Hey dol! Merry dol! Get lost Tom!!!

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Question...
Was anyone happy that Bombadil wasn't included? Does anyone else feel that they made the right choice to keep him out of the Fellowship?

[Son of Númenor]

I personally am glad that Peter Jackson didn't include him - not because I don't like him, but because my mental image of him is so strong that any actor trying to play his part would have been a disappointment, and because the aura that Peter Jackson created for the hobbits' flight from the Shire would have suffered for a 10-to-15-minute Tom interlude.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

I agree with Son of Númenor. I think Tom isn't so central a character that he would have done much (positive) difference to the film. Besides, all the non-readers would probably have been quite confused about a character like Tom.

[Mithalwen]

I am afraid that I actively dislike Tom and his endless ghastly poetry... it was about the only exclusion ~I approved of.

[Boromir88]

Ungoliant:

Besides, all the non-readers would probably have been quite confused about a character like Tom.

Even most BOOK readers have trouble figuring out who/what Tom Bombadil is. Since it is an unanswered question Tolkien left for us to endlessly bicker about, we will never know. So yes, I agree, putting in Tom would have caused an utter amount of confusion, especially with non-book readers, but also with book readers too. I mean many non-book readers can't understand the concept of the Grey Havens, Bombadil is much more difficult and complex then the Grey Havens.

[Encaitare]

I wish he was in there, but it would have been nearly impossible. Those who hadn't read the books would have been terribly confused, and those who had would probably have been displeased by the movie's interpretation of him or his appearance.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Even most BOOK readers have trouble figuring out who/what Tom Bombadil is.

Exactly!

I had terrible difficulties in picturing the elves in my mind when I first read LotR. After I saw the Fellowship, I adapted my frail image of the elves to correspond the movie version. I have same kind of difficulties with Tom. It would be easy if someone just showed me a picture: "Look, here's Tom, he looks like that." But since Tom is such a mysterious character, maybe it's appropriate to have a little blurred mental picture of him. Seeing him on the film would probably have been a disappointment.
Like The Saucepan Man said

The difficulty would be in finding an actor who could portray the right mix of levity and underlying power.

[Renzolicious]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I am afraid that I actively dislike Tom and his endless ghastly poetry... it was about the only exclusion ~I approved of.

I could not agree more.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

I don't know, I quite liked the story of the Mewlips.

[Zebedee]

I did not like Tom Bombadil much. I am not unhappy that they didn't put him in, but I think if they had him they would almost have to include the Barrow Downs, and that was something I really would have liked to have seen.

[gorthaur_cruel]

I'm sure most of you've seen the WETA image of Tom Bombadil for the card game...here's Goldberry and Bombadil for those who haven't.

[Bêthberry]

gorthar_cruel,

Many, many thanks for posting those images from the WETA cards for Bombdadil and Goldberry.

They are fascinating because they are, to me at least, the first images which catch the indefinable allure between the two characters. I have never really been impressed with past artwork of these characters; they always somehow managed, enigmatically to elude the skill of the artist or photographer. Such earlier depictions of Tom and Goldberry seemed to me to focus on each character independently. Frankly, I could never really see what each saw in the other, despite the attractions of the artwork.

Here, I feel a strong sense of masculine self-possession in this Tom, with a hint of his tom-foolery and fearlessness. What man need fear the Old Forest or the Ring who knows himself and is happy with himself? And Goldberry here hints at the layers of allure and beauty which legends of mythical water nymphs hold for mere mortals. Here, too, is a woman who knows herself and her partner.

The darkness which surrounds Tom but does not envelope him is intriguing, especially as it is balanced by the shimmering light of the waters and sky in the Goldberry picture. There is, as well, no hint of the passivity which for me mars Tolkien's Goldberry, so I guess, all in all, what I am saying is that these pictures reflect a creative or artistic interpretation of the characters rather than a desire simply to reproduce in visual form Tolkien's creation. If that makes any sense!

[Encaitare]

Thanks for the pictures, gorthaur. I agree with Bb in that the attitudes they convey are right, but they don't really fit the images I have in my mind, however skewed they are. For example, in my head Goldberry is literally gold of skin and slightly radiant. She also looks a bit more youthful than in the picture given. Tom's jacket should be brighter, I think.

Oh well, at least they're included.

[Elianna]

Besides being hard to understand, even for those who have read the book, Tom was probably also left out because he does nothing else after the Hobbits leave the 'Downs. I can think of only two other mentionings of him: another place the Ring cannot go and a place for Gandalf to be instead of helping scour the Shire (which I understand the Hobbits had to do on their own).

This is similar to their reason for leaving out Glorfindel, but that's another rant.

If they were going to make Tom like the card, then I'm glad they left him out. That one's not quite my mental image, nor for Goldberry (needs longer hair, definately needs longer hair...). Anyway, because Tom's so....Tom-like, we all not only have our own images of him, but we also have our own understandings of him, which are sure to differ from the film-makers'; so even if they got our image right, the character probably wouldn't have been 'right'.

So here's to our mental images of Tom, Goldberry, Old Man Willow and our beloved Barrow-wights who will remain undisturbed:

[THE Ka]

i was a little disapointed, especially my brother who wore his yellow boots to the theatres... he was very, very angry. he somehow reminded me of an angry Balrog...I don't know why...

But, I'd have to figure, it would be really hard for someone to play his part and not have popcorn thrown at the screen... This would be an easy but, also very delicate character to act out. One that the actor would have to perfect. Even though we would only see him for maybe 40-50 minutes (if both people's patience and the pay budget would allow...) the actor would have to read as much as they could then, try their best to keep it "real" and not make Bombadil out to look like a clown...

Hope i don't up-set anyone. Just an opinion.

[alatar]

In my latest reread of FotR, I now find myself agreeing even more with PJ et al's decision to leave Tom in the books (if I had a different opinion before, well, please disregard that one).

Tom saves the Hobbits from Old Man Willow. He is Master of tree and root and wight. The Ring, that oh-so-scary silent actor in the films, has no effect on ole' Bombadil. The Riders never search the Old Forest.

PJ would have to have shown some or all of this. And, after exalting Tom for a few minutes (or hours) in the film, he would disappear. So why bother? Other not-so-well-read viewers would wonder why Tom wasn't at the council, or why he didn't continually show up to assist the Hobbits.

(alatar suddenly imagines a tag-team wrestling match pitting Saruman and Ugluk against Tom and Treebeard...)

As much as some of us would have liked to see him and Goldberry, Tom would have just detracted from the flow of the story.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Wow, I pop my head out of the gutter and what should I see? An old thread of mine risen from the dead!
In any case, I agree with you altar. You cannot build up the Ring as this evil entity and then have it completely undermined by a midget in yellow boots.
Now, I can understand why Mr. Tolkien included old Tom, he valued nature and wanted to embody that snetiment in his writing. And that's all well and good, but in a film it would be nothing but noise for the sake of noise.
Especially as the power of nature is already well represented by Treebeard and his little massacre at Isengard.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Gothbogg the Ripper

Wow, I pop my head out of the gutter and what should I see? An old thread of mine risen from the dead!

I'd been meaning to state this about Tom, but, as usual, had other things to do first.

And that's all well and good, but in a film it would be nothing but noise for the sake of noise.
Especially as the power of nature is already well represented by Treebeard and his little massacre at Isengard.

I never took Tom and Goldberrry as a sop to the power of nature but more of 'how weird and wonderful this new world of Middle Earth is.' Some stories are so tight that one begins to think that nothing happens by chance, at random, or that does not lead to some big revelation at the end.

Tom is completely unnecessary, like whipped cream on pineapple upside-down cake, but all the better for it.

So Peter Jackson wisely left Tom out. Though, as a secret bonus track on RotK, he could have filmed and added the Tom sequence, if just to say 'thanks' to the fans (and to make up for TTT).

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Tom is completely unnecessary, like whipped cream on pineapple upside-down cake, but all the better for it.

So Peter Jackson wisely left Tom out. Though, as a secret bonus track on RotK, he could have filmed and added the Tom sequence, if just to say 'thanks' to the fans (and to make up for TTT).

I agree that Tom was superfluous, and one of the few edits that PJ inflicted on the story that I actually agree with. I also agree with your pineapple upside-down cake analogy, as Tom was somewhat fruity.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by alatar

So Peter Jackson wisely left Tom out. Though, as a secret bonus track on RotK, he could have filmed and added the Tom sequence, if just to say 'thanks' to the fans (and to make up for TTT).

Well, on the EE he gave Treebeard Tom's part (the whole Old Man Willow thing).

[Mirandir]

When I first saw the movie, I was really upset that PJ had left out Tom. However, after having some time to calm down and actually think about it, I came to the conclusion that leaving him out was probably a good idea. Like so many people before me said, anyone cast to play him would just lead to disappointment and a lot of fans of the books would be unhappy with the portrayal of such a...special character (my vocabulary decided to short out on me on that one )

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Well, I'm personally disappointed that he didn't at least run by them or something, but I'm glad that Jackson didn't massacre their stay at his house.

[Bregalad]

Indeed, I agree.

But I always have thoughts of who Tom Bombadill really is. Of course, we all know he is a man with big beard, blue clothes, hat with a feather and all that. But why did he sigh when he spoke of the witch king and their lands?
And another thing - by some reason, I don't know where I read this, but is Tom Bombadill and Goldberry Maiars?

(Sorry if I can't spell or wrote in some awful grammar) >_<

[alatar]

Here on the forum there are both serious and silly discussions regarding the original of ole' Tom. Of course I prefer the later, as seen here.

Regardless, I would have taken Glorfindel, or Eomer over Tom.

[Bêthberry]

With all this whipped cream being licked off fingers and pineapple upsidedown cake and likely faces too, I think it's time to add yet another dimension to Tom, much as I appreciate alatar's clever trekkie attempt to explain all the tribbles we've seen with Tom.

Tom obviously is Tolkien's slight recognition of eastern philosophies, for Goldberry's lilies are obviously lotus flowers, sacred in those philosophies' creation myth and representative of purity and detachment from desire. Just check out the River Goddess too if you need further similarities. Of course, Tolkien was not pure in his assumption of eastern iconography and sometimes got his symbolism mixed up, as when he attributes Sarasvati's white swans to Galadriel, although he did get the use of honey correct.

So it is quite appropriate that so many in the western tradition leave Tom and eastern thought out, speaking only applicably of course and not allegorically.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So it is quite appropriate that so many in the western tradition leave Tom and eastern thought out, speaking only applicably of course and not allegorically.

Well, pineapples are of eastern derivation, I suppose. So, philosophically speaking, Tom and pineapples equate further than we had first surmised.
Deep.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Well, pineapples are of eastern derivation, I suppose. So, philosophically speaking, Tom and pineapples equate further than we had first surmised.
Deep.

Well, given that "pineapple" first was used, c. 1398, to refer to the reproductive organs of evergreens--what we now call the pine cone--there might be a very fascinating avenue to explore here. Other trees might be involved. It could well be no mystery that Tom had power over Old Man Willow.

Originally Posted by alatar

I have no idea about east meeting west, but I do know that PJ did good leaving Tom and Goldberry out. We saw what he did to Treebeard, and so it's a double helping.

I take this to mean you are suggesting that absence makes the heart grow fonder?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

With all this whipped cream being licked off fingers and pineapple upsidedown cake and likely faces too, I think it's time to add yet another dimension to Tom, much as I appreciate alatar's clever trekkie attempt to explain all the tribbles we've seen with Tom.

Ick! I use a fork.

So it is quite appropriate that so many in the western tradition leave Tom and eastern thought out, speaking only applicably of course and not allegorically.

I have no idea about east meeting west, but I do know that PJ did good leaving Tom and Goldberry out. We saw what he did to Treebeard, and so it's a double helping.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

I have no idea about east meeting west, but I do know that PJ did good leaving Tom and Goldberry out. We saw what he did to Treebeard, and so it's a double helping.

And h aving heard what PJ has done to Radagast in TH, I'm coming around to the idea that we should be grateful he didn't mess with Tom and Goldberry.

[Inkling777]

Tom Bombadil is a freakin beast

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Tom Bombadil is one of my favourite characters, but I think it might have been a bit much to put him in the films. I think that Tom would've really confused those non-book readers, although, he confuses book readers too...

[Boo Radley]

Tom was never one of my favorite characters.
He provided some needed plot points in the book, but I always wished he'd been patterned more after someone like Beorn.
To me, Tom was like some weird hippy.
But that's just my opinion... your mileage may vary.

[Annatar]

I never liked Tom that much, and was glad that he was left out of the movies.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Gothbogg the Ripper

Question...
Was anyone happy that Bombadil wasn't included? Does anyone else feel that they made the right choice to keep him out of the Fellowship?

Bombadil was never a part of the Fellowship. He was a side character. I feel they did the right thing by not including him because, aside from entertainment (and perhaps directing Frodo to Bree), he serves no purpose in the story.

[narfforc]

The only real part Tom has in the story is that of giving the blade of Westernesse to Merry, this part is given to Strider on Weathertop, however the importance of that sword/dagger or it's history is never explained in the movie.

[Galadriel55]

Weirdly enough, I forgave PJ for excluding ol' Tom. You know, in any movie made from books there are some scenes that have to be cut out. I think that Jackson chose the right one to throw out of FOTR (rather than, for example, Lothlorien). What I can't forgive him for is the way he changed all the other scenes and characters.

[narfforc]

Yeh the same for me really, I don't mind so much what he left out, it's what he puts in that annoys me.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Bombadil was never a part of the Fellowship.

I was refering to the name of the film. I am fully aware that Bombadil was simply a creepy guy who lived in the woods.

[Lollipop010900]

I'm ashamed to say that as much as i love Lord of the Rings, no matter how many times i read the book i can never quite understand who Tom Bombadil is or what he contributes to the story. I think for people who hadn't read the book, it would have been very confusing. Also, they cut out quite a bit of important stuff, so i would have been a little concerned if they had got rid of important bits of the story and kept Tom Bombadil. He is a very interesting character I just don't get what he does in the storyline! Maybe thats just me being stupid but still...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lollipop010900

I'm ashamed to say that as much as i love Lord of the Rings, no matter how many times i read the book i can never quite understand who Tom Bombadil is or what he contributes to the story. I think for people who hadn't read the book, it would have been very confusing. Also, they cut out quite a bit of important stuff, so i would have been a little concerned if they had got rid of important bits of the story and kept Tom Bombadil. He is a very interesting character I just don't get what he does in the storyline! Maybe thats just me being stupid but still...

Well, aside from saving the hobbits a couple times, he doesn't do much, but for me his presence is like the personofication of not only his forest, but part of the good that Frodo fights for. The hobbits were to cherish the memory of his home. As for who he is, he is.