

[Elrowen Greenleaf]

I wish that they could have put Bomadil in... but than again, I would have had no objection to the movie having been alot longer too. Must remember that even though Jar Jar Binks is stupid, he was an integral part in the Star Wars saga. (Don't even get me stared on Star Wars.... otherwise... I will talk your ear off...)<P>I personally think though, that PJ did an excellent job with the time ect. that he had.

[Faybevin Bombadil]

Tom Bombadil is definitely my favorite character of all time, no question (followed then by Bilbo Baggins). My opinion stands thus:<P>-If adding him to the movie caused him to seem like a dandy or "jar-jar" character then I would not want to see him in the movie. Also, by not putting him in the movie it sort of gives original LOTR fans a character to hold on to as their 'own'.<P>-If adding him to the movie was possible, and they gave him enough time by taking out some other parts, then I would have loved to see him in the movie. Also, I think it would have been neat to see him in the extended version. I'd like to see who they would have portrayed as Old Tom.<P>Love,<BR>Faybevin, daughter of Bombadil

[The Only Real Estel]

They might end up useing the 'elvish daggers' as subs for the barrow-swords; but in the books they also recieved the daggers with the belts, HC (why do you think they got the daggers and not just the belts?). That's what I was responding to.

[The Saucepan Man]

He was silly in the book and he would have been even sillier in the film. I, for one, am grateful to Jackson for sparing us the "hey dol! merry dol!"'s. <P>Seriously, I agree with all that has been said about the Tom Bombadil scenes being expendable as far as the basic storyline of the films is concerned. <P>I would have liked to have seen the events on the Barrow Downs in the film (what self-respecting B-D'er would not?). And given Jackson's film-making background, I am sure that it would have appealed to him. But, again, the scene was not necessary to the story. And having the Barrow Wight without Tom would no doubt have caused even more uproar here on the Downs.

[HCIsland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The Lady bowed her head, and she turned then to Boromir, and to him she gave a belt of gold; and to Merry and Pippin she gave small silver belts, each with a clasp wrought like a golden flower. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>If I'm missing something, please let me know (it sure as hell wouldn't be the first time), but I think Merry and Pippin only got belts in the book.<P>As for the Borrow Wrights, I'm sure PJ would have loved to portray them, SaucepanMan. They would have been right up his alley.<P>H.C.

[Iarwain]

Actually, I completely understand the reasons for Tom's absense in the film. They are logical and complete. In fact, I would probably rejoyce at the removal of this odd singing lunatic who's presence gives the reader a slight suggestion that there was something more than tobacco in Tolkien's pipe while he wrote "In the House of Tom Bombadil" and "Fog on the Barrow-Downs". But, for some strange reason I defend the existence of this singing abberation to the very end. Why is this? If I myself say that his omission is justified than why keep arguing. <BR>Here is why: Tom is an everlasting mystery, a joy in the midst of madness, and indeed a wondrous relaxation from the tensity of the Quest to Mordor. If he left moviegoers bewildered and questioning (who said they weren't already bewildered without Tom), they would be questioning something a tad less dark than the appearance of the disturbing "demon of the ancient world" in the middle of cave land. <P>Frodo's breaks into happiness are scarce, and add an important sense of hope to the pesimistic reality of Tolkien's world. Without Tom's jovial mysticism, the first half of the FotR film was a nervous rush amidst various dangers. Frodo was carried as if by the wind without knowledge or choice from the doorstep of Bag End straight to Rivendell. No time to think, no doubts or resistances to what unknown characters (namely Aragorn and Arwen) took him on his way. Tom also gave Frodo an important chance to realize what lay ahead of him. <P>And then we have Tom's symbolic importance to a piece of legend like the War of the Ring. Tom is the last remnant of the myterious wood fairies that started Tolkien down the path to the creation of middle-earth. Tom is also the most fantastical element left in Middle-Earth; all else has been explored, explained, and recorded in its vast history. His importance is infinite because of his anomalous reality. He is the only remnant, the last mystery in a world of explainations.<P>Iarwain<P>P.S. The above was written over the period of about two hours, and I'm a little too lazy to proofread right now, so forgive any misspellings or incoherencies until I check what I've written. <P>P.P.S. Revisions made, I hope that makes a little more sense.<p>[ April 26, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[The Saucepan Man]

Yes, but he's still silly.<P>

[Iarwain]

Of course he is. That's why I like him so much!<P> <P>Iarwain

[The Only Real Estel]

My bad HC.

[HCIsland]

I just want to make sure this discussion doesn't get too black and white. It started as do you think Tom Bombadil should have been in the film but many of the posts seem to be more about, is Tom stupid.<P>I don't think Tom is stupid and I don't think he should have been in the film.<P>H.C.

[The Saucepan Man]

= not to be taken too seriously.

[HCIsland]

Actually, it wasn't in reference to you Saucepan. Did some posts get deleted or am I suffering from those damn flashbacks again. <P>***H.C. considers cutting down his medication.<p>[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: HCIsland ]

[The Only Real Estel]

Hey guys, I'm going to close this topic on May 2, then post a vote total ( as good as I can count with all the posts...), since I always try to post vote totals on my topics that include giving opinions. Thanks for the posting, and keep it coming (and siplified if possible) until May 2! <p>[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Oh, please don't close it. You can start a pollt-thread, but that doesn't mean you have to close it. If you leave it open, other people who want to add to it can do so, but if you close it, and someone wants to add something, then they have to start a new thread, and then there are two threads on the same topic. Please don't.

[The Only Real Estel]

Ok MLD, but after May 2, I'm going to stop tallying votes at least. Still, I like to only have a maximum of three topics going at once, so I don't have to keep track of to many things, and I want to start another topic... <p>[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

[Aduyuldaiel-MirkwoodPrincess]

I wish Tom had been in the movie...but i like not knowing what he looked like in Peter Jackson's eyes. i think hes pretty cool in the book and i wanna leave it that way.

[Lady_Báin]

Yeah i agree, i think i heard PJ describe him as "a jolly singing man" or something like that. So for the sake of Tom's reputaion i think it was a good idea not having him in the movie. I also think that had he been in the movie it would be too long and it would slow the story down considerably. I think he would be cool in a short film though!

[The Only Real Estel]

If you haven't seen it yet, there's now a thread for the voting results on this topic. I won't close the topic for a little longer, so if your interested in makeing a comment, go ahead (but it won't be registered as a vote).