A HUGE problem with Bombadil's removal.

[Samwise of the shire]

<BR><br><br> Ummmm I dont know if this has been aproached but I'll aproach it again, Gilthalion that was an amzing point but has anyone read the articles explaining that the movies are a representation of LOTR not the actuall thing? I seem to remember reading it somewhere like on the One ring or somewhere in that area, but what is the big deal? I mean Arwen is expanded and Bombadil is cut...so. At least Arwen is'nt gonna go with the fellowship and Bombadil would exactly make the best impression on todays &quot;cool&quot; world. I mean who goes around singing all the time, I can just see it, my friend calling and saying &quot;hey dont go to LOTR there's this really dorky guy in there who sings really stupid songs all the time&quot;,and I think that the Balrog is gonna be freaky enough without Barrow-eights backing it up.<br> Sam <p> Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons. For you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.</p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<BR><br><br> Yes, well, I'm figuring the entire book will be freaky. It IS fantasy after all. <p>"But why?" he asked in bewilderment, looking upon Death. "Why?" he asked again. </p>

<BR><br><br> I Personally only am slightly miffed at the disinclusion of Bombadil, but I really do not like the idea of creating a different reason for them having the swords, vastly altering a basic plot point. Just give them swords and don't say where they came from, and I would be much happier than having some random other character equipping them... not purist, but I don't like the idea of specifically Altering it.<br> <br> And in answer to one of the earlier questions, Bombadil is mentioned in slight ways at several other points in the books (aside from every instance of the swords being used)... like at Cirith Ungol, after Gollum tries to betray them to the momma-spider, (i believe) Samwise longs for Bombadil to be able to come and rescue them, and later on Gandalf says he hasn't spoken to Bombadil in a long while... etc. <p><hr> Join Me In My Travels... <a href="http://pub39.ezboard.com/btheezboardnomads">the ezboard nomads</a></p>

<BR><br><br> I do have a Huge problem with his removal . <br> Whenever i watched a movie based on a book by stephen king , i knew that the characters could not ever be the same as i thought of them myself ,and i could live with that else i should have made it myself hehe. But when i watched The Stand (6 hrs.) I was so disappointed because the end was different then the book. Now that the actors that play diff characters okay i can manige that, But Why change ths story line, it makes no sense! Eventho it is just a story , you are making a movie about a story that exists and people love that story , otherwise Lotr wouldnt be that big. Is there not a saying &quot; Never change a winning team&quot; ? because you have your own point of views as a director? sure , but dont change the story , as there is no need for it.<br> I dont think ive added something new that would shock evrybody ,but just my point of view.<br> <p></p>

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

my two cents almost all the movie adaptations I've seen have disappointed me...we all have a movie in our heads as we read an excellent book<BR>personally the non-inclusion of Tom doesss bother me simply because he is an excellent character-an enigma<BR>as for changing Arwen...hmm ok call me a purist

It won't be the same without tom bombadill, but you have got to think of the practical side of making a film, when turning a literary work, as huge as LOTR in to a film, you have to miss out bits, just to come in on budget, and also is there anyone who could play tom ??. it sad but that is life in the film world. you have got to make it flow , when you read, you read at your own pace. in a film you have to go at the directors pace. and the director has to make sure you understand without being bored. and you still get the illusion and sentiment you get from the book.

[Elrian]

I would even have been happy with a flashback of Bombadil at the Council. It's a shame he had to be cut. I will reserve judgement on more Arwen until after the 19th, as more Arwen means more Elrond <BR>If they do make her into some warrior Elf princess then I will be disappointed. No movie made from a book is ever perfect, but rarely have I been disappointed with the movie adaption of books I've read. <p>[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Elrian ]

[Valeria, Witch of Angmar]

Have read some of the old posts and have to side with red. Can't say no TB will have me in tears, either. As for Arwen...that's gonna be interesting. I'm finishing up RotK right now. When I saw the trailer with Arwen all "Xena, Warrior Princess" with her sword, I increased the population of the State of Confusion by one. With Arwen going off to kick butt in FotR instead of being mentioned for less than five minutes, isn't that gonna kind of throw everything out of whack a little more than the vacancy of Tom Bombadill?<BR>Just throwing in my two cents...<P>~Valeria~

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I think that all the adaptations have been valuable. After Bakshi's version I wrestled with how I would have done things differently, I read and re-read, illustrating them in my mind. My father was a cartoonist and I grew up with storyboards used in laying out cartoon ads. An artist and familiar with the process I laid them out in my mind. One of the conclusions I came to is that Tom Bombadil would have to be cut. He's too easy to screw up, Tolkien danced on the line between the ridiculous and joyful so closely that any attempt to capture him would be disappointing. <P>I would like to see more renderings of The Lord of the Rinds, not less. Just like I wish Tolkien had written a hundred books I could eagerly consume.<P>-Maril

Greetings and well met,<P> I've read all of these posts and I can't get over the fact that these films are being vilified before anyone has seen them. I mean to say, you can only get so much out of a web page, a trailer, and magazine articles. In 1939 a critic who reviewed the "Wizard of Oz" called it "silly and unimaginative." And he SAW the damn movie! I first read "The Hobbit," followed immediately by the Trilogy <I>after</I> I had seen the Bakshi version, and I still had a different conception of the characters in my head when I read the books. So, in my eyes, that part of the argument is moot. <P> Tom Bombadil will surely be missed, but for the sake of getting viable interpretations of these wonderful tales onto film and bringing what we dearly love to another level, then I can part with Bombadil for a while. If I really need a Bombadil "fix," I'll just pick up one of my editions of FotR and read it again. <P> The "problem" with the hobbits of the Fellowship aquiring weapons is a non-entity as far as I'm concerned. They could have gotten them anywhere. The "problem" that arises is the fact that the Old Forest and the Barrow-downs are the first cognizant predicaments that the Ringbearer and his companions find themselves in. I know that the Nazgúl are chasing them, but they are not sure who they are and really don't encounter them until Weathertop, whereas Old Man Willow actually captures Meriadoc and Peregrin. Which reminds me: I don't hear anyone getting all bent out of shape over the absence of Old Man Willow. No Bombadil, no Old Man Willow. No Barrow downs, no Barrow-wights. Sad? Yes. The end of the world? Hardly. <P> The era in which these works were conceived, we must remember, was an era in which the "woman" was generally a stay-home person, and not involved with the trials and tribulations of the daily grind, at least on a sociological level. The inclusion of Éowyn in the "Battle of the Pelennor Fields" was somewhat of a departure from the norm. <P> Today, women are just as much a part of the daily grind as men, therefore, the inclusion of Arwen will only serve to attract a larger female audience (as well as the males who dig Liv Tyler!), and possibly add a new dimension to the story itself. The bottom line to the producers of these films, a sad reality, is ticket sales. I, myself, as I grew older, sometimes wondered why the women of Middle-earth didn't play a larger role, but was content, and still am, with LotR as it is. Canon is one thing, artistic license is another, and economics makes the world go round.<P> So, see the movies, or don't see the movies, the choice is yours and no one can say different. However, on December 19th, a large group of my friends and I will be in the audience with our popcorn (and half-a-bag on, with the grace of Ilúvatar) to see our beloved tales come to life. Whether we walk away raving about the cinematic masterpiece we just viewed, or ranting about what a load of tripe we wasted our hard earned cash to see, remains to be seen. I've waited for more than two decades. I'll take my chances.

I will not shed a tear without Bombadil. . .he was like one of the awkward early childhood characters from a Zelda game!

[Maeglin]

Well, I agree with Gandalf the White. Making the movies 1/2 h longer would make the movie much more expensive than it already is. And if you put an extra cene "there" you could just as well put an extra cene "there" and there you go...<BR>If you'll reason like that movies would be weeks long.<P>Thoe... Couldnt Bombadill, just like "drop down" in the barrow downs.

Hmm,<P>I was a whiter than white purist when I first heard about the films. I could never in my wildest imaginations concieve that it was possible to do justice to a work I had worshipped for 20+ years. <P>When I heard that Tom was missing in action I was locked in a small room under the stairs by my family because of the madness that took me. When I heard rumblings about elf-warrior Arwen I ran naked around my garden when the temperature was -5 just to cleanse the rancid thought from my head. Peter Jackson by god!!! Damn his eyes, damn his duckpond.<P>I boycotted any site related to the film. <P>Then quite by chance I saw my first image from the film. It was of a Black Rider. I said to myself that this was how I had first pictured them in my head all those years ago when I first read the marvellous tome. Then it kind of snowballed from there. So many of the images I have seen sent shivers of delight down my spine. They were exactly how I imagined them to be. Then I was taken by the casting. The boy Wood especially in the trailers I think is great as our reluctant hero. Even my hero Aragorn whom I thought was uncastable seems to be working. <P>For me it comes down to this. I may hate the fact the Tom is not there, I may hate the changes to the texts, I may hate Arwen Swordmaiden with such a sick, twisted passion which is not healthy, but ultimately I cannot pass up the chance to visit and see places and peoples who I have loved for so many years. <P>On a more practical note, sacrifices had to be made. It would be impossible to exactly replicate the book. I imagine some of the Newline bosses must have near croaked as it was with a 3 hour running time.

[Maeglin]

Hmmm...<P>Well I guess uv learned something then. <P>Myself, I have nothing against changes in the movies. I mean if the film really would be exactly like the books it would be rather disintresting (or whatever that word is in english). That, I say even as a <BR>Tolkien-fan.<BR>The books will always be there. It's in the books where the mystic world of middle-earth exists and noone could ever change that.<P>I dont realy see why u all worry so much about the films. Do you think Tolkien wrote the books so they could be a movie?<P>The magic is in the books and there it will belong.<P>And so, shall the wise speak...<P>[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Maeglin ]<p>[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Maeglin ]

Removing Tom Bombadill, you remove the oldest, most powerful character in the book, the only one who was not afraid of the Ring. Tom, I always felt, was the guardian of the Shire, and the anti-thesis of Sauron. He predicts and shapes the future in this scene: "Tom laughed again, and then he spun the Ring in the air---and it vanished in a flash"

[Ulmo]

Interesting points guys<P>I loved the movie, but man..........I really, REALLY wish Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-Downs were in the movie!! They could have done both scenes, well, in like 10-15 minutes. So instead of a 180 minute movie, you have a 190 minute movie.......MAN!! <p>[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ulmo ]