Tom Bombadil?

So, I understand there are numerous opinions on this: Do you think PJ should have included Tom in the movies, or was he unnecessary?

BTW, I apologize if this had been brought up before.

I would have liked to have seen him there to be honest, even just as a nod to the real fans. Whilst he remains an engima and we'd be answering the question "Who is Tom Bombadil" even more than we do already (I'm sure you get my reference) he has an important role because isn't he the only creature who can totally resist the Evil of the ring he doesn't desire it he may hold it and give it back without the desire to keep it as its own and take up power.

For me that was quite a special trait even in a character we know little about as such I should have liked him kept in. The signing however would have to go, I don't think it would translate well in a movie atmosphere.

"Real" fans?

No, including him would have been a stupid mistake.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"Real" fans?

No, including him would have been a stupid mistake.

And why is that? It would be nice to have more insightful answers...

Including Tom would have caused a lot of confusion for movie goers, especially if they hadn't read the books. I think introducing a character, explaining who he is, only to have him depart as quickly as he arrived would have left a lot of people confused.

I think that Peter Jackson knew that he would have a great number of people that would go see the movie without having read the books, and therfore left out a character that wasn't specifically geared towards the main story line.

It was nice that he used Tree Beard and incorportated some of the text of Tom into the movie in hopes that it would satisfy those that knew of him.

True on both accounts and okay "Real" fans was a slip of the proverbial tonque. And rather less important than the rest of my answer was. By real I simply mean those who have read the books initially. Not that Movie fans are any more real or less a fan than the fans of the Books.

Originally posted by nenarye
And why is that? It would be nice to have more insightful answers...

Well, it would also be nice if your question wasn't so odd. How could Bombadil in absolutely any way at all have been necessary? Of COURSE he was unnecessary; he has nothing to do with anything relevant at all. The onus should be on people to explain why the hell he should be in, not for others to defend why he was left out.

If following the story to the T, he did ave the Hobbits from the Barrow Weight. Which is where they got their swords, one of the swords specificially that can injure the Witch King. The one Merry used to stab him dealing him a terrible wound upon which Eowyn capitalised. And I was hoping as a discussion forum about a film we could have discussion not a series of attacks and defense at each other. Or maybe I am being odd.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, it would also be nice if your question wasn't so odd. How could Bombadil in absolutely any way at all have been necessary? Of COURSE he was unnecessary; he has nothing to do with anything relevant at all. The onus should be on people to explain why the hell he should be in, not for others to defend why he was left out.

I really don't see how my question was odd, I was mearly getting opinions on why or why not he should be left out.