Where is Tom Bombadil?

[Aslan]

I love Tom Bombadil in the book. I am dissapointed not to see him in the movie. I know he is not necessary to the story, but he is a welcome sidetrack to me. Opinions?

[DGoeij]

Funny, the name is written in Greek letters, if I'm not mistaken.

[ReadWryt]

...I can hear it now..."No, we HAVE to have Bombadil in the film...it's an imperative!...lets cut out Bree, we don't have to have the hobbits at the Prancing Pony..and we can get rid of that Weathertop thing too. It's that or try to get people to go to a three and a half hour movie..."

[DGoeij]

Actually, how it was done in the latest movie, they could have done without the Weathertop intermezzo, but that is IMHO.:D
But if they wanted to save time, they could have cut the event with the wargs.............. come to think of it.......:rolleyes:
I think they did farely well in their desicions on what to put in and what not. Except for the gifts of Galadriel. But how long can you last in a cinema if you are 1.90 meters tall and the size of feet to match.:(

[aragil]

Sweet, sweet Director's cut DVD, to be viewed from the comfort of my own futon. I'll enjoy the retro-added scenes best of all, I think. Only what, 3.5 more months?

[chowmeinaholic]

i would have liked to see the whole tom bombadil scene in the movie. but looking at it from pj's standpoint, it makes sense. still, it would have been interesting to see how they would do the wights and old man willow.

[ReadWryt]

Looking at it from P.J.s point of view? What about looking at it from the point of view of the poor Non-Tolkien fan who ends up sitting through all four hours of the movie and wonders what the heck that "Tom Bombadil" thing was all about...?

[Gloer]

In the directors cut DVD Tom Bombadil will appear and Peter Jackson himself will play the role! He is type cast, he is all mighty director who jumps from behind the scenes to help Frodo and the hobbits. PJ tries the ring and nothing happens. It is soooo UNREAL!!!

It will be very strange since he is going to wear his ordinary shorts and t-short outfit and this is why no-one realised that they have actually shot the scenes!!

[ReadWryt]

Bah! I would rather see John Cleese play Bombadil...*snicker*

[Ariana Undomiel]

I have debated and discussed this very topic quite a bit actually and I believe I have come to a logical conclusion. First of all, Tolkien took certain delight in adding small things into the story that really had very little to do with the rest of the book. Tom Bombadil is one example of this. He is a fantastic and interesting character and the entire scene in the Old Forest is a lot of fun to read. However, one could read the entire rest of the story without really needing to have read that part. So it was not a necessity to the film. Another reason I believe that it could have been left out is as follows. Tom Bombadil is a fascinating fellow who runs along the edge of being potrayed as ridiculous. Tolkien very cleverly kept him right on the edge. However, if he were portrayed in a movie, it would take a lot of skill and excellent acting to bring Tom Bombadil to life without making him ridiculous. Who could do that? Who would be the actor who could actually meet up to everyone's expectations. None come to my mind.

So leave Tom as a special part of the book and just enjoy the movie without him. He will be waiting in the pages when you come back again.

~Ariana

[jonahfish7]

It would certainly add a lot of confusion for a person not familiar with the book because of Tom's ability to not be affected by the One Ring.

[Thorin II]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Looking at it from P.J.s point of view? What about looking at it from the point of view of the poor Non-Tolkien fan who ends up sitting through all four hours of the movie and wonders what the heck that "Tom Bombadil" thing was all about...?

'poor Non-Tolkien fan'? CURSE THEM!!!

the culling is at hand...

What? Oh, this is a public post? *jumps on plane headed for unknown remote island*

[Aeglos_Ohtar]

I persionally didnt care to much for the Tom Bombadil part in the book. No offence to those who like him.

[tur-khelednen]

alright if everyone can just lay off my bombidilleo for one second id be much abblidged. he is first his songs are stronger. now back off please

[Aslan]

Thanks, tur-khelednen. I feel the same way. Tom Bombadil is the best. :D Too bad he was omitted in the movie.

[GorhendadOldbuk]

peter jackson should have put every scene in the book into the movie....it'd be a very long movie but you would have a instant masterpeice....maybe instead of four,it'd be twelve academy awards?......i would have really liked to see the Barrow wight too......
i hope the ents are at least in the two towers......they are such a key in the books.......the flooding and stuff.......but oh well...(the presice reason that a L.O.T.r movie has never been made 'fore j.r.r tolkein died.....if i were him i would never want my movies to go on the big screen such a degredation of a master peice.....the tolkein foundation shoudl've had creative control......hey it'd cost millions but if a swarchenager film can cost ten billion dollars and a great work of art like tolkein can't be made to the full.....than i guess the world is even more juviniel than thought.......thats my personal opinion u do not need to share it nor do i wish you too.....;)
....some movies "they" should make from literary works are philep pullman books and robert jordan and the belgarion? by whats his name....i forgot...my memory is rather limited since i bumbed my he...ad.....never mind....live long and prosper?

[ReadWryt]

Originally posted by GorhendadOldbuk
peter jackson should have put every scene in the book into the movie....it'd be a very long movie but you would have a instant masterpeice....maybe instead of four,it'd be twelve academy awards?......i would have really liked to see the Barrow wight too......
i hope the ents are at least in the two towers......they are such a key in the books.......the flooding and stuff.......but oh well...(the presice reason that a L.O.T.r movie has never been made 'fore j.r.r tolkein died.....if i were him i would never want my movies to go on the big screen such a degredation of a master peice.....the tolkein foundation shoudl've had creative control......hey it'd cost millions but if a swarchenager film can cost ten billion dollars and a great work of art like tolkein can't be made to the full.....than i guess the world is even more juviniel than thought.......thats my personal opinion u do not need to share it nor do i wish you too.....;)
....some movies "they" should make from literary works are philep pullman books and robert jordan and the belgarion? by whats his name....i forgot...my memory is rather limited since i bumbed my he...ad.....never mind....live long and prosper?

Oh man, where to start? Uuuuuuh, if everything from the book had been included it would have been a 6 hour movie and NOBODY from the Voting Body of the Academy, nor the majority of the people who paid $800 million dollars, would have seen it anyways. I'm put in mind of the occasional Wagner festival at which the entire Ring Cycle is performed in one huge block. They sell perhaps 800 tickets and people come from all over the world, but they only do it one weekend a year...it's an event, this was a Money Making Venture for which New Line Cinema expects to turn a profit...say anything you care to about Jackson but give him credit for turning out a movie which gives a taste of Tolkien to the mainstream moviegoer while actually making money, which is by definition what a professional movie maker does.
No movie has ever cost ONE BILLION, let alone multi-billion dollars to make.

[Aslan]

I agree that the movie would have been a burden to watch, if it included the entirety of the book. I (as much as I love Tolkiens works) would not have enjoyed six hours at a theater. On the positive side of the abbreviated movie-How many people have taken up reading Tolkien? I suppose a whole new generation of readers will be enjoying Tolkien for years to come. Not to leave out, the royalties from all the books and other items the Tolkien foundation will receive.

I still wanted to see the Tom Bombadil part in the movie.:D ;)

[FattyBolger]

I was dissapointed that Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest/Barrow-Downs wasn't included in the Special Extended Version...

[faila]

I believe tom was an important part in the lord of the rings and thierfore should of been in the movie. I shows that the power of the ring could not corrupt all and had no power over some. Tom may seem as if he is uneeded but he is needed.

[tom_bombadil]

I have a soloution divide each film into the 2 parts it was divided into in the books he then could of included eveting in the book and each fil would only be 90 mins

[quickbeam]

Tom Bombadil,

I agree that there should have been a film based on each book (i.e. not each volume), giving a total of six movies rather than three.

If each movie was between two and three hours in length, the movie adaptation could have been more detailed.

And from the commercial and artistic points of view, it would have meant more revenue and more Oscar nominations.

I do not think that having six movies would have been too slow or boring - so much vision and wonder went into Tolkien's work that there is ample material to make six exciting, breath-taking movies.

Who agrees?

[Ol'gaffer]

I thought that PJ did a great job in cutting down the trip from Hobbiton to Rivendell. The story runs in my opinion better without some crazy old hippie prancing around and acting like a git.
But I think that the barrow downs could have been there, it was a cool scene in the book but was then let down by that old fool we know as tom bombadill.

no offence to bombadill fans or anything.

[jallan]

Yes, if the money was available, The Lord of the Rings could have been made into an open-ended video series for television and video sales, and even for theatrical release.

That is indeed the only way to really do it right, if you want to include everything.

As DVD starts taking over, and certainly DVD or an extended DVD format will replace film, and as the number of theatres per person continues to shrink, theatre release becomes less important, something like hardcover release versus paperback release.

Increasingly home viewing through sales or rental is where the money is, and size of the film doesn't matter.

The reason theatres dislike a three-hour film is they can only manage to squeeze in a single evening showing. For home viewing this doesn't matter.

Does twelve fuill CDs sound reaonable, each one covering half of one the six books into which The Lord of the Rings is divided, with an exatra one for the Appendices, a kind of documentary disk?

jonahfish7 posted:It would certainly add a lot of confusion for a person not familiar with the book because of Tom's ability to not be affected by the One Ring.It is supposed to confusing and surprising in the book also, so that should be no problem.

Tom is intended as a confusing and surprising person.

Tolkien also indicated that the Great Rings did not make Dwarves invisible either or generally effect them, other than to make them more greedy for gold and such.

Ariana Undomiel posted:However, if he were portrayed in a movie, it would take a lot of skill and excellent acting to bring Tom Bombadil to life without making him ridiculous. Who could do that? Who would be the actor who could actually meet up to everyone's expectations. None come to my mind.Gene Wilder?

[Talimon]

You may find it to be of some interest, jallan, that PJ has edits of the film that are 4 1/2 to 5 hours long. There are many, many scenes that did not make it into the final film. On the EE someone even mentions that the original Council of Elrond was something like 30 minutes long. My point is, there is a chance (however slim) that PJ will release the "full" versions of the film eventually. I know that as we speak PJ is looking at 3 edits of the final film, and one of them is 4 1/2 hours long. I would personally sell my soul to see those cuts :).

[Ariana Undomiel]

Even if there are hours of cuts that were left out of the film, I don't think that Tom Bombadil is one of them. If I am not much mistaken PJ did not have him in the original script at all. If he had been someone would most likely have heard a rumor of it by now and if there had been I would probably know because I keep up to date with everything quite a bit. Tom Bombadil was most likely never filmed. I could be wrong of course, but in this case I doubt it.

I too would enjoy seeing more of the cuts that were left out of the first and second films.

- Ariana