Should Tom Bombadil have been in the movies?

[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).