Should Tom Bombadil have been in the movies?
 

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?

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 ]

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.

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.

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

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

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 ]

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.

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."

Sending this thread to the Movies Forum.

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...

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 ]

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 ]

<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.

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.

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.

No.

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

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!

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 ]

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

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 ]

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.

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

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.

<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.

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.

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 ]

<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.

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!

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.

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

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!!!

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.

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!

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.