Serving animals in HOBBIT film
 

Should there be the serving animals from the chapter Queer Lodgings in an eventual HOBBIT film? And I mean exactly as JRRT wrote that scene.

It is my strong feeling that the serving animals are the Tom Bombadil of THE HOBBIT. They would be the kiss of death in a movie reagardless of who directed it but especially if it is in any way serious. Plus, the recent memory of the talking animals in NARNIA, it would just be too much for the audience.

Feelings and opinions?

If I were filming the Hobbit, as a single film especially (and I appreciate this isn't what is going to happen since it will be same old same old with PJ ). I would ditch Beorn.

It doesn't really advance the plot, doesn't really fit into the wider story and has no major consequences. In a story designed to be read in installments to children it works as a reprise of the arrival of the dwarves at bag end, and if the Hobbit was to be done as a Sunday teatime serial (as theBBC did the Narnia stories when I was a child) I might well keep it- though t I am little fonder of Beorn than Bombadil whom I loathe.

However even if the Hobbit is done as a childrens film, I would lose it ... I think it would be visually rather dull and while it is necessary to have light interrupting the shade to stop it getting too scary for tinies, in this case the Eagle rescue serves the purpose. I would have the Eagles dump them (though maybe not Gandalf) at the edge of Mirkwood.

Beorn's role at the battle of five armies was hardly significant and I never understood why, having been an Elffriend by the Elvenking, and Gandalf as companion going through Mirkwood was avoided.... it is inconceivable that the Woodelves would not have given them hospitality and ensured their safe passage.

Mith, I can't agree that Beorn's presence was insignificant- he turned the tide at the Bo5A, crushing Bolg and his bodyguard just as Thorin's charge had prtered out.

More to the point, Beorn is a tremendous addition to the 'uncanniness' of Middle-earth, and the weight of its history (not that PJ will ever pick up on that). In any event, if this thing actually does come out in 2 movies there's no need as there was with LR to cut original material- instead a lot of padding will be added, which is what I chiefly dread. I envision McKellen, Lee, Weaving and Blanchett engaging in gang-wizard-fu against Sauron (perhaps they'll psychically kick the eyeball around like a soccer ball.....)

The animals themselves did not talk in Beorn's house, HE talked to them in their language. Yes, they were intelligent, but I see nothing in having them in the movie in Beorn's house that would be a distraction.

The Eagles talk, and so do the old raven and the spiders in the book. (The thrush speaks, but only Bard can understand him, being of the line of Girion, and the wolves speak in their language that is understood by both Gandalf and the goblins.) Are we not going to have them talk in this movie as well?

Merry

Why would the recent memory of Narnia ruin it for the audience? It wasn't the animals that made the movie not as good as it could have been - it was that director's deviation from the book - just like the LotR wasn't as good as it could have been, not because of Elijah Wood's acting of Frodo, but because Jackson strayed from the book.

I think Beorn belongs in the story and movie. And if you have Beorn, you can't very well not have his animals, can you? I think the serving animals would be wonderful. They shouldn't necessarily be the center of attention for thirty seconds or whatever, but I think it'd be cool to have Gandalf and Beorn or someone talking and in the background see the animals trotting in and out with the platters and tables.

Was it murder to the book? No. And if properly done, it won't be murder to the movie, either.

-- Folwren

from Folwren

So the LOTR films were "not as good as it could have been" if they only stayed strictly to the books? So if we had Tom Bombadil singing his cheery doggerel dressed like a bad hippie dream, then the film would have
- made more money than the $4 billion US dollars that it did ????
- won more than the 17 Academy Awards that it did ?????
- been more critically praised than the high level that it did ????

I find that extremely hard to believe since by all three areas of industry measurement they were immensely successful. There were things in the book that would have simply killed the films right in their tracks - Bombadil at the top of that list. Try to imagine a 25 minute Council of Elrond with all the various talking heads laying out the expository material for the audience as they figdeted in their chairs.

Please, lets get it through our collective heads --- a book is one thing while a film is quite another. What works in one medium does not always work in the other.

I'm not arguing. It's a simple fact. Ask anyone else on the forum if the movie wouldn't have been better if he'd stuck more with the books.

EDIT: Not if he stuck EXACTLY with the book. Yes, there are parts that would have been bad for the movie. But if he had stuck at least MOSTLY with the book. None of this Frodo sending Sam away or Faramir taking Sam and Frodo to Osgilitath or Gandalf getting his staff broken by the Witch King or Aragorn not wanting to be who he was and saying stupid stuff like "I do not want that power. I have never wanted it" or Arwen's fate being bound to the Ring's or.....well, yeah, you get my point....

Folwren
I do get your point. And I do respect your opinion on this. I do however feel that they certainly did do as you wanted and

Obviously there were changes. But the vast majority of the film came from the books. I defend the movies here but even I object to some of the changes. I still cringe with the scrubbing bubbles of the Dead Army sweeping the Pelennor clean rendering the previous scenes of the Rohirrim all in vain. I hated that. I certainly am no fan of body noise jokes or Gimli being the butt of the humor. I never would have done it that way.

But in the end they are still movies I love. Over thirty years ago I used to be in cars with others driving to conventions and fan gatherings and we used to kill time by speculating on a possible LOTR movie. I do not think any of us thought it would be as great as it was. Perfect - no. But then what is?

I am very happy to have the books to reread again and again. And I am happy to have the films to watch again and again. I have little trouble telling the difference.

I think that some of us are straying off topic here (no offense, I just call it as I see it).
Anywho, I do admit that I am both looking forward to, and loathing the idea of a "The Hobbit" movie. I myself doubt that the serving animals will appear in anything but the extended/uncut version (If there is one and I believe there will be). Beorn himself on the other hand, is likely to take his place(s) in it. The fact that he tore through Bolg and his men (or is the term goblins... orcs maybe?) may or may not be too great of a part for PJ to ignore (But then again, we never know who's going to do what. Hollywood has shown us that time and time again).

I expect Beorn will be included, if for no other reason than he makes for some great action - imagine a massive bear smashing a path through the Orc ranks and literally crushing Bolg.

However I don't think the 'talking'/serving animals should be included, for the same reason that the Elves should not sing 'Tra la la lally' - it's not only silly but inconsistent with what LOTR has established. Lets' face it, most if not all of the audience will be seeing the movie because they enjoyed the LOTR films, and therefore they will expect TH to 'fit' with that, and so that's what the director will do. And I don't think it'll be a bad thing either. I love TH as a standalone work but it just doesn't quite fit with LOTR.



The reason the Narnia movie wasn't that good was, IMO, simply because it tried to make the book into something it wasn't - the book was not meant to be a huge LOTR-style epic, but an enjoyable fairy-tale with some Christian subtext. Unfortunately the makers ignored this and tried to recreate Jackson's movies and whilst not failing, ended up with a rather average result.

This is the point (& its also the reason that Tolkien failed to re-write TH 'in the style of LotR') - TH is a children's tale &, as such, contains much that an 'adult' tale cannot get away with. None of those things would be out of place (if handled correctly) in a children's movie, but they wouldn't work in an 'adult' movie aimed at fans of the LotR films.

But, as Tolkien realised, if you try to re-write TH in the style of LotR the whole tale collapses under a weight it was not designed to bear. Lose the whimsy, the fantastic element, the 'tra-la-la-lallying' Elves & 'cockerney' Trolls & you have a different story, because the mood, the spirit, basically the heart of the tale, will be gone.

Lose the serving animals, the talking eagles & wolves, the camp Elves & comedy trolls & you haven't got The Hobbit we know & love. TH is a fable, a fairy story for the young. This has nothing to do with 'movies & books are different media', its to do with whether greedy adults should be allowed to snatch away childrens' candy, just 'cos they're bigger than them & fancy stuffing their faces.

That would depend on the skill of the director. Tom has always (to my mind) been one of Tolkien's greatest, not to mention most fascinating & mysterious, characters. The whole Old Forest/Barrow Downs sequence could have been an amazing dream/nightmare sequence which imparted a real sense of strangeness & mystery to movies which lacked anything of the kind.

I agree totally. Nothing is wrong with Bombadil. Just another great character from a great writer.

I disagree totally. Bombadil reads like an anachronism - his bizarre behaviour, his bumbling attitude, his strange speaking habits - all in all he reads more like a character from The Hobbit than LOTR. His insertion into the tale seems entirely random and somewhat tedious, and I'd say this one of very few points where Tolkien's writing falters somewhat.

To put him into the movie? Oh come on - introducing the Old Forest, taking on Old Man Willow, entering Tom's house, the conversation, the sequence on the Barrow Downs - you're already talking ten minutes at the very least, on a character and segment that has relatively little influence on the story overall. That simply isn't worth it. The movie is already over two hours (over three hours in the extended edition) as it is. Also, showing him laughing at the Ring would destroy all the sense of danger that has been built up around it previously. Finally a man in yellow boots singing a tree to sleep is frankly ridiculous, especially when put into movies that have been praised so much for their realistic view of fantasy.

The movies had a sense of mystery, in many ways more than the books - at one point Gandalf mentions 'the old wisdom born out of the West' - for a movie-viewer this wouldn't make any sense as nothing is told of the downfall of Numenor in the movies, yet it helps to create a sense of mystery as to what exactly happened back then. We just tend not to notice this because as book readers we already know all the answers. Also mystery is harder to convey in movies, where things are actually shown, instead of just written about.

Sir Kohran captures my feelings about Bombadil excellently. I would agree and state that he was not even a good character in the book. But on the screen he would have killed the movie in its very tracks. JRRT was a great writer. But he was not perfect. No human is and no human endeavor is flawless.

This from a post of mine in the Chapter by Chapter read through:

No it wouldn't - anymore than it does in the books. One of the main differences between book & movies is Tolkien's subtle exploration of the nature & power of the Ring, as opposed to Jackson's over-simplification of it.



No - they just had an air of confusion.

from davem regarding Tom Bombadil

For once I agree with you since he was a total disaster to the books also. Either way he is simply a bad character.

Do you know...some of the most intelligent people I know (davem, my older brother, my sister, Tolkien, others) are the ones who love Bombadil. I wonder what that says about those who dislike him and say that it was Tolkien's worst moment?

-- Folwren, in disguise of her sister Finduilas

(That means, if you disagree with what I said, make your reply to Folwren and not to Finduilas. I was just too lazy to sign out of Fin's account and onto mine.)

Quote:

Do you know...some of the most intelligent people I know (davem, my older brother, my sister, Tolkien, others) are the ones who love Bombadil. I wonder what that says about those who dislike him and say that it was Tolkien's worst moment?

Well Folwren, when you frame it exactly that way, it means that anyone who does not adore Bombadil is an obvious idiot, has a bottom of the barrel IQ, probably cannot actually read LOTR in text format, and does not even call or send their sweet mother a card on the appropriate holiday occassions.

Does that about cover it?

About. :rolleyes:

It was mostly a joke - but in all honesty! It is clearly a matter of opinion whether or not Bombadil was a good or necessary character. I think he was supurb - another example of Tolkien's genius of making new and interesting characters! Others, such as yourself (and, I will add, a very dear friend of mine who is intelligent and smart despite her ideas of Tom B. ;) ), do not like him.

That doesn't give you the right to say that was Tolkien's worst moment and that he made a huge mistake in putting so much Bombadil in. For example, I personally think that Viggo played a horrible Aragorn, but I don't bash the many, many other young women or ladies or even guys who think he did a supurb job everytime we talk about it. It wouldn't be nice nor Christian like of me and people wouldn't like me very much if everytime we talked I pushed my opinions on them as though they were the only right opinions.

-- Folwren

Ah. So for loving Bombadil you are intelligent, whilst I am nothing more than a popcorn munching moron who should be taken outside and beaten for my disgusting behaviour in daring to have an opinion beyond 'everything Tolkien did was absolutely perfect'.

Well, if you want to be beaten, sure. I never said so.

I might suggest broadening your horizons.

-- Fol

Yet you imply it. You said davem and the others that love Bombadil were 'more intelligent'. Then you say the equivalent of 'so what does that make those who don't?', implying the opposite of 'more intelligent' - essentially those who do not love Bombadil are 'less intelligent'.

I admit, what I said was very mean and not nice at all, and I deserve to be reprimanded for it, but you can take it at what it's worth - which is very little, for it was said in sarcasm. I have been insulted consistently by StW and once or twice by you and have said nothing and I guess my patience just popped. I'm not going to apologize, though I should, and I wish I would get in trouble for it, just so I could complain to the mods. To what end? None, because everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

But, sheesh. Just because some people think that Bombadil is a waste of paper and time doesn't mean that everyone has to agree and it doesn't mean that you're right about what you think about him.

-- Folwren

The whole Bombadil 'mythology' (which, let's not forget, was imported virtually wholesale into LotR from 'outside' - the poem 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil' pre-existed LotR) is full of folkloric elements, & I suppose any reader unfamiliar with British folklore may struggle with Tom - though many readers with no such knowledge take to him straight off.

I find (& I'm generalising here) that those who don't like the OMW/TB/Barrow Downs episode don't like Tolkien's constant 'digressions' into M-e history, & also tend to skip the poems as unnecessary too (& all that description of landscape!- Why didn't Tolkien just tell the story?- a decent editor could have trimmed the whole thing down to about 250 pages & it would have been much better for it, etc, etc.).

This little 'argument' can never be won because its all down to personal taste. For myself, the whole Old Forest, Bombadil, Barrow Downs episode is one of my favourite parts of LotR, & the book would be much, much less without it. I love the strange 'familiarity' (or familiar 'strangeness') of the whole sequence. If the Shire is a depiction of rural England around the time of (Queen Victoria's) Diamond Jubilee, as Tolkien stated, the Old Forest/Downs episode is a perfect depiction of an older, wilder England. I'd also venture to say that without those three chapters of LotR we may never have got Smith of Wooton Major. Both could be seen (on one level) as meditations on/explorations of England's Fairyland, & the Old Forest/Barrow Downs episode must be included, because of its (far more so than the Shire) quintesential 'Englishness'.

I love Tom Bombadil, so I guess I am either a blithering idiot or a genius, depending on one's perspective!:p But I am glad to be in the company of Tolkien himself.;)

I have always found the first chapters of the book to be my favorites when it is just the four hobbits up through Bree. I have always loved them.

But to keep on topic, I still think they should keep the serving animals and Beorn in the Hobbit movie.

Merry

Folwren.... you deserve no reprimand . Your posts are from the heart and good spirited so you deserve only a smile. ;) You did phrase it in such a way as to allow only the good on your side while the evil took the other side. But that is okay because davem just did the same thing

So those of us who do not like TB struggle with him out of ignorance having no knowledge of British folklore. We could be experts on British folklore and still not like the doggerel spewing mess of primary color. But it demeans the other side so much more when you can say their opinions are founded from lack of knowledge.

By the way, I simply love JRRT's digression into ME history and wish there were even more of it. Cannot get enough of the historical end of things. And I sincerely say that.

The idea that the entire book revolves around this terrible and powerful Ring which can corrupt anyone and must be destroyed or civilization will fall stops dead in its tracks by the introduction of a character who
a- can wear the ring with no effect
b- has no interest in it at all
c- seems to be the one being over which it has no power over but could not care less
d- will do nothing to help the situation
e- does absolutely nothing to further the basic plot or advance the story

You cut out TB from the book, you lose nothing but doggerel and the worst set of mismatched brightly colored clothing in the history of literature.

Personally I dislike Beorn, I dislike Bombadil, (in Rowling's ouevre I dislike Hagrid.. is his a pattern?) but I don't think it is a question of intelligence more of how you view Tolkiens' world.

Having followed the relevant parts of the Chapter by Chapter.. I know that some downers I respect greatly like Bombadil and see him as the means in which the everyday world moves into fairytale and myth - that no doubt is a gross simplification at best but I have not the skill to express it better. I do see what they mean but I still don't like Bombadil et all and find it jarrs and mars the near perfection of Tolkien's created world. I am not one of those who like to pretend to themselves that it is real but I like the plausibility of it all. Bombadil just always feels he belongs in a different book. Surely not a matter of intelligence just personal taste?

While I am no great apologist for the films - I watched them...enjoyed aspects never felt very inclined to watch again... I would point out that the BBC radio version which had a lot more time at it's disposal also omitted Bombadil - even though the scriptwriter liked him (and made the Adventures of TB separately).

Bombadil is a difficult and complex character for those of us who know Tolkien's word intimately - how hard would it be to make sense of him in more simplistic media?

Yes - I stated that the Bombadil 'mythus' was imported wholesale into M-e. The Hobbits have crossed into another 'world', where different rules apply, & for that very reason are able to get a new perspective on the Ring, the Quest & the nature of their world. No, you lose one of the most fascinating things Tolkien ever wrote, & you lose some of his most beautiful & evocative writing.

I'd still shove Bombadil in Orudruin (along with his chapters) if he started spouting his sub-vogon poetry at me ;) and you wouldn't want to sit next to him on a long haul flight. However I usually content myself with pretending he doesn't exist and eliding the early chapters....:p

Sauron the White wrote:

"The idea that the entire book revolves around this terrible and powerful Ring which can corrupt anyone and must be destroyed or civilization will fall stops dead in its tracks by the introduction of a character who
a- can wear the ring with no effect
b- has no interest in it at all
c- seems to be the one being over which it has no power over but could not care less
d- will do nothing to help the situation
e- does absolutely nothing to further the basic plot or advance the story"

I disagree completely. Bombadil is an incarnation of Iluvatar, the creator. He is, therefore, light-hearted and care-free because he is the creator. He "will do nothing to help the situation" is faulty, for he intervenes and saves the ring and the hobbits who were trapped by the Barrow-wight, who was a servant of the Dark Lord. But I agree he "will do nothing to help the situation" directly involving the destruction of the ring for Tolkien understood the concept of free will. Iluvatar did not make his creation one that was filled with programmable robots. His creatures could think for themselves and make choices based upon right or wrong because he created them as moral beings (sound familiar?). He does advance the plot of the story because it is he who gives hope, both to Sam and Frodo, as well as to Gandalf and other characters in the book. Bombadil (Iluvatar) is the light that Sam realizes could never be reached by the darkness.

Merry

Without weirdness like Bombadil or Bilbo I fear Lord of the Rings might stray too far into 'sword and sorcery' territory, a world of rights and wrongs and muscular heroes. But it doesn't. It is a world with enigmatic figures who cannot neatly be put down on one 'side' or another. Bombadil brings depth and interest. He, along with figures such as Shelob, Fell Beasts, Dragons, Eagles, Woses and Barrow-wights, shows us that this is a diverse world, populated by beings outside the usual Elf/Man/Dwarf hierarchy.

In our own world we have Men as a species, plus a lot of animals we understand (or at least think we do, who can explain the mind of the domestic cat? ;) ), but we also have creatures we do not understand. We have tales of Loch Ness Monsters, Yetis, Boggarts, Fairies, etc. Had Tolkien created his own world without all of these types of things then it would have been all the more poverty stricken, grey and depressing for it.

Stylistically, if one of Tolkien's aims was to create something he could dedicate to England then it was only right that he create something with odd, enigmatic figures in it, such as are found in English folklore already. And narratively, those three chapters with TB form a valuable bridge between the familiarity of The Shire to the more perilous realms; the Old Forest is a foreshadowing of Fangorn, the Barrow Downs of the Paths of the Dead or Shelob's Lair.

Hmmm... that is a good point, but I didn't think of Tom as a reincarnation of Iluvatar, he gives hope to the Hobbits though. Especially when they got trapped by the Barrow-wight, and he also saved them... now I wouldn't want to be trapped in a plane for a flight that has some long hours with Frodo, but not with Bombadil.

Well thank you for having the decency to apologise.

I haven't tried to personally insult you and would never want to do that to any member. My apologies if anything I've said has come across as rude.

I don't think he's a waste of paper and time, I just don't think he belongs in LOTR.

Nor did I say everyone had to agree. I just took offense at your implication that I was 'less intelligent' for not 'loving' Bombadil.

Well I don't know about everybody else but I've always liked Tolkien's 'digressions', particularly when it's the Hobbits hearing about it; I always grin when I read about Sam's comments on Beren.

The poetry of Tolkien is fantastic. What I like about it is that it's the complete opposite of the usual text - the book describes lots of things in great detail (obviously because they're happening in the 'present' of the story) whereas the poetry is non-specific - the characters and events and places are described vaguely, allowing the reader to visualise these ideas in their head, and it gives off this wonderful dreamy feel.

Admittedly I sometimes find the descriptions of landscape a little tedious, but I think that's only because I've read it so much.

I'm aware of what Tom represents - he's a sort of throwback to the old days when people genuinely believed in fairies and spirits and pixies in the forests and mountains, and in this regard he succeeds. I just don't think he fits in very well with the story at hand. With the departure from the Shire and the entry into the big, unknown world with the rumour of the Black Riders following them, this is a period of rising tension for the Hobbits - and yet suddenly they're thrown into a colourful, strange, fairy tale forest governed by a bumbling, carefree man in yellow boots. The whole sequence breaks the 'feel' of the story at that point for me.

However, I do like the evolution of the threats - we begin with the dangerous yet somewhat laughable Old Man Willow and end with the creeping darkness of the Wights.

Where was this stated? I thought Bombadil was supposed to be an enigma. At the very least the chapter never states this - how many readers, when discovering this skipping man in yellow boots, thought 'this must be an incarnation of M-E's god'?

Interesting point, and ironic in that during TTT movie, Treebeard in Fangorn actually used some of Bombadil's words (mostly the reassurance against the night segment).

You may not have tried to, it may just be the way you word it on the computer. Saying "At least you have the dececy to apologize" (paraphrazed) sounds condescending, and as if Folwren has no other decency. I don't know if that is how you meant it, I am just explaining how it might be taken.

On computers it is very hard to tell what tone a person is saying something in. That is why on the Downs I try to stay away from sarcasm and rude remarks. I have a particularly bad way of saying what I don't mean. If you didn't mean to sound condescending and rude to Folwren, I understand. If you did.... Um, as I said, I try to stay away from sarcasm and rude remarks. :p

But, since you followed that sentence up with "I haven't tried to personally insult you and would never want to do that to any member. My apologies if anything I've said has come across as rude." I will assume you didn't.

That is nice of you to say. I have never liked you better.:)

~Finduilas~

Hm, I see what you mean. What I meant was that although I found the remark insulting, Folwren 'at least' had the decency to apologise. I think I will edit that bit out; I see why it could be condescending.

It's pretty much impossible. This is why smilies are so useful - they give an idea of what the person really thinks. ;) and :p can make the difference between a humorous jab and an insult.

Good. There's more than enough bad feeling and insults in real life; we don't need any here. I hope that in the future we can avoid having to discuss stuff like this and get back to what's important - Tolkien. :)

Aye, aye. Point taken...

I have never been able to picture these animals. How would they carry the platters etc.? Would they walk on the hind legs? It would, I think, be difficult to do it this way, with out looking silly. Beorn should, as far as I'm conserned, be in there. His serving animals? I'm not particularly attached to them, but if PJ can find it possible, that would be great.

I believe that it is clearly stated on some of the most Tolkien-informatable sites, *cough* *Encyclopedia of Arda* *cough, cough*, that Iluvatar has NO physical incarnation in Arda WHATSOEVER save for the Flame Imperishable itself.

I think that's because FotR, particularly Book 1, has a mood & atmosphere all its own, & is in many ways very different from the rest of the story. Humphrey Carpenter stated that he preferred FotR to the other volumes, because it reminded him of John Buchan.

Bombadil, The Old Forest, The Barrow Downs, all help contribute a mood of strangeness & add a dimension of mystery to the world of M-e - its a world with other 'dimensions'/realities: the world of the OF & the Downs is no 'stranger' or more out of place than the wraith world Frodo experiences when he puts on the Ring, or Valinor itself come to that. As with the world of Smith, Faery exists alongside the 'real' world. Frodo & the Hobbits pass into a different 'reality', with different rules, & a different kind of 'logic', but the whole experience helps them see their own world with new eyes. Frodo is exposed to danger, taught old lore, & tested (will he put on the Ring in the Barrow & desert his friends in order to escape?), but most importantly he is shown that 'there are more things in heaven & earth than are dreamed of in his philosophy. He also, let's not forget, is given a glimpse of the Undying Lands in Tom's house.

I can't concieve of M-e without Bombadil, the OF & the Downs & maybe that's another reason I have a problem with the movies - if you remove the 'Bombadil' dimension you end up with a 'sword & sorcery action epic'. Lose Bombadil & you actually make a character like Treebeard more difficult to accept, because he & the Ents seem too 'outlandish' - a world which has Tom, Goldberry, Old Man Willow & Barrow Wights in it is a world which has room for walking, talking trees.

I just find it strange in that the whole sequence feels very 'positive' - Tom is happy and humorous, and this clashes with my view of what should be an increasingly dark and wary section of the story. To me it feels like having a horror story and then, just before the monster appears, pausing for an interlude with the Teletubbies. Admittedly that's a gross exagerration but that's the feel of it.

So how would you have done it? How would you fit the Bombadil sequence into a two-three hour movie? Every second counts in a story this big and I can't see how the Bombadil sequence could be anything less than ten minutes.

I wouldn't call it a 'sword and sorcery action epic' - a title like that befits something truly low quality like Eragon - but that's down to opinion.

The difference to me being that the Ents were treated entirely seriously and 'felt' like a part of the story, no more out-of-place than the Balrog or the Eagles. Tom on the other hand does not feel like part of that world.

This claim is obviously untrue on its face because we have definitive proof. You see, we did actually lose Bombadil. He was completely omitted from the films. There was no sign of him at all either on the screen or in reference. And did this cardinal sin against JRRT and his work destroy the films? Apparently not since hundreds of millions of people lined up again and again to shove their hard earned money to the filmmakers. Both TTT and ROTK - the films with Treebeard in them - both cracked the All Time Top Five in earnings. Professional film critics around the world had high praise for the films and I cannot remember one bringing up that point. And groups which award things like the BATFA's and the Academy Awards had little trouble swallowing Treebeard without Bombadil in the mix either.

You make a claim that is defied by the historical record.