Bombadil was, in part, a foreshadowing of the quest to destroy the One Ring. It would not be through weapons, or armies or powerful magic that the Ring would be undone but by courage, innocence and a stout and simple heart. Tom embodies the qualities of joy, love and a simple life, which Tolkien considered to be the real strength of the human spirit.
@@RWDtech A little reading and little understanding of Tolkien himself and the reasons for Bombadil's presence in the story becomes clear. He's not important to the plot, of course, but he is central to the major themes of Tolkien's books.
If his home was being destroyed and he and everyone else in it was threatened, would Tom have done everything he could to stop an attack? Therefore would Tom not be subjected to the same temptations as everyone else to keep his home safe and eventually fall under the rings temptation?
@@JoeyJoe-JoeJrShabadoo Tom is a very different kind of "thing" in terms of his place in the lore and his relationship with Middle Earth. Tolkien tells us that Tom was both the first being to set upon Arda and would ultimately also be the last to leave it. The implication here (and as suggested by the nature of both Tom's personality and capabilities) is that Tom exists as sort of the "Spirit of Arda", like a "Gaia" or "Mother Earth" type figure. The manifestation or embodiment of the world itself. Tom is not a warrior, or wizard, or really any kind of active agent in the world. He simply is an extension of Arda and it's his presence alone that brings comfort and courage to the good-hearted while sedating or rebuking the wicked or mean-spirited. If Sauron's forces decided to come to Bombadil's door, it's more likely that they would simply be repelled from entering his domain in the first place. Not by any overt "magic barrier" or spell but because Tom and his realm are the heart of pure life and goodness in Middle Earth. Sauron and his servants would likely feel an unconscious aversion to the place itself and never wish to tread there. In short, if Sauron had won and stretched out his hand to rule Middle Earth, there would be no "Battle for the Old Forest". Sauron would likely leave Bombadil alone and Tom would go on tending to his forest as he always had. But this unique nature also explains to the reader why Tom, for all his seeming "power", was never really an option for dealing with the One Ring itself. Because Tom is beyond the power of the Ring, it also meant that he likely didn't perceive its nature and thus didn't consider it of any significance. We are told that the One Ring was crafted as a distillation of Sauron's greed, malice and lust for power, and these were the qualities upon which it preyed. Tom is a pure embodiment of innocence, joy and a love of life, against which the Ring was entirely impotent. Gandalf speculates that, placed in his care, Tom was likely to simply forget about the Ring and misplace it or lose it. Tom was also seemingly unconcerned with (or perhaps even unable to influence) matters beyond his domain, so giving him a role in the Fellowship to destroy the Ring didn't seem feasible either.
I always interpreted Bombadil as Nature itself. The Ring Wars are Tolkiens' way to process WW1 and for me Bombadil is his way of saying "Earth doesn't care about our wars". I am really anxious about the inclusion in rings of power. They will absolutely not do him justice.
I agree but I also understand why both were cut. If they had Glorfyndel, even in a couple of scenes they would have to explain him and his power. Also why it was he didn’t go with the fellowship instead of Legolas. His story arc would be to long for someone with a couple of scenes. While I would totally be down for more run time on the movie I just don’t think they would get the value out of the production that would justify it.
@jennyanydots2389 Lmao no. His clothes were described as green and brown. There was no true physical description of him. But if we bring up the other entries in the series, he was most likely very white. (Elves are just fair skinned, it's how the culture and mythos are.)
@@IamSumfoo totally agree, I will say I’m a little bummed that it looks like Rings of Power is replacing Glorfyndel once again. But yeah, there’s way too much background info to truly understand Glorfyndel’s role
I think it's great that they left him out. He is an anomaly, a great addition to the books but it would've been very hard to pull it off properly in the movies, and it would've added a lot of runtime. He is a very famous character now, so maybe he incentivises a couple people to read the books (and then some other books cause it was actually pretty fun)!
He also upsets the tone Jackson was going for, in my opinion. He's eccentric and odd, lighthearted and mystical, but so much of the fellowship was dark and dangerous and brooding. The movies had their moments of levity, but they weren't as outlandish as a deity singing about his yellow boots all the time.
@@marcopoloonpollo5937 They even altered the appearance and (I think) the tone of Gandalf in the movie. To make him more serious and maybe even cater to the actor's style.
I believe you are correct. I find that there are those who despise joy in the hearts of others. Specially when the joyful take a path less trodden and avoid the pitfalls of conformity successfully. Tom’s character is this anomaly and even the western conformity would not appreciate the peace and joy of Tom’s wisdom.
Tom knew of Maggot and was impressed. This is similar to the very concept of "Shire" and Hobbits. There are some who, while they do have ordered society, do not seek to amplify power, to engage in wide ranging and thorough control of all beings, or certainly of Middle Earth. There is also a concept probably not taught very much in schools of today called "noblesse oblige", which surrounds the idea of leaders or elite (any of the Kings in M.E. would fit this). This is a concept that they don't just get free hand, but have substantial obligation to provide for the welfare of common folk. Usually this simply means help or charity. For some, though there is the concept that should the elite fail in this required aid, their nobility may well be lessened or even wiped out.
@@mateuszslawinski1990considering masses of men soldiers would flee from the Nazgûl out of fear, Maggot seemed to be quite exceptionally stalwart as a being.
@@Jackaroo. Maggot admited the visitor had given him chills. He also noticed his dogs were scared. Of course he deduced something was very wrong with this guy. Besides, hobbits in general can be quite bold if they want.
I agree with his exclusion in the films. Jackson knew what he was doing and he was right. Imagine these films being - even longer - with the inclusion of whacky scenes that don't really progress the plot and, if anything, confuse the narrative? No thanks.
I'd have taken to a daring concept and tried freakishly hard to not do the Faramir thing of dragging Hobbits and "Ring" to Osgiliath, only to then release them. I gather this had to do with ordering of plot points to the set of three movies. I'd have been glad to leave things as they were when Sam had no idea if he could get back to Frodo, or not, and Shelob had been wounded and was burbling in her hideout. There may have been some technical problem building convincing giant spider digital assets, but I'd hope to use that as in the books.
@@crtune I disagree. Farmerier was a total soy boy beta cuck. Ozgillyuth was a pit of despair and debachery. Fraudo was a bitch, Shelobe was Bunt Citch. You don't know what you're talmbout brugh.
I love how Russian Bombadil looks like such a happy go lucky fellow and Finnish Bombadil looks like "The Sound of Silence" should play everytime he shows up.
I think it's fine if you consider that the Lord of the Rings isn't supposed to be a conventional series of novels, it's supposed to be a legend. In Epic poems like the Odyssey or Beowulf there's weird mysterious tangents all the time, because they weren't written as one narrative, and were instead collections of oral poetry that were combined into one work. The lord of the rings is ultimately just a load of stories invented to flesh out the world of middle earth and give history to the languages Tolkien invented.
It makes sense that he wasn’t included in the movie, and it makes sense that he was included in the books. I think comparing him to Sam is silly. Sam cares in a way that Bombadil doesn’t and it’s probably due to their very natures (Tom’s being, likely, something close to immortal, and Sam’s being.. mortal)
And, Gandalf mentions that Bombadil would forget about the ring because it didn't interest him, which is why it wasn't safe to leave it to him. This doesn't sound like the actions of the creator deity.
I think in the books they talked about that and what was said if I remember correctly is that Tom has no interest in such trinkets and would very well just lose it, that is if they could have convinced him to take it anyway, Tom never once cared about the ring it is a trinket to him he just loves his woods and his lovely river daughter Goldberry.
Yes it’s alluded to in the books that Tom would more or less put the Ring in his kitchen drawer with the takeout sauce packets and forget about it. Sauron needed the Ring to completely dominate Middle Earth quickly but he also could’ve eventually conquered it without the Ring using sheer numbers. Giving the Ring to Tom would’ve allowed Sauron time to amass his troops.
Tom surpasses the ability to portray on a screen. But hands down he is my favorite character. So much so he played a large role in inspiring my own epic tale I’m writing.
I understood why Bombadil was cut from the LOTR movies, but I think a perfect opportunity to include him in The Hobbit movie trilogy was completely wasted. Instead of making up new characters, they could have had Bilbo meet Tom along his journey instead. Then in the scene where Tom takes the Ring and doesn't disappear, that would have given greater weight to the idea that Bilbo had found nothing more than a "fancy trinket" during his quest, and why no one seemed all that concerned about the Ring for so long. It would have been a great way to bridge that gap with viewers who had not read the books and could not understand how something so powerful was lost for so long.
Damn that is a missed opportunity. Tom Bombadil definitely fits with the aesthetics of The Hobbit series more so than LotR. At least he shows up in The Rings of Power, I haven't watched the season but I've seen the clip and it made me happy. Your version though would've been better.
@@jennyanydots2389 I always felt most fans considers him "God" or at least a strange illusory physical representation of "God", disguised as a silly old man. The one who was first and the one who will be last. The higher spirit of all living beings etc. Or a metaphysical phenomenon and anomaly within the Tolkien universe. Your guess is as valid as mine though.
Would liked to seen him in the movies. Kind of a sanctuary area. Where Tom was extremely powerful, but only within his forest. Very eccentric very full of riddles. Yet very full of answers.
I think part of the intention of Bombadil was to show Frodo that the ring is not all powerful as he thinks. Tom I think knew the ring would consume Frodo and him taking them in was a chance to instill hope in Frodo from the dread of the path ahead.
Bombadil was a popular subject of conversation in the "Hippie Era", as I remember. I was young then, but very familiar with Tolkien and was welcomed into many discussions of older hip folk. All agreed that somehow Bombadil was a representative of a being not linked to typical "control" of either people, events or society. He was in "harmony" with nature, and lived or had power in such a way that he was simply not within that "frame" of either conserving (which needs ability to enforce conservation) or destroying (the revolutionaries who also will implement new rules, new structures, and will enforce this going forward; this is mostly Tolkien, with me adding only a little). Tolkien rightly says that Bombadil lacks much of the directly relevant aspects of either the noble gentry like Hobbit or of the lordly Elves, Wizards and Aragorn. While Tolkien, like most from that era with so much antipathy toward modernized and mechanized society, did not like seeing the beauty of nature, and the pleasantness of rural life consumed by encroaching cities, he was also not inclined to want to create rebellion and destroy in order to create. His hero of Aragorn (and really the others like Sam) brings long learning "the hard way" in service to other beings, and true modesty, to bear to be a great leader of a resurrected Middle Earth. While one might think this all is not too hard to understand, I'm sure this could be wrecked by the right creatives making movies.
I wanted to see Tom and the Barrow-wights in the Fellowship movie. It's really such a good way to tell the reader, you're not in the shire anymore. Anything can be a trap or a danger, but there are also unlikely allies in the world. I've heard PJ saying that they wanted to get the action going and Tom sort of halts the forward momentum. I think they could have easily included a shortened version of the Tom encounter. Just have the Hobbits walking to Bree and instead of the encounter with the Nazgul have them stumble onto the Barrow-wights. Have Tom save them, do some exposition and point them in the right direction and done. More of a cameo and an introduction to the dangerous wider world outside of the shire.
Tom Bombadil is only included in Peter Jackson's musical cut of the films... The final battle when Aragorn and Sauron have a dance battle is pretty epic!
My personal opinion is that he is ultimate neutral between good and evil... His point was that in the fact of good versus evil, despite great power, neutral still loses to evil (in reference to their analysis that giving him the ring for safe keeping would still end in doom).
it wouldn't have ended in doom for Tom, though. Only the rest of the world. Tom would have cared so little about the ring because he doesn't understand it or what it represents. It has 0 affect on him. It is a shiny trinket. He would lose it in a week, according to gandalf.
in my mind it's like hiding the ring inside of a hollow tree. It's a decent spot. A good spot, even. But eventually, since the tree does not care, somebody will come along and take it, or find it, forgotten about, perhaps even an age later.
@@ABurntMuffin as I said I was referring to Gandalf's own analysis that Tom would of still fell to Sauron even if he didn't lose the ring (he said he'd probably be the last living thing to go, but that he would not hold out forever)
@@ZenithWest169 fair enough, calling him the "last living thing to go" sort of makes me think that he survives Sauron though, for surely if this was the end times as predicted then Melkor has returned, and I doubt Sauron would be able to even tickle him once he's back on Arda. Depends on whether or not you believe Dagor Dagorath to be 100% prophecy or not.
@@ABurntMuffin yeah I'm going off what I remember and for the life of me can't find all the quotes.... I remember Gandulf talking about the "what if" he doesn't lose it scenario.
To tell a story in the form of a movie, it is important to not make the "bad guy" look weak, otherwise there is no compelling story. In this case, especially for the movies, the "bad guy" is not Sauron but The One Ring. Including Tom Bombadil would have made the ring look very weak indeed. The audience (especially those unfamiliar with the books) would ask, well, if one guy is unaffected by the ring, maybe others aren't either? And there goes the story. Also, it made sense to give many of Tom's lines and actions to Treebeard.
Most powerful is a very strong word there. He is mighty in his own little land, but it was confirmed by Gandalf at the council of Elrond that in Time even Tom would fall to Sauron after all else had fallen even without ring.
@@teehasheestower He is a powerful being compared to most, especially when in his own realm. But to the big names like Gandalf the White, Saruman and Sauron he is more limited.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD on the contrary, ole Tom may have power, but is apathetic as to it's use. To him something like the Ring is an interesting curiosity to come across one day, and be forgotten the next. Tom being an asset or liability to saving the world boils entirely down to his personality, which limits his capability. Unlike a given wizard or even hobbit, who is willing to risk everything under circumstances where Tom is not.
Okay, ive read the Lord of the Rings series many times. The "swords" that Merry and Pippen got from the Barrow Wights, were from ancient people that made the swirds able to do damage to a black rider. Also said when Merry stabbed the black rider in the knee furing the battle of Gondor to "save " Eowyn. Merry's sword came from the Bartow Wights, not Rohan armory .As did Pippen's sword, and Sam's. Frodo got Sting from Bilbo at Rivendell after their visit to Tom Bombadil, although, i can't recall if he got one from the Barrow Wights, i think he did, he had one at Weathertop later.
As a preface, I'll say that I've never read the books. I've not been "diagnosed," but in my 42 years I've noticed my mind perceiving numbers and letters in places where they actually aren't.. so I' probably what people call dyslexic to some degree. Anyway, I think it does make sense to have cut him for the films Peter Jackson made. While I do fully believe that his alternate orientation serves the story very well, and also gives us insight into the messages Tolkien was intending to convey, I think including his parts of the story would hinder the pacing of the films. However, Peter Jackson's trilogy was made before streaming took over the world of film and episodic series. Now that we're here, 21 years after Return of the King was released, my perspective on how to adapt Tolkien's work for the screen has changed. I think Tolkien's books would be better served as a series. The streaming platform has allowed the art form of episodic series to grow and evolve. If LOTR were eve to be attempted again, in series form I think nothing would have to be cut. And that would give us the best of both worlds. In a series, I don't think Tom Bombadil's place in the stories would hinder pacing in any way, because the arch of a story over the course of episodes flows differently than feature length films do. And I think he actually does represent a very important alternate orientation which puts the other two sides into a different perspective. Making it far less reminiscent of the Christian descended, black-and-white cultural obsession with the symbolism of good vs evil. Which may have been what Tolkien meant when he said that "..he has some importance as a comment." Of course, if someone does take that on at some point, we'd have to live with a LOTR without Ian Holmes, Ian McKellen, and Christopher Lee. Which is unimaginable to me lol I do think it's nice that the rings of power series includes Bombadil. But I don't consider the rings of power series to truly be in Tolkien's world because pretty much nothing about it is canonical. Which just really sucks and feels.. selfish in a childish way to me.
@@richardfurness7556 I'd love to but in order to get audiobooks I'd have subscribe to yet another service for yet another monthly fee. Maybe I'll have more money someday and can justify that then.
Bombadil plays an important role in the books, but he would have come across wrong on film. Am glad he was not included, even if it means missing Old Man Willow and the barrow wight.
2 reasons. 1) He's too powerful and doesn't intervene in the plot. It's like Captain Marvel on Avengers: Endgame. And if you are telling a story in which you should be worried about the Ring's tempation... having a character that is completely immune to it, is against the point. Most of all, at the beggining. 2) If he's this kind of peacefull indifference stick into this world, The Shire, which is the heart of the protagonists, already represents that. And i think the point of the story kind of is that you can't be isolated from the world's problems. Even if The Shire was unharmed, on the films, the rest of the world wasn't. The Ents, Rohan, Gondor, Moria and even the elves were affected by the happenings of the world. It's like an invasion of evil (or a World War). So... being indifferent here isn't an option. If it was, there's would be no point of this story existing, perhaps.
First of all. Miss Marvel is not that powerful. Secondly Adam warlock was supposed to be the hero of end game Third of all The Hulk and century is the most powerful Namely superheroes who can take on Thanos. With no sweat However disney doesn't know shit about Stan Lee's Comic book stories well To tell you that miss marvel is not the strongest hero there is
@@bonnierabbit1413 Ok, i appreciate the info. But even so, i'm talking about the films themselves. More about the narrative factors than about how faithful they are to the source material.
Basically with the context of knowing that he was the main character of a series of books Tolkien wrote before LOTR: he was there to guide and console the child readers who grow up with those stories (who would be adults buy the time LOTR was published) before they are taken into a much darker, dangerous and scary world than what they're used to reading. I believe Tolkien was trying to give them the kind, warm hand, he never got when he was thrown into war.
There’s a lot of speculation on Tom Bombadil. In tolkiens world, the eleven god, Illu Vaatar-and the actual creator of the world,basically sings things into existence and Tom Bombadil has magic he uses by singing… he’s so old that he’s older than any tree in middle earth and watch the first ones grow and has been a guardian of the forest where he’s been found.
In the books tom bombadill balances out the main characters offering insight and perspective. He gives that option of rethinking how things are going to happen. Where does gandalf learn what sauron ring will do if he takes it. Or the elves learn and see if frodo fails. Tom bombadill offers glimpses and gives choices he does not interfere.
All I remember about Tom from the novel is when the subject of giving him the Ring came up at the council at Rivendell, they immediately dismissed the idea saying that since he can't (or won't) leave his particular forest, Sauron would just take over all of Middle-Earth except for Tom's forest. That's when Elrond insisted that the Ring needed to be destroyed. So he's definitely an interesting piece of worldbuilding, but yeah he's ultimately a distraction from the plot.
In reality, and adventure can bring you into unsuspecting situations and people. From what I've read, Bombadil is like Tolkein casting himself into his own world. His power is thought to be be restrained directly to the Old Woods which why he doesn't leave, shepherding the Woods in a way similar to the Ents. BTW, we need a Similarian TRILOGY by Peter Jackson or someone similar wrapping up with the first age war of Morgoth falling and Sauren escaping into solitude, as a "cliff hanger" in his maiar form still plotting for the future.
Wasn't there also a quote in the movie appendices (or something) from Philipa Boyes, where she said something to the effect, that while it wasn't shown in the movie, that doesn't mean that they never met Tom or anything, they just didnt show it. I think personally, that it was better they didn't include him in the movies, they already had the daunting task of making the ring menacing, an object of immense power, and into a character all of its own, and having a scene so early in the movie that essentially stripped it of everything they had been trying to build it up as, would have been a huge mistake, and considering Tom then doesnt really appear elsewhere, it would have just been a loose end they wouldnt have been able to close, without making something up, which would in turn piss of the fans of the books even more.
im just getting into the fellowship audio book for the first time and my it goes on with so much stuff i love it. but yeah was never gonna work unless you wanted a 9 hour trilogy to be twice as long
A lot of people I talk to think he is basically meant to embody one of the many qualities of Eru Ilúvatar. Not exactly an Avatar of him like what the Ainur would technically be but almost like an embodied emotion or feeling. Something left over from when he created the Valar, something in between a Maiar and Ainur. It's a strange concept but it makes sense and explains his abilities. Gives a way for Eru to influence the Arda without getting directly involved.
I understand why they cut Tom from the movies. Peter Jackson is absolutely right. It didn't progress the story and would have unnecessarily lengthened an already long movie. My favorite depiction of Tom Bombadil is in Lord of the Rings Online. I've played that game since 2008 when it was in beta. They did a fantastic job with The Old Forest, The Barrow Downs, Tom, and Goldberry. It is all really well done.
The transfering from one medium to another makes changes unavoidable imo. I love to read about Tom in the felliship of the ring , but I really don’t miss him in the movie.
To say the Tom bombadil chapter was out of place in the books is absurd, man.. i watched the movies first, then read the books .. and the part that grabbed my attention the most was finding out about Tom bombadil . And it still is the most interesting and curious part of the books. Simply because he is so mysterious, and we never know who or what he is .
I was glad they cut Bombadil from the films, but I was sad that they cut the Barrow Downs. I've always thought the Barrow Downs scene was one of the best written parts of the book and it was the true source of the dagger that weakened the Witch King enough for Eowyn to unalive him. Having Galadriel give them daggers seemed cheap and gave a feeling of "What do we have lying around here we can give these halflings" rather than Galadriel giving profound and meaningful gifts. All that said, though, I understand WHY the scenes were cut and don't really have any actual complaints about the decisions Jackson made aside from the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff.
I agree with your video, and the overall choice to remove Tom from the movie. But there is something to consider .. a lot of the movie seems pretty well paced to me, except the journey of the hobbits from the Shire to the Prancing Pony.. the 4 hobbits bonding before meeting Aragon feels a little rushed. In the movie, Merry and Pippin seem to join Frodo and Sam on a whim. In fact, the 4 hobbits didn't really seem to have a lot of time to connect in the movie really. If you try to think about what the Fellowship of the Rings would be like by adding Tom, the result would be more of a story about the Journey of the 4 Hobbits, at least for the first part. It is hard to know what to subtract in response .. but if done well. I think adding Tom could have been nice, from an alternative point of view.
For instance, compare him to Beorn in the Hobbit. In the extended version, was adding those scenes with Beorn necessary .. no not at all.. but did you enjoy them? Probably. I know I did. 10 minutes of time with Tom .. would give a bit more time with the hobbits travelling alone together, and experiencing some difficulty ... some fun bonding, and a chance for a bit of lore and history. The more I think about it. the more I wish Tom was added.
Bombadil wouldn’t have really fit in with the tone of the films imo. He would also appear at a time in the story when the Fellowship film was building up the tension and pace, and would’ve killed that. I heard they considered just having the hobbits hear him singing in the distance, which would’ve been cool
I under stand why Jackson took Tom Bombadil out of the movies, but I really like the idea of Tom. I think Tom might have been Tolkien's attempt to give us a life lesson. Tom was a master of himself. He had complete self control, and self control is one of the greatest powers you can have.
I agree with Jackson. Reading the books in my youth left me wondering why he was in there at all. He didn’t seem to contribute anything to the plot. Tolkien said The Hobbit was more of a children’s book, and it seems like Bombadil was in that same vein.
Yep, Tolkien started writing the Hobbit 2.0 but eventually it became far more serious LOTR. No idea why he kept initial chapters with these childish characters.
More than Tom Bombadil, I regret the absence of the Grey Company from the movies and their replacement by the dead army, but I understand why that was a necessary decision and I think it's broadly the same logic behind why Tom couldn't make it in. They would have had to find some way of introducing the Dunedain, which they sort of did in Two Towers in the extended edition scene where Eowyn and Aragorn are discussing his age---but to include them further than just that mostly insignificant name check would have required a lot more expositinal legwork that just wouldn't have been worth it. But I still think it would have been so much more satisfying to have the Grey Conpany finish out the battle of Pellenor Fields rather than the ghost ex machina that they ended up going with. That would have made for a very satisfying "return of the King", with all his men behind him. I don't think I'm alone in finding the arrival of the dead army to be a somewhat anticlamactic ending to a battle where the dramatic and emotional stakes made it such a thrilling roller coaster to watch. The arrival of the dead army almost has a trivializing effect on the Ride of the Rohirrim.
I think the ROP capture TB very well, even though not in the Withywood there are some trees around including the willow, but strangely in a dry area, perhaps over an oasis ... I am beginning to think of TB origins in a bundle of things from ancient Folk Lore and song including the Green Man but esp the Greek God, Pan (but without goat feet/horns). I also am drawn to early children's TV series such as Pogle's Wood but cannot say why and fairy houses and trees (Ireland). It would have been interesting to hear a view from TreeBeard.
Brian Blessed would have nailed it. One of my only two complaints about the Peter Jackson trilogy…The other and more substantial one is the omission of the scouring of the shire ending. I feel like that’s in important part of the book, and given how many endings are in The Return of The King, it wouldn’t have been much longer if they were trimmed in favour of it.
I would like to have seen Peter Jackson's take on Tom Bombadil, but I totally understand the reasons to not have him in the movies and kind of agree with him...
Also, as a writer I kinda get why Peter Jackson left him out of the film trilogy; Bombadil although great in literature, in the film could be perceived by the mainstream audience as a sort of 'mediocre' deux machina plot device that always seems to be appearing from nowhere to save Frodo, and thus undermining the credibility of the story and the story of courage and sacrifice Frodo was doing by achieving such an impossible task for just a hobbit.
I think Bombadil was apart of the way Tolkien was imitating the Greek epics, the story is meant to be an epic journey and adventure, and just like how Odysseus constantly thinks back to fair Ithaca and his comfortable domestic life- so do the hobbits, but because they are on an adventure they don't get reprieve except in those moments where the story can write in a place that is a vision of home. So Bombadil serves as a rest stop, a world building opportunity, and a chance at helping reinforce the characters motivations because while Tom may be immune to danger and seemingly all powerful, they and their homes are not, and that contrast helped to harden the resolve of mortals to complete their journey. So Tom is a bit like a greek god just swooped in, lended a hand, gave an immortals perspective, and the mortals are driven on by their experience.
Tom was Zen. Therefore, an enigma in a film for the mass market and very difficult to portray well for the filmmakers. So I suspect they left him out rather than not do a good job of it for what was something orthogonal to the story.
The first book is so huge and dense of plot, it's much bigger than the third and second. But someday, maybe there will be a TV show. Ten hours for fellowship would leave plenty for the FIVE chapters of the book that were entirely cut (three of which are about Tom). Interestingly, no one thinks of cutting Galadriel. The fellowship could have simply fled Moria, then reached the river and found some boats. The three chapters of Lothlorien are no more "essential" than the three chapters of the old forest and barrow downs. Frodo gets his star glass, sure, but Bombadil gives the hobbits the barrow blades (we skipped that). I say, try a rendition where you cut Galadriel, but keep Bombadil.
Lothlorien is a structurally vital breather in the plot, a drawdown from the tension of the flight from the Balrog and the sorrow of losing Gandalf, so it can build back up again for the breaking of the Fellowship. It also serves some other purposes, like contextualizing the ring for Frodo and influencing his decision to break the fellowship.
I love Bombadil, having discovered the character throught the voice acting of Andy Serkis and his poetry that makes him the perfect character for an audio book !!
I totally get why they cut omnipresent being of TB, I also understand they cut the merry sue of Glorfindel, neither play any significant role that either could not be omitted or handed over to others, also movies don’t handle to many characters all to well, so reducing the number is beneficial and let’s be honest the amount of individual in Tolkien work are immense to the brink of mudding the waters, this is certainly also true for LOTR there reasons why it long where deemed not fit for cinema production. Also cutting out all the poems, songs, endless descriptions of things that not always added to the story but mostly was beneficial for world building
It's an adventure movie while movie makers too often prioritize the action parts. It's very much an essential part of the adventure! He should have been there. We demand answers to everything while it's sometimes just more stimulating to leave it to question, to your own imagination.
I always assumed that it came down to the fact that a three hour movie is streching for time but a book can be almost infinitely long. How do you put Bombadil (along with all the other stuff) into three hours without just turning him into a comedic cameo.
Considering it's Amazon's implementation it can only go one of two ways: - They reveal that Tom was actually a woman and that 'she' is an ancient God. Or - Tom acts as yet another NPC to show how strong and independent Galadriel is. So, no, it won't help their 'interpretation' (bastardization) of the series recover. It's beyond saving.
Absolutely makes sense to leave him out. There was already so much to pack in. But its been great to see him in season Rings of Power. It may not have started well but this show is definitely getting better end better.
“Eldest, that’s what I am. Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless, before the dark lord came from the outside.” Tom tells Frodo his hand is fairer without the ring, implying he knew it was evil and knows what evil is yet is still immune.
I want him on the bug screen, but it's understandable he didn't make it in the movie. In the extended Letters Tolkien addresses Bombadil as a mystery of whose origin even he himself has but an inkling.
Tom did not contribute much to the over all story of LotR, yes he saved the hobbits at the start of their journey and if he had not, the story would have ended right there, but after that he had no bearing on the story. As for Glorfyndel being omited, if they had added him in saving Frodo, and not having him join the fellowship, you would have had to add a lot to the story of who he was, his story, why he was important, and the reason he did not join. This would have side tracked the story and added a lot of run time to LotR, which would have just been a dead end anyways. Once again when adapting a story from book to movie you have to change a lot of things because your telling stories in very different mediums. Book can stop given expostion or naration, describe anything, tell you what characters are thinking, even go back and forth between multiple characters, whithout disrupting the story too much, you can tell, dont have to show. Some great battle in the books are just they both fought valiantly and brave that one line the reader fills in the battle, in a movie you your gonna have 5-10 min epic battle to show. Movies you have to show not tell, stopping for exposition and naration of what people are thinking would disrupt the movie, and in the end most likely bore the viewer, so sometimes things are omited or changed cause you have to some how convey motivation to the action and if you dont, the action makes no scence.
I was glad that Jackson cut or tempered a lot of the songs and fanciful sideshows if characters and races from the books; You can't include everything into a foreign medium, and I think Jackson and the writers did a masterful job distilling the essence of the story for film... an epic book is one thing, and an epic movie miniseries is usually another.
The Old Forest was the first time Sam saved Frodo's life. Frodo had his first truly prophetic dream at Bombadil's house. Bombadil and Frodo together saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights. This story arc introduces and demonstrates some of the most important themes of LOTR. It should not have been omitted, as it was actually part of the story; it should have been included, and some of the crap Jackson included which he seems to have made up himself should have been cut or at least shortened.
I have way more issues with the changing of the ending. Let's put it this way, when I saw the movies, I was disappointed they changed the ending. Watching the movies got me to re-read the books. Only then did I realize they even cut him out of the movies.
I always felt that Bombadail was evidence that Tolkien didn't know what story he was telling at the start of The Lord of the Rings and for some reason his editors left it in. The character does nothing to advance the plot and doesn't fit the overall theme of the story.
So many uber-fans online don't want to admit what is obvious to anyone who widely reads fantasy- the Tom Bombadil chapters are tedious and his omission from the films greatly improves the story.
I think people are too harsh on Bombadil’s section, and I’m not excluding myself from that critique. When I first read it, I thought it was nothing more than needless fluff (being a fan of the movies), but as I got older I recognized it as the last vestiges of the whimsical Hobbit-esque style of storytelling seen in the first book, and maybe even a farewell to it. I understand why they didn’t include him in the movies, but going from Nazgûl pursuit in Buckland straight to Nazgûl pursuit in Bree and Weathertop without that moment of high fantasy mystery and levity would have made for a dour read, and a poor transition from the novel it’s supposed to be a sequel to into a much more grounded story.
Bombadil has always seem to me, like a some sort of symbolic representation of Tolkien within the legendarium, like someone who seems to be the only one within universe that knows he lives in a fantasy fictional world and therefore does not succumb to the power or the ring, or to any power whatsoever because he knows he lives in a fictional world
My background: I read Lotr and the hobbit. Watched Lotr, 2 Hobbit movies. As hard as its sounds, I think Tom shouldnt be in this universe. I dont really have a comparison, but he feels like some 160 lvl char where lvl 99 is max. Now thinking about it, its like Superman appears in a Batman movie. Its just plain ridiculous to compare these two or think you can compare them in the first place. Without any plot armor or whatever narritive any author comes up with, Superman should be able to annihilate anything living on earth, just no question. To make a story about such a char with such strength shouldnt make sense in the first place. He is still implemented, though all the fights should be on One Punch man level. Yeah, Im glad they left it out. It already felt weird reading it (read the books after the first movie in 2001 or so) and this char totally threw me off. It just felt out of place and was rather a safe spot, but didnt really serve any meaning like a training arc in your random manga etc. Lotr is regarded by many whats called cinema perfection and Im pretty sure implementing him would have dulled this. Especially because no reason was given why he didnt help them on their journey or rather solved the issue himself. And he probably could have.
I disagree that Bombadil serves no plot/narrative value. In the early chapters, or "book I of VI" (up to rivendel), the only plot is "the hobbits are being hunted by mysterious figures who are somehow agents of Sauron. We don't even find out what they are until "Strider" and "a knife in the dark". - so that's it, hobbits being hunted. They are forced, with real plot tension, into the forest, which they know is haunted by evil trees, but it's the lesser of two evils. They are bullied, misled and nearly killed by the tress, but Bombadil puts them back on track. We learn about the ancient days, about the limitations of the ring, and - importantly - about frodo's premonition about the grey havens, that dreams are sent to you as guides. Then of course all the backstory about Cardoland and Angmar, and the wights. And the swords which kill the witchking later. So, Jackson completely cut "Arnor" and Cardoland. And he completely cut the long journey the hobbits go on to escape the shire (he didn't cut a character, he cut a whole quarter of the fellowship of the ring book). In doing this, you cut the need for Bombadil. But if you keep them all in, then Bombadil adds essential plot beats, a respite from the hunt, more context, and background for what is going on, very early in the story. Strider tells us more later, and then Elrond wraps it all up, but if these lore moments are "non-essential" then yes, cut Bombadil's chapters. I just disagree. For the story, as written, he's important. Just not for the films, as presented.
All due respect, Tolkien himself said to the Narrative he was not important. I think his importance is to reminder readers and the characters that the creations of Illuvitar are numerous and that His was are mysterious.
@@be12 then I am likely not being clear. Bombadil and Goldberry are evidences that Eru has many creations through out Arda that the Valar may or may not have had a hand in creating. I am not saying that there are numerous Bombadils.
In the book he’s written as too nonchalant to take the ring. He’s so powerful he sees it as a trinket and his playful attitude and disassociation from the world he’d likely lose the ring or just completely abandon the quest to follow his own curiosity. He’s immune to the risks so has no skin in the game so to speak.
Not only PJ's version either, the old and very well done animated version omitted him. Some say it's because it wasn't important to the story, but that fails miserably when they literally 'crane lifted' Elves into the battle of Helm's deep.
I was almost 12, I had read The Hobbit but had no idea the story continued until then. I hated Tom Bombadil, though I don’t really know why. It caused me to put down the book for almost a year before I decided to read it again.
To me, Aragorn essentially takes the role that Tom Bombadil does. In terms of rescuing them from a threat and providing them with arms for going forward.
I do feel with hindsight if peter had filmed tom and any other things missing from the film and then did a really extended version later fans would eat it up.....i am not a huge fan but i would have watched
I literally just finished listening to the audiobooks today. I’ve been thinking back about the whole series and definitely feel like Tom breaks the pacing. I actually don’t miss anything that he’s not in the movies.
We don't write a book so that it can be adapted into a film (with some exceptions). So when it is adapted, inevitably there are concessions to be made. Personally I understand purism, I am also in a certain way, but we can like both works in their own right.
I think Tom falls into the same hole as the Watcher in the Waters, Tolkien loved the inconsistencies in his stories so that he could write the story explaining them later, see also the creation of orcs the two Glorfindols He just never got around to writing the Tom Bombadale story
Bombadil was, in part, a foreshadowing of the quest to destroy the One Ring. It would not be through weapons, or armies or powerful magic that the Ring would be undone but by courage, innocence and a stout and simple heart. Tom embodies the qualities of joy, love and a simple life, which Tolkien considered to be the real strength of the human spirit.
The hobbits and the shire already do that, and also serve much more narrative function.
Sounds like some top level fansplaining to me.
@@RWDtech A little reading and little understanding of Tolkien himself and the reasons for Bombadil's presence in the story becomes clear. He's not important to the plot, of course, but he is central to the major themes of Tolkien's books.
If his home was being destroyed and he and everyone else in it was threatened, would Tom have done everything he could to stop an attack? Therefore would Tom not be subjected to the same temptations as everyone else to keep his home safe and eventually fall under the rings temptation?
@@JoeyJoe-JoeJrShabadoo Tom is a very different kind of "thing" in terms of his place in the lore and his relationship with Middle Earth. Tolkien tells us that Tom was both the first being to set upon Arda and would ultimately also be the last to leave it. The implication here (and as suggested by the nature of both Tom's personality and capabilities) is that Tom exists as sort of the "Spirit of Arda", like a "Gaia" or "Mother Earth" type figure. The manifestation or embodiment of the world itself. Tom is not a warrior, or wizard, or really any kind of active agent in the world. He simply is an extension of Arda and it's his presence alone that brings comfort and courage to the good-hearted while sedating or rebuking the wicked or mean-spirited. If Sauron's forces decided to come to Bombadil's door, it's more likely that they would simply be repelled from entering his domain in the first place. Not by any overt "magic barrier" or spell but because Tom and his realm are the heart of pure life and goodness in Middle Earth. Sauron and his servants would likely feel an unconscious aversion to the place itself and never wish to tread there. In short, if Sauron had won and stretched out his hand to rule Middle Earth, there would be no "Battle for the Old Forest". Sauron would likely leave Bombadil alone and Tom would go on tending to his forest as he always had.
But this unique nature also explains to the reader why Tom, for all his seeming "power", was never really an option for dealing with the One Ring itself. Because Tom is beyond the power of the Ring, it also meant that he likely didn't perceive its nature and thus didn't consider it of any significance. We are told that the One Ring was crafted as a distillation of Sauron's greed, malice and lust for power, and these were the qualities upon which it preyed. Tom is a pure embodiment of innocence, joy and a love of life, against which the Ring was entirely impotent. Gandalf speculates that, placed in his care, Tom was likely to simply forget about the Ring and misplace it or lose it. Tom was also seemingly unconcerned with (or perhaps even unable to influence) matters beyond his domain, so giving him a role in the Fellowship to destroy the Ring didn't seem feasible either.
I always interpreted Bombadil as Nature itself. The Ring Wars are Tolkiens' way to process WW1 and for me Bombadil is his way of saying "Earth doesn't care about our wars".
I am really anxious about the inclusion in rings of power. They will absolutely not do him justice.
I totally get why Bombadil was cut, but I really wish they hadn’t cut Glorfyndel
They shoulda casted Legoslas as a black. In the books he was dark af. and packin' that heat downstairs brugh.
Him and Grabahan should have both been included
I agree but I also understand why both were cut. If they had Glorfyndel, even in a couple of scenes they would have to explain him and his power. Also why it was he didn’t go with the fellowship instead of Legolas. His story arc would be to long for someone with a couple of scenes. While I would totally be down for more run time on the movie I just don’t think they would get the value out of the production that would justify it.
@jennyanydots2389 Lmao no. His clothes were described as green and brown. There was no true physical description of him. But if we bring up the other entries in the series, he was most likely very white. (Elves are just fair skinned, it's how the culture and mythos are.)
@@IamSumfoo totally agree, I will say I’m a little bummed that it looks like Rings of Power is replacing Glorfyndel once again. But yeah, there’s way too much background info to truly understand Glorfyndel’s role
I think it's great that they left him out. He is an anomaly, a great addition to the books but it would've been very hard to pull it off properly in the movies, and it would've added a lot of runtime. He is a very famous character now, so maybe he incentivises a couple people to read the books (and then some other books cause it was actually pretty fun)!
lol ‘anomaly’ guys a fucken retarded worm who thinks he’s fucking god me to and forth wants to rape kids
He also upsets the tone Jackson was going for, in my opinion. He's eccentric and odd, lighthearted and mystical, but so much of the fellowship was dark and dangerous and brooding. The movies had their moments of levity, but they weren't as outlandish as a deity singing about his yellow boots all the time.
@@marcopoloonpollo5937 They even altered the appearance and (I think) the tone of Gandalf in the movie. To make him more serious and maybe even cater to the actor's style.
I believe you are correct. I find that there are those who despise joy in the hearts of others. Specially when the joyful take a path less trodden and avoid the pitfalls of conformity successfully. Tom’s character is this anomaly and even the western conformity would not appreciate the peace and joy of Tom’s wisdom.
What about farmer maggot. He stared at death and wasn’t afraid. Even Tom was interested in him.
Tom knew of Maggot and was impressed. This is similar to the very concept of "Shire" and Hobbits. There are some who, while they do have ordered society, do not seek to amplify power, to engage in wide ranging and thorough control of all beings, or certainly of Middle Earth. There is also a concept probably not taught very much in schools of today called "noblesse oblige", which surrounds the idea of leaders or elite (any of the Kings in M.E. would fit this). This is a concept that they don't just get free hand, but have substantial obligation to provide for the welfare of common folk. Usually this simply means help or charity. For some, though there is the concept that should the elite fail in this required aid, their nobility may well be lessened or even wiped out.
Maggot was afraid of Nazgul (not knowing who said death knight exactly was), though. Not to the point of panic, ofc, but still.
@@mateuszslawinski1990considering masses of men soldiers would flee from the Nazgûl out of fear, Maggot seemed to be quite exceptionally stalwart as a being.
@@Jackaroo. Maggot admited the visitor had given him chills. He also noticed his dogs were scared. Of course he deduced something was very wrong with this guy. Besides, hobbits in general can be quite bold if they want.
@@mateuszslawinski1990 Not in the Books hes not. He tells them to bugger off..and by the path!
I agree with his exclusion in the films. Jackson knew what he was doing and he was right. Imagine these films being - even longer - with the inclusion of whacky scenes that don't really progress the plot and, if anything, confuse the narrative? No thanks.
Nay. They were just scared of puttin' a gay in the film like Thom's charachter.
@jennyanydots2389 you've got a serious case of brain rot.
@@jennyanydots2389 Goldberry has a few questions for you.
I'd have taken to a daring concept and tried freakishly hard to not do the Faramir thing of dragging Hobbits and "Ring" to Osgiliath, only to then release them. I gather this had to do with ordering of plot points to the set of three movies. I'd have been glad to leave things as they were when Sam had no idea if he could get back to Frodo, or not, and Shelob had been wounded and was burbling in her hideout. There may have been some technical problem building convincing giant spider digital assets, but I'd hope to use that as in the books.
@@crtune I disagree. Farmerier was a total soy boy beta cuck. Ozgillyuth was a pit of despair and debachery. Fraudo was a bitch, Shelobe was Bunt Citch. You don't know what you're talmbout brugh.
I love how Russian Bombadil looks like such a happy go lucky fellow and Finnish Bombadil looks like "The Sound of Silence" should play everytime he shows up.
One plays like he just got freshly graped.
In the book the fact that they didnt give him a ring because they thought he would forgetand lose it is all i needed to know
I really like Tom Bombadil and his chapters, but it's hard to understate just how much of a wrench he throws into the plot progression of book 1.
It would be impossible to even make that claim if you understood what story is actually being told.
@@rapid13well then don't be shy do tell us
I think it's fine if you consider that the Lord of the Rings isn't supposed to be a conventional series of novels, it's supposed to be a legend. In Epic poems like the Odyssey or Beowulf there's weird mysterious tangents all the time, because they weren't written as one narrative, and were instead collections of oral poetry that were combined into one work. The lord of the rings is ultimately just a load of stories invented to flesh out the world of middle earth and give history to the languages Tolkien invented.
Movie only casual fans don't care about book progression, let it go.
It makes sense that he wasn’t included in the movie, and it makes sense that he was included in the books. I think comparing him to Sam is silly. Sam cares in a way that Bombadil doesn’t and it’s probably due to their very natures (Tom’s being, likely, something close to immortal, and Sam’s being.. mortal)
In one of his letters Tolkien explicitly said that Bombadil is not Eru and that he is supposed to be a mystery.
And, Gandalf mentions that Bombadil would forget about the ring because it didn't interest him, which is why it wasn't safe to leave it to him. This doesn't sound like the actions of the creator deity.
"Why didn't they just fly the Eagles to Mordor" would simply become "Why didn't Tom Bombadil keep the ring?"
I think in the books they talked about that and what was said if I remember correctly is that Tom has no interest in such trinkets and would very well just lose it, that is if they could have convinced him to take it anyway, Tom never once cared about the ring it is a trinket to him he just loves his woods and his lovely river daughter Goldberry.
Yes it’s alluded to in the books that Tom would more or less put the Ring in his kitchen drawer with the takeout sauce packets and forget about it. Sauron needed the Ring to completely dominate Middle Earth quickly but he also could’ve eventually conquered it without the Ring using sheer numbers. Giving the Ring to Tom would’ve allowed Sauron time to amass his troops.
Tom surpasses the ability to portray on a screen. But hands down he is my favorite character. So much so he played a large role in inspiring my own epic tale I’m writing.
I understood why Bombadil was cut from the LOTR movies, but I think a perfect opportunity to include him in The Hobbit movie trilogy was completely wasted. Instead of making up new characters, they could have had Bilbo meet Tom along his journey instead. Then in the scene where Tom takes the Ring and doesn't disappear, that would have given greater weight to the idea that Bilbo had found nothing more than a "fancy trinket" during his quest, and why no one seemed all that concerned about the Ring for so long. It would have been a great way to bridge that gap with viewers who had not read the books and could not understand how something so powerful was lost for so long.
Thom Bomb sets a really poor example for the kids.
Damn that is a missed opportunity. Tom Bombadil definitely fits with the aesthetics of The Hobbit series more so than LotR.
At least he shows up in The Rings of Power, I haven't watched the season but I've seen the clip and it made me happy. Your version though would've been better.
@@WodenTruthSpeaker Thom's character was known to be a diddler though.
@@jennyanydots2389 I always felt most fans considers him "God" or at least a strange illusory physical representation of "God", disguised as a silly old man. The one who was first and the one who will be last. The higher spirit of all living beings etc.
Or a metaphysical phenomenon and anomaly within the Tolkien universe. Your guess is as valid as mine though.
@@jennyanydots2389where does it say that?
Would liked to seen him in the movies. Kind of a sanctuary area. Where Tom was extremely powerful, but only within his forest. Very eccentric very full of riddles. Yet very full of answers.
Bombadill cut in the movies? Fine make sense.
Bombadill in the Rings of Power? I expect only the worst.
I think part of the intention of Bombadil was to show Frodo that the ring is not all powerful as he thinks. Tom I think knew the ring would consume Frodo and him taking them in was a chance to instill hope in Frodo from the dread of the path ahead.
Bombadil was a popular subject of conversation in the "Hippie Era", as I remember. I was young then, but very familiar with Tolkien and was welcomed into many discussions of older hip folk. All agreed that somehow Bombadil was a representative of a being not linked to typical "control" of either people, events or society. He was in "harmony" with nature, and lived or had power in such a way that he was simply not within that "frame" of either conserving (which needs ability to enforce conservation) or destroying (the revolutionaries who also will implement new rules, new structures, and will enforce this going forward; this is mostly Tolkien, with me adding only a little). Tolkien rightly says that Bombadil lacks much of the directly relevant aspects of either the noble gentry like Hobbit or of the lordly Elves, Wizards and Aragorn.
While Tolkien, like most from that era with so much antipathy toward modernized and mechanized society, did not like seeing the beauty of nature, and the pleasantness of rural life consumed by encroaching cities, he was also not inclined to want to create rebellion and destroy in order to create. His hero of Aragorn (and really the others like Sam) brings long learning "the hard way" in service to other beings, and true modesty, to bear to be a great leader of a resurrected Middle Earth.
While one might think this all is not too hard to understand, I'm sure this could be wrecked by the right creatives making movies.
I wanted to see Tom and the Barrow-wights in the Fellowship movie. It's really such a good way to tell the reader, you're not in the shire anymore. Anything can be a trap or a danger, but there are also unlikely allies in the world. I've heard PJ saying that they wanted to get the action going and Tom sort of halts the forward momentum. I think they could have easily included a shortened version of the Tom encounter.
Just have the Hobbits walking to Bree and instead of the encounter with the Nazgul have them stumble onto the Barrow-wights. Have Tom save them, do some exposition and point them in the right direction and done. More of a cameo and an introduction to the dangerous wider world outside of the shire.
0:25 and most importantly "Why is he?"
But you forgot the most important question “ How is he?”
Tom Bombadil is only included in Peter Jackson's musical cut of the films... The final battle when Aragorn and Sauron have a dance battle is pretty epic!
My personal opinion is that he is ultimate neutral between good and evil... His point was that in the fact of good versus evil, despite great power, neutral still loses to evil (in reference to their analysis that giving him the ring for safe keeping would still end in doom).
it wouldn't have ended in doom for Tom, though. Only the rest of the world. Tom would have cared so little about the ring because he doesn't understand it or what it represents. It has 0 affect on him. It is a shiny trinket. He would lose it in a week, according to gandalf.
in my mind it's like hiding the ring inside of a hollow tree. It's a decent spot. A good spot, even. But eventually, since the tree does not care, somebody will come along and take it, or find it, forgotten about, perhaps even an age later.
@@ABurntMuffin as I said I was referring to Gandalf's own analysis that Tom would of still fell to Sauron even if he didn't lose the ring (he said he'd probably be the last living thing to go, but that he would not hold out forever)
@@ZenithWest169 fair enough, calling him the "last living thing to go" sort of makes me think that he survives Sauron though, for surely if this was the end times as predicted then Melkor has returned, and I doubt Sauron would be able to even tickle him once he's back on Arda. Depends on whether or not you believe Dagor Dagorath to be 100% prophecy or not.
@@ABurntMuffin yeah I'm going off what I remember and for the life of me can't find all the quotes.... I remember Gandulf talking about the "what if" he doesn't lose it scenario.
Good analysis! Thank you!
To tell a story in the form of a movie, it is important to not make the "bad guy" look weak, otherwise there is no compelling story. In this case, especially for the movies, the "bad guy" is not Sauron but The One Ring. Including Tom Bombadil would have made the ring look very weak indeed. The audience (especially those unfamiliar with the books) would ask, well, if one guy is unaffected by the ring, maybe others aren't either? And there goes the story.
Also, it made sense to give many of Tom's lines and actions to Treebeard.
Most powerful is a very strong word there. He is mighty in his own little land, but it was confirmed by Gandalf at the council of Elrond that in Time even Tom would fall to Sauron after all else had fallen even without ring.
"Most powerful." Pfft.
I think that Uruk-Hai helmet was the most powerful in Middle Earth.
@@teehasheestower He is a powerful being compared to most, especially when in his own realm. But to the big names like Gandalf the White, Saruman and Sauron he is more limited.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD on the contrary, ole Tom may have power, but is apathetic as to it's use. To him something like the Ring is an interesting curiosity to come across one day, and be forgotten the next. Tom being an asset or liability to saving the world boils entirely down to his personality, which limits his capability. Unlike a given wizard or even hobbit, who is willing to risk everything under circumstances where Tom is not.
You're right. Theoden is the most powerful LOTR character.
Okay, ive read the Lord of the Rings series many times. The "swords" that Merry and Pippen got from the Barrow Wights, were from ancient people that made the swirds able to do damage to a black rider. Also said when Merry stabbed the black rider in the knee furing the battle of Gondor to "save " Eowyn. Merry's sword came from the Bartow Wights, not Rohan armory .As did Pippen's sword, and Sam's. Frodo got Sting from Bilbo at Rivendell after their visit to Tom Bombadil, although, i can't recall if he got one from the Barrow Wights, i think he did, he had one at Weathertop later.
As a preface, I'll say that I've never read the books. I've not been "diagnosed," but in my 42 years I've noticed my mind perceiving numbers and letters in places where they actually aren't.. so I' probably what people call dyslexic to some degree. Anyway, I think it does make sense to have cut him for the films Peter Jackson made. While I do fully believe that his alternate orientation serves the story very well, and also gives us insight into the messages Tolkien was intending to convey, I think including his parts of the story would hinder the pacing of the films. However, Peter Jackson's trilogy was made before streaming took over the world of film and episodic series. Now that we're here, 21 years after Return of the King was released, my perspective on how to adapt Tolkien's work for the screen has changed. I think Tolkien's books would be better served as a series. The streaming platform has allowed the art form of episodic series to grow and evolve. If LOTR were eve to be attempted again, in series form I think nothing would have to be cut. And that would give us the best of both worlds. In a series, I don't think Tom Bombadil's place in the stories would hinder pacing in any way, because the arch of a story over the course of episodes flows differently than feature length films do. And I think he actually does represent a very important alternate orientation which puts the other two sides into a different perspective. Making it far less reminiscent of the Christian descended, black-and-white cultural obsession with the symbolism of good vs evil. Which may have been what Tolkien meant when he said that "..he has some importance as a comment." Of course, if someone does take that on at some point, we'd have to live with a LOTR without Ian Holmes, Ian McKellen, and Christopher Lee. Which is unimaginable to me lol I do think it's nice that the rings of power series includes Bombadil. But I don't consider the rings of power series to truly be in Tolkien's world because pretty much nothing about it is canonical. Which just really sucks and feels.. selfish in a childish way to me.
Please make yourself familiar with the text in whichever way suits you - audiobooks for instance. You will not regret it.
@@richardfurness7556 I'd love to but in order to get audiobooks I'd have subscribe to yet another service for yet another monthly fee. Maybe I'll have more money someday and can justify that then.
Bombadil plays an important role in the books, but he would have come across wrong on film. Am glad he was not included, even if it means missing Old Man Willow and the barrow wight.
2 reasons.
1) He's too powerful and doesn't intervene in the plot. It's like Captain Marvel on Avengers: Endgame. And if you are telling a story in which you should be worried about the Ring's tempation... having a character that is completely immune to it, is against the point. Most of all, at the beggining.
2) If he's this kind of peacefull indifference stick into this world, The Shire, which is the heart of the protagonists, already represents that. And i think the point of the story kind of is that you can't be isolated from the world's problems. Even if The Shire was unharmed, on the films, the rest of the world wasn't. The Ents, Rohan, Gondor, Moria and even the elves were affected by the happenings of the world. It's like an invasion of evil (or a World War). So... being indifferent here isn't an option. If it was, there's would be no point of this story existing, perhaps.
First of all. Miss Marvel is not that powerful. Secondly Adam warlock was supposed to be the hero of end game Third of all The Hulk and century is the most powerful Namely superheroes who can take on Thanos. With no sweat However disney doesn't know shit about Stan Lee's Comic book stories well To tell you that miss marvel is not the strongest hero there is
@@bonnierabbit1413 Ok, i appreciate the info. But even so, i'm talking about the films themselves. More about the narrative factors than about how faithful they are to the source material.
3) he is the most ridiculous and irritating character ever.
Basically with the context of knowing that he was the main character of a series of books Tolkien wrote before LOTR: he was there to guide and console the child readers who grow up with those stories (who would be adults buy the time LOTR was published) before they are taken into a much darker, dangerous and scary world than what they're used to reading. I believe Tolkien was trying to give them the kind, warm hand, he never got when he was thrown into war.
There’s a lot of speculation on Tom Bombadil. In tolkiens world, the eleven god, Illu Vaatar-and the actual creator of the world,basically sings things into existence and Tom Bombadil has magic he uses by singing…
he’s so old that he’s older than any tree in middle earth and watch the first ones grow and has been a guardian of the forest where he’s been found.
In the books tom bombadill balances out the main characters offering insight and perspective. He gives that option of rethinking how things are going to happen. Where does gandalf learn what sauron ring will do if he takes it. Or the elves learn and see if frodo fails. Tom bombadill offers glimpses and gives choices he does not interfere.
All I remember about Tom from the novel is when the subject of giving him the Ring came up at the council at Rivendell, they immediately dismissed the idea saying that since he can't (or won't) leave his particular forest, Sauron would just take over all of Middle-Earth except for Tom's forest. That's when Elrond insisted that the Ring needed to be destroyed. So he's definitely an interesting piece of worldbuilding, but yeah he's ultimately a distraction from the plot.
In reality, and adventure can bring you into unsuspecting situations and people. From what I've read, Bombadil is like Tolkein casting himself into his own world. His power is thought to be be restrained directly to the Old Woods which why he doesn't leave, shepherding the Woods in a way similar to the Ents.
BTW, we need a Similarian TRILOGY by Peter Jackson or someone similar wrapping up with the first age war of Morgoth falling and Sauren escaping into solitude, as a "cliff hanger" in his maiar form still plotting for the future.
Wasn't there also a quote in the movie appendices (or something) from Philipa Boyes, where she said something to the effect, that while it wasn't shown in the movie, that doesn't mean that they never met Tom or anything, they just didnt show it.
I think personally, that it was better they didn't include him in the movies, they already had the daunting task of making the ring menacing, an object of immense power, and into a character all of its own, and having a scene so early in the movie that essentially stripped it of everything they had been trying to build it up as, would have been a huge mistake, and considering Tom then doesnt really appear elsewhere, it would have just been a loose end they wouldnt have been able to close, without making something up, which would in turn piss of the fans of the books even more.
im just getting into the fellowship audio book for the first time and my it goes on with so much stuff i love it. but yeah was never gonna work unless you wanted a 9 hour trilogy to be twice as long
A lot of people I talk to think he is basically meant to embody one of the many qualities of Eru Ilúvatar. Not exactly an Avatar of him like what the Ainur would technically be but almost like an embodied emotion or feeling. Something left over from when he created the Valar, something in between a Maiar and Ainur. It's a strange concept but it makes sense and explains his abilities.
Gives a way for Eru to influence the Arda without getting directly involved.
I understand why they cut Tom from the movies. Peter Jackson is absolutely right. It didn't progress the story and would have unnecessarily lengthened an already long movie.
My favorite depiction of Tom Bombadil is in Lord of the Rings Online. I've played that game since 2008 when it was in beta. They did a fantastic job with The Old Forest, The Barrow Downs, Tom, and Goldberry. It is all really well done.
I remember him being featured in the Fellowship of the Ring video game as well.
The transfering from one medium to another makes changes unavoidable imo. I love to read about Tom in the felliship of the ring , but I really don’t miss him in the movie.
To say the Tom bombadil chapter was out of place in the books is absurd, man.. i watched the movies first, then read the books .. and the part that grabbed my attention the most was finding out about Tom bombadil . And it still is the most interesting and curious part of the books. Simply because he is so mysterious, and we never know who or what he is .
I was glad they cut Bombadil from the films, but I was sad that they cut the Barrow Downs. I've always thought the Barrow Downs scene was one of the best written parts of the book and it was the true source of the dagger that weakened the Witch King enough for Eowyn to unalive him. Having Galadriel give them daggers seemed cheap and gave a feeling of "What do we have lying around here we can give these halflings" rather than Galadriel giving profound and meaningful gifts. All that said, though, I understand WHY the scenes were cut and don't really have any actual complaints about the decisions Jackson made aside from the Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff.
Even Tolkien didn't really know how to explain Tom Bombadil, he's an enigma.
I agree with your video, and the overall choice to remove Tom from the movie. But there is something to consider .. a lot of the movie seems pretty well paced to me, except the journey of the hobbits from the Shire to the Prancing Pony.. the 4 hobbits bonding before meeting Aragon feels a little rushed. In the movie, Merry and Pippin seem to join Frodo and Sam on a whim. In fact, the 4 hobbits didn't really seem to have a lot of time to connect in the movie really. If you try to think about what the Fellowship of the Rings would be like by adding Tom, the result would be more of a story about the Journey of the 4 Hobbits, at least for the first part. It is hard to know what to subtract in response .. but if done well. I think adding Tom could have been nice, from an alternative point of view.
For instance, compare him to Beorn in the Hobbit. In the extended version, was adding those scenes with Beorn necessary .. no not at all.. but did you enjoy them? Probably. I know I did. 10 minutes of time with Tom .. would give a bit more time with the hobbits travelling alone together, and experiencing some difficulty ... some fun bonding, and a chance for a bit of lore and history. The more I think about it. the more I wish Tom was added.
Bombadil wouldn’t have really fit in with the tone of the films imo. He would also appear at a time in the story when the Fellowship film was building up the tension and pace, and would’ve killed that. I heard they considered just having the hobbits hear him singing in the distance, which would’ve been cool
I under stand why Jackson took Tom Bombadil out of the movies, but I really like the idea of Tom. I think Tom might have been Tolkien's attempt to give us a life lesson. Tom was a master of himself. He had complete self control, and self control is one of the greatest powers you can have.
I think his appearance in The Rings Of Power has been very good.
Jackson said he wanted to focus on the moving of the ring and not distract from that. Tom wasn’t fundamental to the moving of the ring
I agree with Jackson. Reading the books in my youth left me wondering why he was in there at all. He didn’t seem to contribute anything to the plot. Tolkien said The Hobbit was more of a children’s book, and it seems like Bombadil was in that same vein.
Yep, Tolkien started writing the Hobbit 2.0 but eventually it became far more serious LOTR. No idea why he kept initial chapters with these childish characters.
More than Tom Bombadil, I regret the absence of the Grey Company from the movies and their replacement by the dead army, but I understand why that was a necessary decision and I think it's broadly the same logic behind why Tom couldn't make it in. They would have had to find some way of introducing the Dunedain, which they sort of did in Two Towers in the extended edition scene where Eowyn and Aragorn are discussing his age---but to include them further than just that mostly insignificant name check would have required a lot more expositinal legwork that just wouldn't have been worth it. But I still think it would have been so much more satisfying to have the Grey Conpany finish out the battle of Pellenor Fields rather than the ghost ex machina that they ended up going with. That would have made for a very satisfying "return of the King", with all his men behind him. I don't think I'm alone in finding the arrival of the dead army to be a somewhat anticlamactic ending to a battle where the dramatic and emotional stakes made it such a thrilling roller coaster to watch. The arrival of the dead army almost has a trivializing effect on the Ride of the Rohirrim.
I think the ROP capture TB very well, even though not in the Withywood there are some trees around including the willow, but strangely in a dry area, perhaps over an oasis ... I am beginning to think of TB origins in a bundle of things from ancient Folk Lore and song including the Green Man but esp the Greek God, Pan (but without goat feet/horns). I also am drawn to early children's TV series such as Pogle's Wood but cannot say why and fairy houses and trees (Ireland). It would have been interesting to hear a view from TreeBeard.
Brian Blessed would have nailed it. One of my only two complaints about the Peter Jackson trilogy…The other and more substantial one is the omission of the scouring of the shire ending. I feel like that’s in important part of the book, and given how many endings are in The Return of The King, it wouldn’t have been much longer if they were trimmed in favour of it.
I would like to have seen Peter Jackson's take on Tom Bombadil, but I totally understand the reasons to not have him in the movies and kind of agree with him...
Also, as a writer I kinda get why Peter Jackson left him out of the film trilogy; Bombadil although great in literature, in the film could be perceived by the mainstream audience as a sort of 'mediocre' deux machina plot device that always seems to be appearing from nowhere to save Frodo, and thus undermining the credibility of the story and the story of courage and sacrifice Frodo was doing by achieving such an impossible task for just a hobbit.
I think Bombadil was apart of the way Tolkien was imitating the Greek epics, the story is meant to be an epic journey and adventure, and just like how Odysseus constantly thinks back to fair Ithaca and his comfortable domestic life- so do the hobbits, but because they are on an adventure they don't get reprieve except in those moments where the story can write in a place that is a vision of home. So Bombadil serves as a rest stop, a world building opportunity, and a chance at helping reinforce the characters motivations because while Tom may be immune to danger and seemingly all powerful, they and their homes are not, and that contrast helped to harden the resolve of mortals to complete their journey. So Tom is a bit like a greek god just swooped in, lended a hand, gave an immortals perspective, and the mortals are driven on by their experience.
Tom was Zen. Therefore, an enigma in a film for the mass market and very difficult to portray well for the filmmakers. So I suspect they left him out rather than not do a good job of it for what was something orthogonal to the story.
The first book is so huge and dense of plot, it's much bigger than the third and second.
But someday, maybe there will be a TV show. Ten hours for fellowship would leave plenty for the FIVE chapters of the book that were entirely cut (three of which are about Tom).
Interestingly, no one thinks of cutting Galadriel. The fellowship could have simply fled Moria, then reached the river and found some boats. The three chapters of Lothlorien are no more "essential" than the three chapters of the old forest and barrow downs.
Frodo gets his star glass, sure, but Bombadil gives the hobbits the barrow blades (we skipped that).
I say, try a rendition where you cut Galadriel, but keep Bombadil.
Lothlorien is a structurally vital breather in the plot, a drawdown from the tension of the flight from the Balrog and the sorrow of losing Gandalf, so it can build back up again for the breaking of the Fellowship. It also serves some other purposes, like contextualizing the ring for Frodo and influencing his decision to break the fellowship.
I would still love to see Tom in Battle alongside Gandulf the White in the final battle, that would have been glorious to see.
I love Bombadil, having discovered the character throught the voice acting of Andy Serkis and his poetry that makes him the perfect character for an audio book !!
I totally get why they cut omnipresent being of TB, I also understand they cut the merry sue of Glorfindel, neither play any significant role that either could not be omitted or handed over to others, also movies don’t handle to many characters all to well, so reducing the number is beneficial and let’s be honest the amount of individual in Tolkien work are immense to the brink of mudding the waters, this is certainly also true for LOTR there reasons why it long where deemed not fit for cinema production.
Also cutting out all the poems, songs, endless descriptions of things that not always added to the story but mostly was beneficial for world building
It's an adventure movie while movie makers too often prioritize the action parts. It's very much an essential part of the adventure! He should have been there. We demand answers to everything while it's sometimes just more stimulating to leave it to question, to your own imagination.
I always assumed that it came down to the fact that a three hour movie is streching for time but a book can be almost infinitely long. How do you put Bombadil (along with all the other stuff) into three hours without just turning him into a comedic cameo.
Now if it was a series; then it would be fine. But a movie is all about pacing and well he breaks that pace pretty decently.
Considering it's Amazon's implementation it can only go one of two ways:
- They reveal that Tom was actually a woman and that 'she' is an ancient God.
Or
- Tom acts as yet another NPC to show how strong and independent Galadriel is.
So, no, it won't help their 'interpretation' (bastardization) of the series recover. It's beyond saving.
Tell me you haven't seen Rings of Power without telling me you haven't seen Rings of Power.
Why does everyone go on about Tom, he had like several paragraphs written with him in them! He's just an anomoly that Tolkien threw in there.
Absolutely makes sense to leave him out. There was already so much to pack in.
But its been great to see him in season Rings of Power. It may not have started well but this show is definitely getting better end better.
Even though he wasn’t in the movie I’ve always wanted to see what frodo would see if bombadil could see him from Peter Jackson’s point of view
“Eldest, that’s what I am. Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless, before the dark lord came from the outside.” Tom tells Frodo his hand is fairer without the ring, implying he knew it was evil and knows what evil is yet is still immune.
"Old young and fatherless."
I interpreted "fairer without the ring" as basically just not caring about it, as if its just a trinket to him so why bother
The numenorean swords in the mounds were NECESSARY, cos they explain the slaying of the nazgul in the battle
I want him on the bug screen, but it's understandable he didn't make it in the movie. In the extended Letters Tolkien addresses Bombadil as a mystery of whose origin even he himself has but an inkling.
🎶 Old Tom Bombadil
Tom Bombadillo 🎶
😢
That Finnish Lord of the rings is a badass! Its budget was about 10000 Finnish marks (about 2000 dollars).
Tom Bombadil is a great example of a character that works great in a book, but not in a film. It’s the same deal with Tattypoo in the Wizard of Oz
Tom did not contribute much to the over all story of LotR, yes he saved the hobbits at the start of their journey and if he had not, the story would have ended right there, but after that he had no bearing on the story.
As for Glorfyndel being omited, if they had added him in saving Frodo, and not having him join the fellowship, you would have had to add a lot to the story of who he was, his story, why he was important, and the reason he did not join. This would have side tracked the story and added a lot of run time to LotR, which would have just been a dead end anyways.
Once again when adapting a story from book to movie you have to change a lot of things because your telling stories in very different mediums. Book can stop given expostion or naration, describe anything, tell you what characters are thinking, even go back and forth between multiple characters, whithout disrupting the story too much, you can tell, dont have to show. Some great battle in the books are just they both fought valiantly and brave that one line the reader fills in the battle, in a movie you your gonna have 5-10 min epic battle to show. Movies you have to show not tell, stopping for exposition and naration of what people are thinking would disrupt the movie, and in the end most likely bore the viewer, so sometimes things are omited or changed cause you have to some how convey motivation to the action and if you dont, the action makes no scence.
I was glad that Jackson cut or tempered a lot of the songs and fanciful sideshows if characters and races from the books; You can't include everything into a foreign medium, and I think Jackson and the writers did a masterful job distilling the essence of the story for film... an epic book is one thing, and an epic movie miniseries is usually another.
The Old Forest was the first time Sam saved Frodo's life. Frodo had his first truly prophetic dream at Bombadil's house. Bombadil and Frodo together saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights. This story arc introduces and demonstrates some of the most important themes of LOTR. It should not have been omitted, as it was actually part of the story; it should have been included, and some of the crap Jackson included which he seems to have made up himself should have been cut or at least shortened.
I have way more issues with the changing of the ending. Let's put it this way, when I saw the movies, I was disappointed they changed the ending. Watching the movies got me to re-read the books. Only then did I realize they even cut him out of the movies.
What’s this bombadil footage?
The Bombadil chapters almost derail me every time I do a re-read. One of Tolkien's few mistakes, I think.
Really its one of my favorite parts
I always felt that Bombadail was evidence that Tolkien didn't know what story he was telling at the start of The Lord of the Rings and for some reason his editors left it in. The character does nothing to advance the plot and doesn't fit the overall theme of the story.
So many uber-fans online don't want to admit what is obvious to anyone who widely reads fantasy- the Tom Bombadil chapters are tedious and his omission from the films greatly improves the story.
I think people are too harsh on Bombadil’s section, and I’m not excluding myself from that critique. When I first read it, I thought it was nothing more than needless fluff (being a fan of the movies), but as I got older I recognized it as the last vestiges of the whimsical Hobbit-esque style of storytelling seen in the first book, and maybe even a farewell to it. I understand why they didn’t include him in the movies, but going from Nazgûl pursuit in Buckland straight to Nazgûl pursuit in Bree and Weathertop without that moment of high fantasy mystery and levity would have made for a dour read, and a poor transition from the novel it’s supposed to be a sequel to into a much more grounded story.
Bombadil has always seem to me, like a some sort of symbolic representation of Tolkien within the legendarium, like someone who seems to be the only one within universe that knows he lives in a fantasy fictional world and therefore does not succumb to the power or the ring, or to any power whatsoever because he knows he lives in a fictional world
Where are those live action clips from?
4:30
The old hobbit movie
@@foofighter467 Thanks, saw it once I reached that part of the video
I believe its from a Russian short film made in the 90s
A Russian movie and a Finnish series
What’s interesting is that Fangorn (Treebeard) is older than Tom.
My background: I read Lotr and the hobbit. Watched Lotr, 2 Hobbit movies.
As hard as its sounds, I think Tom shouldnt be in this universe. I dont really have a comparison, but he feels like some 160 lvl char where lvl 99 is max. Now thinking about it, its like Superman appears in a Batman movie. Its just plain ridiculous to compare these two or think you can compare them in the first place. Without any plot armor or whatever narritive any author comes up with, Superman should be able to annihilate anything living on earth, just no question.
To make a story about such a char with such strength shouldnt make sense in the first place. He is still implemented, though all the fights should be on One Punch man level.
Yeah, Im glad they left it out. It already felt weird reading it (read the books after the first movie in 2001 or so) and this char totally threw me off. It just felt out of place and was rather a safe spot, but didnt really serve any meaning like a training arc in your random manga etc.
Lotr is regarded by many whats called cinema perfection and Im pretty sure implementing him would have dulled this. Especially because no reason was given why he didnt help them on their journey or rather solved the issue himself. And he probably could have.
Tom's character seems to resemble the King of the Silver River in the Sword of Shanara books
Loved Bombadil in LOTRO!!
They missed the opportunity to cast Brian Blessed as Tom Bombadil, and that´s sad...
I disagree that Bombadil serves no plot/narrative value.
In the early chapters, or "book I of VI" (up to rivendel), the only plot is "the hobbits are being hunted by mysterious figures who are somehow agents of Sauron. We don't even find out what they are until "Strider" and "a knife in the dark". - so that's it, hobbits being hunted.
They are forced, with real plot tension, into the forest, which they know is haunted by evil trees, but it's the lesser of two evils. They are bullied, misled and nearly killed by the tress, but Bombadil puts them back on track. We learn about the ancient days, about the limitations of the ring, and - importantly - about frodo's premonition about the grey havens, that dreams are sent to you as guides.
Then of course all the backstory about Cardoland and Angmar, and the wights. And the swords which kill the witchking later.
So, Jackson completely cut "Arnor" and Cardoland. And he completely cut the long journey the hobbits go on to escape the shire (he didn't cut a character, he cut a whole quarter of the fellowship of the ring book). In doing this, you cut the need for Bombadil. But if you keep them all in, then Bombadil adds essential plot beats, a respite from the hunt, more context, and background for what is going on, very early in the story. Strider tells us more later, and then Elrond wraps it all up, but if these lore moments are "non-essential" then yes, cut Bombadil's chapters. I just disagree.
For the story, as written, he's important. Just not for the films, as presented.
All due respect, Tolkien himself said to the Narrative he was not important. I think his importance is to reminder readers and the characters that the creations of Illuvitar are numerous and that His was are mysterious.
@@mikegillettify Numerous? Bombadil is there to remind us that they're numerous?
@@be12 numerous and mysterious. Yes. Do you disagree?
@@mikegillettify Strongly. Bombadil embodies the opposite of "numerous".
@@be12 then I am likely not being clear. Bombadil and Goldberry are evidences that Eru has many creations through out Arda that the Valar may or may not have had a hand in creating.
I am not saying that there are numerous Bombadils.
In the book he’s written as too nonchalant to take the ring. He’s so powerful he sees it as a trinket and his playful attitude and disassociation from the world he’d likely lose the ring or just completely abandon the quest to follow his own curiosity. He’s immune to the risks so has no skin in the game so to speak.
Not only PJ's version either, the old and very well done animated version omitted him. Some say it's because it wasn't important to the story, but that fails miserably when they literally 'crane lifted' Elves into the battle of Helm's deep.
No one can make a serious movie with Bombadilo in yellow boots singing and dancing for 15 minutes.
2:28 💀WTF WAS THAT AWFUL CGI???!! 💀 nom
One does not simply ignore a nerdstalgic video.
Somehow Bombadil returned.
When I saw LOTR it had been at least 25 since I'd read the book. I didn't remember anything about Tom Bombadill!
Me as well, exactly, except I didn't read the books until about 12 years after I saw the movies!
I did. Thought they should of left him in
I was almost 12, I had read The Hobbit but had no idea the story continued until then. I hated Tom Bombadil, though I don’t really know why. It caused me to put down the book for almost a year before I decided to read it again.
Agree. It was dumb. It was Tolkien trying to unify his earlier writings and this one clashed because it was childish.
To me, Aragorn essentially takes the role that Tom Bombadil does. In terms of rescuing them from a threat and providing them with arms for going forward.
I do feel with hindsight if peter had filmed tom and any other things missing from the film and then did a really extended version later fans would eat it up.....i am not a huge fan but i would have watched
Bombadil was the reason I never finished the books. So many pages for no reason.
I was excited to see who played Tom and was highly disappointed.
I literally just finished listening to the audiobooks today. I’ve been thinking back about the whole series and definitely feel like Tom breaks the pacing. I actually don’t miss anything that he’s not in the movies.
We don't write a book so that it can be adapted into a film (with some exceptions). So when it is adapted, inevitably there are concessions to be made. Personally I understand purism, I am also in a certain way, but we can like both works in their own right.
I think Tom falls into the same hole as the Watcher in the Waters, Tolkien loved the inconsistencies in his stories so that he could write the story explaining them later, see also the creation of orcs the two Glorfindols He just never got around to writing the Tom Bombadale story
Bombadil makes perfect sense if LOR is a series. He, however, does not make any sense if LOR is a 2-hour movie.