Serving animals in HOBBIT film - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Sauron the White · 10-20-2007, 01:35 PM

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?

Finduilas · 10-20-2007, 01:44 PM

About.

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

Sir Kohran · 10-20-2007, 01:54 PM

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?

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'.

Finduilas · 10-20-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

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

Sir Kohran · 10-20-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finduilas

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'.

Folwren · 10-20-2007, 02:19 PM

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

Sauron the White · 10-20-2007, 02:29 PM

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

Quote:

I suppose any reader unfamiliar with British folklore may struggle with Tom - though many readers with no such knowledge take to him straight off.

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.

Mithalwen · 10-20-2007, 02:37 PM

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?

davem · 10-20-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

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'.

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'.

Meriadoc1961 · 10-20-2007, 02:26 PM

I love Tom Bombadil, so I guess I am either a blithering idiot or a genius, depending on one's perspective!

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

10-20-2007, 01:44 PM	#2
Finduilas Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Home. Where rolling green hills and clear rivers are practically my backyard. Posts: 595	About. 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 __________________ One (1) book of rules and traffic regulations, which may not be bent or broken. ~ The Phantom Tollbooth

10-20-2007, 02:19 PM	#6
Folwren Messenger of Hope Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States. Posts: 5,076	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 __________________ A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis

10-20-2007, 02:37 PM	#8
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,461	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? __________________ “But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.” Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace

10-20-2007, 02:26 PM	#10
Meriadoc1961 Wight Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 101	I love Tom Bombadil, so I guess I am either a blithering idiot or a genius, depending on one's perspective! 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 __________________ "If I yawn again, I shall split at the ears!"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode