Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Was anybody else a bit annoyed that he wasn't featured in the movies, even in the extended version. I mean the movies were still absolutely spectacular but I feel that the prescence of Bombadil and Goldberry would have made it more so.

I agree, that and the scouring of the shire would have been nice. PJ filemd the entire Scouring part but decided to not put it in, as he didn't like it. That's what I heard anyway.

Yeah definately. But I suppose if they had put all of the content from the books into the movies alot of good dialogue etc would need to be cut and other areas of the film would suffer

Films are notoriously hard to edit down from source material, due to length. The extended cut was already 3:30 and had to lose a lot of stuff.

Bombadil's sweet, but does his idiom really mesh with anything in the film?

No.

I agree completely with the decision. I love Tom too, but that had to be one of the easiest decisions for Jackson. Now, the Scouring on the other hand would have been a nice touch....but meh.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Films are notoriously hard to edit down from source material, due to length. The extended cut was already 3:30 and had to lose a lot of stuff.

Bombadil's sweet, but does his idiom really mesh with anything in the film?

No.

I agree completely with the decision. I love Tom too, but that had to be one of the easiest decisions for Jackson. Now, the Scouring on the other hand would have been a nice touch....but meh.

Couldn't agree more. He is a great character in the books but to have him in the films would only be confusing. At least for those who are not familiar with the story and don't know who he is. There would only be room for maybe 7 minutes of Tom Bombadil in a movie and it would only raise questions. Like "Who the hell is that guy"
the movie wouldn't gain anything on it.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Was anybody else a bit annoyed that he wasn't featured in the movies, even in the extended version. I mean the movies were still absolutely spectacular but I feel that the prescence of Bombadil and Goldberry would have made it more so.

No. Bombadil had no role in the plot what so ever. He slowed down the books big time. Every character in the movie had some role to play out expect Tom and Goldberry. That would have slowed down the flow of the movies a LOT.

Really the movies were done the best they could. Jackson couldn't added in the Scourging since the extended version is already 4+ hours long. How much more do you want? Besides it makes more since for Saruman to die in the land he destroyed trying to bring about the second darkness.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
No. Bombadil had no role in the plot what so ever. He slowed down the books big time. Every character in the movie had some role to play out expect Tom and Goldberry. That would have slowed down the flow of the movies a LOT.

Really the movies were done the best they could. Jackson couldn't added in the Scourging since the extended version is already 4+ hours long. How much more do you want? Besides it makes more since for Saruman to die in the land he destroyed trying to bring about the second darkness.

He did play a pretty big part in the books, for instance he was raised in the council as to what to do with the ring as a possibility of looking after it. He also symbolises the creation of man in middle earth as he is the only one immune to the rings powers and this could have given the audience a more clear idea of the structure of middle earth.

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
He did play a pretty big part in the books, for instance he was raised in the council as to what to do with the ring as a possibility of looking after it. He also symbolises the creation of man in middle earth as he is the only one immune to the rings powers and this could have given the audience a more clear idea of the structure of middle earth.

True. Also Tolkien envisioned Tom as a nature-spirit that is expressive of the English countryside, which in Tolkien's time had begun to disappear (Tolkien loved trees a lot. This is shown throughout his books, in especial the ents)

On another note...

I love the chapters with Tom and the Scouring much too but I understand Peters decision's for not including them. The big ones being that they don't really fufill any purpose in the grand-scheme of things and that they slow down the pace of the movie big time.

Besides, it leaves a bit of mystery that is hard to have after seeing the films. Like I mean, it's hard to imagine your own version of Frodo, Gandalf or Mordor after you have seen the movies version. This way we can make Tom up ourselves and create our own Battle of the Shire thumbsup

Meh....I don't think that Tom would have worked as a character in the film.

W00t for the least hardcore....
Meh, I didn't like Tom THAT much....he was an interesting character, but I can live without him....

Wow....that was cheesy.

I've been doing some research...

Did you guys know that Tolkien even wanted Tom to be mysterious.

Excerpt:

Tolkien even seems to justify Tom Bombadil's presence:

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil

I agree with all that has been said as to why both Tom and Goldberry were kept out of the films. However, I must admit, I never really enjoyed the character in all his glory; he raises questions to which there were not straight forward answers and to me it never qute melded with the rest of the story.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen


-AC

&$** the?

Originally posted by exanda kane
&$** the?

Haha, yeah this was when I first joined. I think my intention was to jip AC, it obviously failed. I actually think he's a good lad now, as well.

Haha, for some reason this thread reminds me of the old "Tom Bombadil is the Witch King!" Threads...Wonder if those are still around here someone...

Originally posted by exanda kane
It's all well and good citing sources et cetera, but it doesn't change the fact that Bombadil has never found the mass appeal other characters have enjoyed.

Sure, totally agree. Tom isn't as popular as other characters, I'm not saying he is. I love that aswell, sometimes characters that are worshiped too much by fans can be offputting (e.g - Legolas, the movie version). Just my opinion!

Originally posted by exanda kane
There's no doubt Tom Bombadil was an important character for Tolkien, but disregarding Tolkien's intentions, and taking into account the "love/hate" relationship readers have with him, either something got lost in ranslation or that's simply the way the character was concieved and executed.

As I said, Tolkien deliberately created Tom to be an enigma. Afterall, what kind of a fantasy story has absolutely no mystery: a boring one!

I see Tom as Tolkien's indulgence. He's his treat, for him. I think it's fair that he has something that represents his personal views and that is purely for him to enjoy (if not the readers aswell). Seeing as, lets be honest, when you write a book (although I never have! :P) you do want it to appeal to people, which it obviously did.

People who try to analyse Tom too much are taking the fun out. Tolkien actually told an older fan they were looking into it too much/being too serious when they questioned Tom and the mystery surrounding him.

As for that WK theory, as impossible as it is. I read somewhere that Eru/Illuvatar was Tom. Tolkien also dismissed this idea too though.

Tom was a wonderful detour in the book. I perfectly understand cutting him from the film, it was the right, if painful, thing to do. Still, how good would it be to see what those scene's would have looked like? I deeply missed the Scouring of the Shire as well- but there was absolutely no way to have it in the movies without adding at least 30 min. to an already LONG run time. The truth is, only a television miniseries could ever do justice to the books (maybe we'll see this happen, in twenty years or so?)

Tom doesn't play an important part of the story and Jackson didn't have time to focus on stuff not plot related.

yes i agree that bombadil didn have much effect on the storyline but WHY !!!!
it kinda does effect them in a ways , when they get taken by the barrow wight and Tom saved them they got the kickass swords , in the movie strider gives them normal swords , which shouldve made it impossible for pippin to kill the WK

Pippin?

merry , i get those confused ive read the book and seen the movie dozens of times and still get them mixed up

I would have loved to of seen Frodo's wild cousin in the film , but I believe the right decisison was made to cut Tom Bombadil from the movie. The film turned out to be a masterwork of moviemaking and the E.E. make's it even more so. So one can't really complain that much. Would have been nice but ultimatley you have to do what's right for the film.

EXCELLENT DISCUSSION