Why Peter Jackson Was Right to Cut Tom Bombadil from The Lord of the Rings
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 кві 2022
- I have my problems with Peter Jackson, but on this decision he made the right call. Not because Tom Bombadil is a bad character, but because in the medium PJ was working in, he no longer serves the same purpose.
For my videos on some of the issues raised here regarding Bombadil and the slow progression of danger as Frodo leaves the Shire, check the following:
The Old Forest: • Lord of the Rings "Del...
In the House of Tom Bombadil: • Lord of the Rings "Del...
Fog on the Barrow Downs: • Lord of the Rings "Del...
The significance of these three chapters: • The Importance of the ...
Frodo leaving the Shire: • Book vs. Movie: Bag En...
Other Links:
Rumble at rumble.com/c/c-355195
Odysee: odysee.com/@TolkienLore:f
Twitter: / jrrtlore
Patreon: www.patreon.com/tolkiengeek
few people understand the demands found in the cinema medium and most are very cavalier with their own arrogance in suggesting what would and wouldn't work. this video was refreshing in acknowledging that different mediums have to treat the consumer in unique ways
The main reason for having Tom Bombadil plot wise would be to show that not everyone is affected by the power of the Ring, but one of my favorite scenes (from a filmmaking perspective) is when Bilbo drops the ring at the doorstep, and I like the idea of Bilbo being the only person in the films who is able to willingly give up the Ring, and the Ring is only destroyed in the film because Gollum and Frodo fight over it and it ends up falling in. Also, Bilbo being able to let go of the Ring adds more weight to Gandalf's quote, "You can learn all that there is to know about [Hobbit's] ways in a month, and yet after a hundred years they can still surprise you at a pinch."
I like how they give the ring this loud thud like it weighs 300 lbs
Remember that Sam willingly gave the ring back to Frodo in the chapter with Sheldon, the giant spider of the Morgul Vale.
@@briangarrow448 Sheldon???
@@korvo3427 Auto(in)correct strikes again.
@@briangarrow448 yes the real point is hobbits can resit the one ring
I absolutely agree about Bombadil. His part of the story has its own beginning and ending, and he doesn't appear anywhere else except for the briefest of mentions at Elrond's council. That part of the novel could almost stand on its own as a novella, except that it's so delicious that omitting it would be an intolerable shame. Good video as always!
And the very brief (a figurative and literal aside) mention when the Hobbits get to Bree on the way home; Gandalf pays Tom a visit: "We will have much to say to each other; he has been gathering moss, while I have been a stone doomed to rolling."
@@marieroberts5458 Yes. Maybe Tom is a Maiar? Either way, he's such an interesting character.
I mean I totally agree, but Tom's chapter in the story did actually make you feel that middle earth had alot of magical things going on
Tom's additions to the plot moving forward:
1. Tom is the Master. Mastery of yourself is one way to resist the influence of the One Ring.
2. Tom sets up Chekov's Daggers of Westernesse.
One line from Aragorn about how these are the weapons of his people that fought the Witch King of Angmar at the beginning of the Age and we're golden. Now we know the hobbits armed with Nazgul harming weapons. Perhaps in the PJ version Aragorn has been doing a bit of wight extermination on the Barrow Downs in his spare time and had a hunch that it would be a good idea to collect some of his ancestors weapons. Especially those shortswords over there...?
I once suggested that Strider ought to have armed the hobbits out of a Rangers' weapons cache.
I watched the movies before I ever read the books. I was very surprised reading the books that so much happens between Frodo leaving home and when they get to Rivendell.
I also hate turning Frodo into baggage, making Denethor a gibbering coward and Théoden a grumpy old man, and reducing Éomer to little more than a spear carrier
Bombadil was a chance for the Hobbits (and readers!) to relax a bit after the terror of the Nazgûl and the Old Forest. I think he was best left as a mystery.
If I was upset about Jackson leaving anything out, it was The Scouring of the Shire. That was, to a large extent, the entire purpose of the story.
Some "fan fiction" folks should film the scenes that PJ left out, I'd love to see Tom Bombadil !
I always imagined Brian Blessed as Tom Bombadil. I appreciate your argument, though.
He’d probably be as good a candidate as any.
Watch out, here comes the curved ball: Ricky Gervais.
Bruan Blessed as Gandalf would be funny as hell.
My first thought was "Robin Williams would have been ideal" but Brian Blessed would be excellent.
I dont think they even cut him from the movie per say. They left in a scene transition where they say they want the viewer to imagine they met Bombadil inbetween the scenes. So it's not like they went out of their way to _cut_ him from the story completely.
I enjoy your presentations very much.
You're probably right. His inclusion would've been more of a distraction than anything, and would lack the gravitas of the overall atmosphere.
Great video Tolkien Lore. I agree with you. I'm one of the people who watched the movies before reading the books and I don't think including Tom Bombadil would have benefited the movies. After reading the books, Tom Bombadil not being in the movies is the one change I don't miss. If I had to ran what changes PJ made that I don't like the list would look like this:
1. Faramir
2. Aragorn (he's #2 for me because I understand that his movie character is needed for modern TV audiences)
3. Gildor/Frodo interaction
4. Glorfindel finding Aragorn/hobbits on the road
5. Council of Elrond book version
6. Grey company
7. Beacons/muster of Gondor
8. Battle of Pelennor Fields as it appears in the books
9 and 10. Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire
I also watched the movies before reading the books. Overall, I think Peter Jackson did a great job, but I agree with most of your points. I dislike movie Aragorn. And the movie version of the Council of Elrond is very underwhelming after reading the books.
@@reek4062 I like Aragorn in the films but the book version is better, agreed with your take on the council.
I gotta beef with 4. I dont get the obsession with wanting glorfindel back in favour of arwen. It seems like nothing more than obsessing over the silmarillion character and the story doesnt GAIN anything from having a never before seen elf lord who doesnt join the Fellowship or appear later in the story over Arwen, a character who is more important in the story and a serious motivator of Aragorn
Brian Blessed as Tom Bombadill? Missing out on the Barrow downs robbed us of why Merrys sword could bring down the Witch king. But cutting out Tom, yeah...
Oh yes! If they had included the character, Blessed would be perfect for the role. I could picture him putting on the ring and letting out one of his classic, boisterous laughs at the hobbits' amazement that it has no effect on him.
I agree with you 100% on this, and for the reasons that you have stated. I would like to have seen a portrayal of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, and for that matter the Barrow Wight, but it just wouldn't have worked even in a three hour film covering only the first novel. Something has to give in adaptions, though I agree that Faramir's changes felt unnecessary and may have been motivated by trying to give Aragorn too much of a character arc.
I've spent hours arguing/debating what/who Tom Bombadil actually is, but the mystery is precisely what makes him intriguing - he's clearly something ancient, powerful, and in the grand scheme of things important, but that's all we can really say. I have a feeling that if he were included in the movie, they'd somehow manage to destroy this and ruin the character.
i think he is the creator in human form
@@evilzilla4053
Tolkien actually said that Tom is not Eru, Illuvatar.
@@kahekilimaui450 cool i will look into it
I forgot who plays the music that makes creation, but Tom is said to be the physical manifestation of said music...
That’s just a theory; nothing in any of the texts suggest that.
I disagree with you on this for a number of reasons. Yes, I agree that for the movie he made it makes sense.
1) If the movie had started where the book starts, close to home, not a greater wider world, and then starts expanding slowly outward, as we get with Bilbo's party. We can ratchet up the tension.
2) Considering Tolkien's use of time jumps, such as the long interval between the party and the revelation of the Ring's nefarious origins, I believe that a decent use of transitional shots and dialogue can hurry past the mundane, such as the giving everything away the day after the party. This speeds the pace, without disrupting the building tension.
3)I believe that both Gildor, Farmer Maggot, and Crickhollow can be either truncated or dropped. Personally I prefer an adapted and truncated version of Farmer Maggot and Crickhollow while dropping Gildor altogether, though that encounter is actually important to Sam's arc.
4) I believe that much of the time at Tom Bombadil's could also be trimmed for time, and while he would perhaps be less fun, he could be played with a bit more of a serious side to him. This would also allow for the proper scene of Gandalf's imprisonment to be seen by Frodo.
5) This would also allow us to see the Barrow Downs in their true horror while heading to Bree, and for the proper swords to be given with some hints by Bombadil at their origin with further revelations after the fight at Wearhertop.
6) I disagree that this would need to be extended into six films. I believe that four would work as well. First the by changing the opening, you have nearly an additional 3-5 minutes of time when the story can be moving forward. More time could be cut by changing the scenes in Bree a bit. Another scene to cut was the stone trolls. Lastly, the traverse of Moria might also have been cut down a little with perhaps the movie ending with them mourning Gandalf with the next movie ending at Helm's deep and Shelob respectively, especially as that movie had too many deviations and ludicrous nonsense that can easily be cut.
To summarize, I do agree that Peter Jackson made the cuts necessary to see HIS vision and adaptation become reality, and while it had its low points, in the main it was acceptable. However, I believe directors, writers, and producers could easily include things that were cut or changed and arrive at an equally faithful story.
If it were up to me, I would have edited out silly moments like the bed scene when Frodo recovers from being stabbed, and shortened a few other parts to include Tom. But his part would probably need to be shortened a lot, and it would be tricky to make him relatable to modern kids. But still, I would have tried. And if it didnt work out, at least put him in deleted scenes, or the extended version.
I think it would have been hard to make Tom seem like a serious character given the way he acts and dresses. Having said that, I love the character of Tom Bombadil.
I thought they did film some Bombadil scenes. Aren't they included as extra scenes on some of the discs? Been a long time, but I swear I remember seeing them.
They included lines from Bombadil when the hobbits are in fangorn. That was in an extended scene with Treebeard talking to Oldman Willow
Very well argued, especially the point that the movie needs to keep going. I cannot help but agree with pretty much everything you said. Speaking of homely houses, you could argue that Bree starts off as one, before things start going sideways. In the movie, Bree itself is shown rather ominous from the get-go.
Yes of course, it's hard to see Bombadil working in any conceivable adaptation. Fact is, Tolkien had him (and Willow-man, and the Barrow-wight, and Goldberry) already [1] and thought he would move the story along -- although the main plot-driver, the Nazgul, had already materialised.
One angle I've never seen commented on has to do with the second poem, Bombadil Goes Boating. This was written some time after LOTR was published and refers to material developed for that e.g. Farmer Maggot.
In the sequence with Maggot, Bombadil is characterised as a penniless beggar looking to drink Maggot's ale in return for storytelling. This recalls the licensed beggars in Walter Scott, such as Edie Ochiltree in 'The Antiquary' -- a novel that has more than one echo of JRRT, e.g. the title character's surname which is Oldbuck.
Is this an attempt to connect Tom with True Thomas, Thomas the Rhymer? There is a tradition, recorded by Robert Chambers in 'Popular Rhymes of Scotland' , that Thomas ended as a beggar.
This may seem far-fetched, but the figure of True Thomas had a clear appeal to Tolkien and we know he consulted the Chambers book. [2]
[1] The Adventures of Tom Bombadil (poem)
[2] Cf. Flieger and Anderson (eds.) 'Tolkien on Fairy-stories'
Great video as always and I think you make some very valid points about why it’s impractical to add Tom Bombadil. Plus unless you understand the lore I think he would just confuse a lot of people with the ring disappearing on him and not being effected at all by it. But I do wish we had a bit more of the old Forrest/barrow downs. But idk how you would do that without Tom.
Also have you made a video on the difference in the power of the Maiar? Like why Sauron is more powerful then Gandalf even though they are both maira.
I haven’t done a video on that, but I think some other UA-camrs have.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Thanks for the info, I’ll have to check some of the other LotR UA-cam channels. But I do think if you are ever hurting for ideas one week, you would make an interesting and informative video out of it!
I might do that ;)
I have! 😂Not to hijack Joshua's video. I'd still like to see him cover it in the future.
I knew someone had, just couldn’t remember who 😂
Reading lotr again, the film does a great job of compressing the timeline for cinematic drama, but the book reader is rewarded again and again with lengthy but fascinating digressions that give the books a sense of a real world with an interesting history
IF Peter Jackson wanted to go back and do an anniversary project from LotR, IMHO one of the best things he could do is get the four hobbit actors onboard and make a mini movie of the Tom Bombadil chapters.
I completely agree that PJ LOTR made incredibly destructive decisions on adapting Tolkien's LOTR in the realm of character/screenplay, casting, direction, thematic understanding… sigh…. the only thing I really respect is the production design and the themes created in the score (but not their use). For what Jackson was doing Bombadil has no place. The first opening frames of the movie make Bombadil redundant - the audience is bludgeoned with FANTASY EPIC FANTASY immediately which I think is akin to a massive spoiler and makes the shire someplace you don't care about and don't want to spend time in… LOTR should have been (back in the early 2000's) a BBC mini-series format even if that meant lower budget. I enjoy the old late 80's BBC Narnia series far more than the Disney/Walden versions - are the beaver costumes laughable? Yes, I grew up laughing at it with my family but also loved the series and respected it for what it was - an adaptation that was very faithful to what Lewis was doing. Jackson said they were injecting none of themselves into the story, they were making this for JRR….. baloney. JRR would have been furious for the constant misrepresentation of character and intent and the loss of many major themes. The old forest up to Bree contains some of the best writing…. not that much is happening "plot"-wise, but YOU ARE THERE IN THE STORY. Bombadil is a perfect eye-opener into the realm of the Secondary World, you are learning of the possibilities and wonder of the world in a way that doesn't lay it out and celebrates the mystery, the enigma of creation as made by God (by music……CRITICAL FOR THE WHOLE STORY even though the creation story is not really touched on directly). He's so important, as you said, for the world and the lore. But Jackson reduced the idea to fantasy tropes.
I would tend to agree with you, If I hadn't seen Ralph Bakshi's LOTR back in 78.
Jackson wasted over an hour of film across his entire Trilogy, on Anti-Tolkien changes and horrible additions. That's Half of a standard movie's worth of time, that Could have been used to tell Bombadil's part and much Much more of Tolkien's written word.
I actually have a way to incorporate Tom Bombadil into a serious take on LOTR and have it work, it's All in How the actor plays him.
Think "Hagrid" of HP fame,
just shrink him down and... Chant, more than actually sing.
A kind of humorous, winking, Slightly frightening wisdom.
And in that voice ! Wow !
As far as time in a movie to tell..."Tolkien's Story"
Just think how close Ralph Bakshi got to Tolkien's written word, and that covering most of 2 volumes in only 2hrs and 13 minutes. Imagine what Peter S Beagle could have done with 12 hours of film time. 🤔🤨🤔
It Can be done, done tight to Tolkien's word, and with Exciting and immersive results.
Imagine what we Could have had, if Peter S Beagle were Jackson's Script writer. 😉👌
You’re leaving out the fact that even if you take out all the wasted, non-Tolkien stuff, there’s still an enormous amount of material PJ left out that is more important to the plot than Bombadil. So you could fill all that space before you even thought of adding him back in.
@@TolkienLorePodcast
Very true! Though I do think we have a better chance of doing even that, with Beagle's approach at the script.
At least, it makes it a little more of a possibility.
What about the Scouring of the Shire? Should it be in or out?
In.
@@TolkienLorePodcast I actually agree. The story doesn't end properly otherwise.
I get not having him theatrically, but I still would have loved to see him either in an extended edition or A "short"(I use this term ironically as I think just Tom's portion could be an hour to hour and a half)
Well explained. Let the true Tolkien fan read and contemplate Tom and Goldberry on their own. There are depths there that few can fathom.
I wsh the barrowdowns had made it in.
I couldn't agree with you more about this. I've been a HUGE LotR fan ever since I first read the trilogy in the late 70's. I realize that you couldn't make a film of the story page-by-page, episode-by-episode. You'd wind up with something over 20 hours long and completely unwatchable. The printed novel and the motion picture are two completely different modes of storytelling and some compromises have to be made. There are some I might have made differently; but this isn't one of them.
It's an absolute no-brainer - all of the TB chapters had to be cut, for the films. That is NOT to say there wasn't some really good stuff there, things that Tolkien clearly considered important. In terms of the films, the biggest loss in doing so, was the viewer never gets any idea of the backstory behind the blades the hobbits acquire after Tom rescues them from the Barrow Wight. Because later on one of THE epic scenes, in both the films and the books, is the Battle of Pelennor Fields, where Theoden is cut down, and Eowyn and Merry take down the Witch King. I have read the books...god I'd think we'll over a hundred times (am old now) and that has always been one of the most thrilling parts of the entire epic.
So I was really looking forward to seeing that in the film. It was certainly a 'major moment' of the films but not as good as how I'd visualized it in my head so many times, with what I knew from the books. In the film, Merry is like a...'distraction' such that Eowyn can kill the Witch King, but there is way more than that involved. So much less of a major moment than it was in the books, due to the cuts to the first book.
Thanks, I quite agree.
However, if, I think Rowan Atkinson might be able to pull it off. (I am thinking less of Mr. Bean than of Enrico Pollini in "Rat Race".) But who would play Goldberry?
I think he could have add him to the extended edition, it would have added a touch of "unsolved mystery" that would have been very cool to see.
I was born in 86 with nobody around me to introduce me to LOTR. I was introduce d through the movies but if Bombadil was in the movie (and portrayed accurately). The mystery of the lore would have been more alluring, consiquently selling me to read the books earlier than I did...
in the end I did but I just think PJ could have added it in if he wanted the viewer to see that there is WAY more to the story for those who wish to seek.
I remember Robin Williams name being thrown around as a fan cast for Tom back in the day.
I recall reading a comment somewhere along the line that the Tom Bombadil story arc could almost have made a movie of its own, albeit shorter than the others.
I think I could have seen Tom Bombadil working for something closer to the Rings of Power as like you said a world building element, and even then I think you would have to edit it to fit in with the tone. If I was gonna select an actor, it might be someone that is used to be serious but can do comedy such as some of the actors on say doctor who and I think that would work better
I'd like to see Bombadil as a comedic Kids cartoon, not necessarily cannon but referencing the rest of Tolkiens world.
To me that's the proper context for the character.
I actually pondered alot in the past on the mini series or the 6 movie part.
The first book ends at the ford.
Where in the first movie would take place from start to arrival in rivendel and maybe as a cliffhanger right as they form the fellowship.
I believe alot would be happy if someone maybe some day did a fan animation if that whole sequence from the old forest to the barrow downs.
"...if someone maybe some day did a fan animation..."
Some day will have to be after the copyrights expire.
@@tominiowa2513 you can say that. However making a free visualisation of an obscure part of the book would likely not so likely be taken down. You have to weigh out the grey zone Id say.
@@erathor9120 As detailed in a recent video on this channel, the Tolkien Estate appears to be getting aggressive in going after anything they see as a copyright violation. That is why we no longer have Tolkien readings on UA-cam on Tolkien Reading Day.
@@tominiowa2513 It is very sad indeed.
I read the books so often I just skim “The Old Forest” now.
I think Bombadil is a bit Hobbity, that is like in the preceding novel, a bit of an isolated whimsical episode, that gives Hobbits some peril to into, and get out of, with some exposition on the wider world we have yet to encounter, I think it is also about JRRT's indulgence for songs and the like he loved writing, In fact he doesnt fit into the rest of the vast Elvish lore which JRRT wrote, we learn he is a benevolent Maia, (somewhere but not LOTR as I remember) like Gandalf but somehow separate, in that unlike the other Wizards is not subject to the power of the ring.
I think even in the books you could skip it altogether or have the Hobbits rescued by a Ranger patrol, Radagast or Elves on the way to lindon in a much shorter section. Mostly I think readers love the character and the layer of the mysterious and magical he introduces to the Novel, as Did JRRT,.
In the Council of Elrond he is dismissed form further contribution to the narrative very specifically by Gandalf such that the reader is not expecting him to pop up in Moria and sing the Balrog to sleep, that section very neatly bags up to the reader, what tools and devices the characters have and dont have to deal with the ring.
The fact that Tolkien himself couldn't figure out exactly who Tom was and what purpose he served, while being able to give practically every rock and tree in Middle Earth a thought-out backstory, is a powerful argument for Tom being cut from the films. And the elimination of the Barrow Downs and blades helps eliminate Merry using a "magic" sword to help Eowyn take down the Witch King, which is a big deal since whenever men use magic it ALWAYS goes horribly wrong for them, so why would Numenoreans be making magic swords? Besides, he's not entirely gone; Treebeard gets one of his two most outstanding moments, the confrontation with Old Man Willow.
The Numenorians had a little magic of their own, like the elves, not necessarily "sorcery" like what the servants of Sauron use. Its a kind of power native to their being from the blessings of the Valar. The kind of power most "modern" humans in Gondor can no longer access.
Magic ( watever that means in this world) doesnt often go wrong in the hands of Men. The swords are in fact the only example of Men using magic in the story.
Those blades are specifically deadly to the witch king precisely because it was the Numenorians of Arnor, bitter foes of the Witch King during the days of the old wars, who forged them and put their thoughts of vengeance into them. I think that's an awesome element that helps explain just how Merry and Eowyn could defeat the Witch King at all.
Some fair points, but I never really took to "line switching".
Jackson does a lot of it.
people in this community don’t give peter enough credit. He managed to make a fantastic adaptation of a beloved series the creator said himself was impossible to adapt correctly. It may not have been adapted ‘correctly’ but he sure as hell made some good movies based on it
Tom Bombadil should obviously be Zach Galifiniakis. Or, more likely to have been casted at the time, Jack Black.
Tom B would have diminished the perceived power of the ring, which the movies are trying very hard to portray to the audience. Would have started another debate of why wasn't the ring given to Tom B., such as the debate on why the Eagles didn't fly the fellowship to Mordor.
Or they could make a whole movie about bombadil. Still waiting on the silmarillion
I mean they could have just cut Tom's silliness down a little bit that would have worked easily
The only reason he was in the book anyways was as a cameo/nod to readers who also read his short story "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil"
Which came out years later so yeah that makes sense. 😂
@@TolkienLorePodcast I know the collection of stories did but I thought the single short story predated LOTR. Sorry for commenting on your video lol
@@TolkienLorePodcast yeah I just double checked; the original poem was published in 1934
Tom Bombadil was actually a childhood toy of his kids, so the reference is less to the poem and more to that. Virtually no one knew of the poem as originally published.
Compared to the rings of power adaptation, the movies are the best thing to ever grace cinema. The latter was made out of passion, the former was made out of spite. The books are better: they always will be, as with any adaptation. Tom being left out is also the right choice as he isn't important to the narrative - tolkien himself said so in a letter.
Tom is a good, fascinating character that shows us the world and mystery of middle earth. All the while he gives us an appreciation for the smaller things in life as they are.
I still believe you get that in the films as time goes on, so not too much is lost in that respect. That's my take on it.
Willem Dafoe fills all the weirdness level check boxes to become Bombadill.
Also Ricky Gervais!
I wish Tom bombadil would have been in the extended version
perfect points, different mediums, tom bombadil works very well in literature but on the screen it would be so easy to screw it up, and his addition would not enhance the story that much, the risk would be too high.
I have the perfect actor in mind (in fact I imagine it's him when i read the Fellowship) ; Brian Blessed!
Gimli is the characyer who keeps the audience grounded
Finally! I couldn't agree more. Even his humour is on the lines of an awareness of how bleakly ridiculous (nine, then eight individuals against the whole world?) their situation is.
Some things in print don’t translate well into film. The mysterious, ridiculous fey, Tom Bombadil in LotR is one of those things.
Extremely late, but as I watched *The Northman* in theaters, I immediately thought that Willem Dafoe could tackle the sort of character that Tom is. If you haven't seen it, you should see how seamlessly he transitions from jest to dead seriousness. Regardless, I am not really a fan of neither of Tom nor the chapters that involve him since they are something of a quagmire (to me) that kills the story's momentum.
This is an argument I’ve had with friends a bunch of times.
I love Tom Bombadill, but he embodies the idea that something can be really comical and silly and lighthearted and simultaneously epically powerful and wise. He looks silly. His songs are silly. But he is also one of the most powerful beings we meet in the entire legendarium, he’s on par with the balrog, or Galadriel. In a book you can do that, but I don’t see how you’d make that work in a movie.
And also plot structure and pacing.
So, I’m with you on this one.
Didn't Tom hand Merry the specific knife, that damaged the Witchking's spirit, so that Eowyn could finish him off?
Maybe Brian Blessed was too old already, but he could have done the job imho.
Tom gave the Hobbits the barrow blades, yes.
Ok, first, two words...Chistopher Lloyd. The man needs no introduction.
And if he's not your cup of tea, then try Christopher Walken (the man can do whimsical comedy and if you ever saw him in an old live action "Puss-n-Boots" you'd never doubt it for a second).
Another choice at the time? Robin Williams. No need to explain here. RIP.
Here's one that could work, but I'm not sure of his comedic chops...Kristof Waltz. I think he has a great sense of timing, and he could go for droll.
AND there's Alan Rickman, RIP and amen;
Brendan Gleeson would work as well as Robbie Coltrane, they both can carry off the silly and the profound and they both have the physicality (they're big men who can move with grace when needed).
As of now, if Amazon wanted to insert Tom Bombadil into the series, guarding the proto-hobbits from harm, the director has an embarrassment of riches to grab from.
Not that I don't otherwise agree with you and PJ, there was no real place for Tom in the movie and we still got a helluva show.
Just don't sell the acting community short of this one.
I dearly miss Tom being in the movie. BUT also agree I understand WHY he was not in the movie....
... You know in a TV series they could take the long road and not so much FLASH.... (WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE SAY NO MORE SAY NO MORE -> Amazon, this is a hint to you!)
Who would have played Tom Bombadil? Jim Carrey? Robin Williams? Steve Martin?
You’re thinking about it all wrong. Robin Williams maybe but fundamentally we’re not looking for a comedian.
Tom never made much sense to me, even in the text. His presence seemed like a digression. I would actually compare it to the French plantation scene in the extended cut of Apocalypse Now: The kind of mistake that an artist would make, but that simply doesn't belong.
I always would have picked Robbie Coltrane to be cast as Tom Bombadil
During my more recent re-read, I ended up skipping over Tom's section, but I think what would have been an interesting thing would have been to merge Bombadil and Radagast into once character and have him be the sort of 'Nature's guardian' Role. Have him be first bit of 'advice on the road' for the Hobbits, but also show that there is that third side like the Ents.
Then again, it also serves the contrast of Saruman's 'Radegast the Fool' diatribe to be contrast with someone who just thinks Saurman is boring and while should be respected, isn't exactly worth listening to beyond his role as the nominal head of the Istari.
That would have made Tom unreasonably and inexplicably weak and ignorant, and Radagast unreasonably and inexplicably powerful and wise
I get what you are saying.. my takeaway is that books will always be superior to movies. and maybe its why i have left so many movies disappointed
Bombadil’s great, but he has comparable book time to both Lothlorien and the war against Isengard. That has to be cut in a sane adaptation.
IMHO, the critical world-building/plot use of Tom Bombadil in the book is to show that the whole world isn't a horrorshow. Our 4 hobbits are basically attacked from the moment they begin their journey, by ever-worse menaces, except for their interlude with Tom B. Without Tom, Middle-Earth looks a lot scarier. In the movie, they can get the same relaxing "time-out!" effect with lighting and dialogue pacing.
No Bombadill means no Barrow Downs, which is one of the best chapters in LOTR. First time Frodo becomes a man.
What I don't like about the Peter Jackson version of Fellowship is that they skip over some of the character building between the hobbits that happens from them going through the old forest, meeting Tom, and then almost dying in the Barrow Downs. Tom adds that air of mystery to the world which is nice as well, and it makes it harder to reference him later, like during the Rivendell meetings. IMO the whole beginning of Fellowship is rushed and it makes sense to have that I guess in a movie to create urgency, but I still hate that it's missing. The hobbits kind of come across as silly idiots and later without the scouring of the Shire it kindof always feels that way in the movies.
The scouring of the shire was one of the things I didn't like about the books. You go through all of that effort and an entire journy, and by the end it still isn't done. It drags the story on for longer than it needs to be, and feels like padding. I get what it represents, and Tolkien's time in ww1 echoes this feeling of "war touches everything". But it's just.... excessive.
I totally agree. I used to hate Tom Bombadil, but now I love him and what his mysterious, mystical presence does for the worldbuilding of Middle Earth. Nonetheless, it wouldve been really hard to square his inclusion with the structure and tone of the movies.
One of Tolkien's boys used to hate Tom Bombadil, since he attempted to flush the doll that inspired the character down the loo.
Ricky Gervais as Tom Bombadil?
💯
In my humble opinion, Robin Williams would have been able to pull it off
Stephen Fry as Tom Bombadil? Tom Hanks, or younger - Matt Damon (The Martian) .... all able to bring humour, pathos and weight to a role .... Scarlett Johannsen as Goldberry - strong, compassionate, Nordic, a type of etherial ...
I think Nikolaj Lie Kaas would make a good Bombadil
Tom Bombadil's earliest name is the Sindarin name Iarwain Ben-adar, which translates as "Old Fatherless." The name Iluvatar means "All-Father" -- the name for the "One" God Eru, who created the Universe by conducting a choir of the Holy Ones, the Ainur, whose song became manifest as the Creation -- a work of Music, the Ainulindale. Tom Bombadil is the only creature whose mode of speaking is a sing-song manner, using a specific rhythm with rhymes in couplets, as if everything he has to say is comprised of lyrics to a song he already knows the words to. When Frodo slips the Ring on, Tom can see him . . . and when Tom puts on the Ring it has no power over him.
Why?
Because Tom Bombadil is God. He is Eru Iluvatar, dwelling as an avatar within the world of Arda that He Himself created. It was Eru who gave Gandalf the intuition to include Bilbo Baggins in the Quest for Erebor. Gandalf didn't know WHY it was important . . . but Eru knew that if Bilbo went along, he would acquire the Ring, which would eventually lead to its destruction.
After the War of the Ring ends, and Aragorn becomes King Elessar, and the four hobbits return to the Shire, they are accompanied by Gandalf as far as Bree . . . where Gandalf takes his leave of Frodo and the others. And why? Because Gandalf intends to have a meeting with -- you guessed it -- none other than Tom Bombadil.
Why? Because, by this time, Gandalf must at least suspect that Tom Bombadil is, indeed, none other than Eru Iluvatar -- both "All-Father" and "Old Fatherless" -- and before he leaves Middle Earth (his purpose having been fulfilled) to return to Valinor, he feels inclined to confer with Him . . . perhaps to see if there's anything else He needs him to do before he takes leave of Middle Earth at the Grey Havens into the West.
Perhaps someday another production team will adapt all of Tolkien's works, chapter-by-chapter, with all 61 chapters of LOTR tackled in 61 episodes -- including the Bombadil chapters. I can understand why neither Bakshi nor Jackson included Bombadil in their adaptations, but there's more to him than most Tolkien fans seem to 'see'. I see him as God dwelling within His own creation -- with even the Valar unaware of His presence in the world they had sung into existence. Think of it: Iluvatar -- the Father of All -- must then also be the father of Tom Bombadil . . . right? But how can that be if Bombadil is also known as "Old Fatherless" (Iarwain Ben-adar), I ask you? The ONLY being in the Universe who COULD NOT have a father is the Father of All.
Tolkien says "There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology."
Letter 181. Tom isn't Eru.
@@TheRedBook Aside from the Elves and Men -- both peoples deemed to be the "Children of Iluvatar" -- we have the dwarves, made by Aule, and creatures like Ents, created by God to answer the prayer of Yavanna. Is Tom Bombadil an Elf, a Man, a Dwarf, an Ent? What sort of creature is he? How did he come to be named Iarwain Ben-adar ["Old Fatherless"] if only Eru can truly be called the Father of All?
The letter you cite goes on to state: "But the One retains all ultimate authority, and (or so it seems as viewed in serial time) reserves the right to intrude the finger of God into the story: that is to produce realities which could not be deduced even from a complete knowledge of the previous past, but which being real become part of the effective past for all subsequent time (a possible definition of a 'miracle'). In letter #144, Tolkien refers to Tom Bombadil as an "intentional" enigma. If TB is not an embodiment of 'God', strictly speaking, this same letter suggests that he could be -- and probably is -- "the finger of God" intruding into the world "to produce realities which ... being real become part of the effective past ... a 'miracle'."
Elsewhere, Tolkien notes how Goldberry's referring to TB as "He is" had been suggested by some to imply TB's godhood, and then tries to brush it off as reading too much into the reference . . . but how else could Tolkien expect readers to read that? Sure, TB himself never says, "I am" or "I am that I am" -- but for Goldberry to say "He is" amounts to much the same thing.
This reminds me of the story in Genesis (32:24-30), where a "man" wrestled with Jacob, but he "did not prevail against Jacob" in this bizarre wrestling match, so "he" [this "man"] "touched the hollow of [Jacob's] thigh; and Jacob's thigh was put out of joint" . . . and soon after "he" changes Jacob's name to ISRAEL because "you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed; Jacob/Israel names the place where he wrestled with this "man" 'Peniel', "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved." So, if the God that Tolkien himself believed in can take the form of a "man" and physically wrestle 'man'-to-man with Jacob -- putting Himself on par with a mortal man, limiting His own powers so as to make it a fair fight, a fight that Jacob WINS -- then how odd should it seem that the same God re-envisioned as Eru Iluvatar in his mythos might also take on the form of a "man" in order to interact with a mortal creature (i.e. Frodo) who has a destiny to fulfill?
Then there's the matter of the name 'Bombadil': what might it mean? In HME vol. V [in "The Etymologies"], the root BOR- means "endure" = Q 'voro' "ever, continually"; MBAR- means "dwell, inhabit." The suffix DIL in names like Elendil means "friend." So, conceivably, the combination of all three -- BOR- + MBAR- + DIL -- with the R-sounds dropping out, could give us a name which is pronounced 'BOMBADIL' and means something like "the Friend who dwells continually" or "the Ever-Present Friend."
One of his other names is "Orald" and it might possibly be derived from ORO- "up; rise; high" and ALAT- "large, great in size" and so perhaps meaning something like "the Highest" or "the Most High."
Tolkien never does explicitly tell us what the names 'Bombadil' and 'Orald' mean, but we do know that 'Iarwain Ben-adar' does explicitly mean "Old Fatherless." It's at least interesting, is it not, that plausible meanings can be teased out, implicitly if not explicitly, for these other names?
@@patricktilton5377 PT: go ahead and say it. Tom Bombadil is a Middle Earth version of Jesus, or Eru incarnate in a very strange form. He can work miracles, and sin (the ring) has no hold on him, but he will NOT by magic correct all the evils of the world. That battle is up to us. Bombadil and Goldberry are a vision of how man might live, if we can cleanse ourselves of resentment, arrogance, greed, and hatred.
@@kevinrussell1144 I think that I have "gone ahead and said" what I've said already! But I do NOT consider Tom Bombadil to be a Jesus-figure. Tolkien, I suspect, would never suggest such a thing. Jesus, in Catholic Christian terms, is God-the-Son, brought into the world at a specific moment -- the fulness of time -- to ultimately serve as the propitiatory Lamb of God sacrifice, etc. Jesus is the 'hero' of all the world's history, from Creation until the End of the Age and beyond, the 'Savior', whereas Bombadil is an ever-present avatar of God, a singing, dancing happy-go-lucky 'person' who has been enjoying the wonders of the world that were created through the Song of the Ainur. Neither the Elves, nor the Istari, nor even the Valar have ever truly understood Bombadil's true nature, even though he's been around Arda since its Beginning, like a plane flying under-the-radar unnoticed. Every kind of people knows of him, but they don't really comprehend the significance of his existence. "He is," says Goldberry. Gandalf, I think, finally comes to realize Bombadil's true nature -- following his own 'death' and 'rebirth' after the fight with the Balrog -- which is why he specifically makes a detour to go see Bombadil after accompanying the hobbits on their homeward journey as far as Bree. We'll never know what Gandalf and Bombadil may have said to each other, but it had to have been a matter of much consequence to Gandalf, to be accomplished before he were to make his final journey to the Grey Havens to leave Middle Earth (his tasks complete).
As for Goldberry, I think of her as a kind of manifestation of the World itself -- a "Mother Earth" of sorts. Tom lives with her and loves her, in a relationship that involves no subservience and abuse. Cooperation. Symbiosis. Joy. Innocence. The ideal relationship we mortals ought to strive for in regards to Nature, which we should cherish and celebrate with song and dance -- rather the way the Elves do in Lothlorien and Rivendell. If Saruman knows of Tom Bombadil, he must be entirely clueless about his true nature, in that he has betrayed the very spirit of the Song that brought the world into existence in the first place . . . seduced by the idea of Power and dominance which Sauron's Ring instills within him. Saruman probably thinks of Tom -- if he thinks of Him at all -- as a mere silly fool of a man. What would he have thought of Tom had he seen Him put Sauron's Ring upon his finger and remained unaffected?
@@patricktilton5377 Thanks for the long, patient, and detailed response.
I have the good sense to never vigorously contend with any religious person that knows his texts and sincerely professes his faith. I would, however, point out that some consider Jesus as being present with God at the beginning (in other words, Jesus became manifest at the instant of becoming-the Big Bang-and that the “us” in verse 26 of Genesis references the presence of Jesus (the right hand of God) at the creation.
It is curious, too, that that verse notes the intent to make man in God’s image (but since God/Eru is a spirit, how can He have a form?). I would argue (I’m not a theologian) that man is made in the image of Jesus, the one who will be born into the world to save man.
The fact that the hobbits can see and converse with Tom, and that they can break bread with him. also makes me suspicious that Tom is NOT Eru. But God made flesh?? I’ll leave it there.
In passing, note that in Isaiah 7:14, in the famous mention of Immanuel, the next chapter notes that he will eat butter and honey. What does Tom serve the Hobbits at the first dinner? Bread, yellow cream, honey comb, and butter (plus milk, cheese, green herbs, and berries). Curious, eh?
Agreed
Who the fuck is this guy using my name?
In the movie: Aragorn gives the hobbits magical swords from a cache that he somehow has.
In the book: Bombadil > Barrow Wight > magic swords > death of the Witch King.
Still it was probably best to keep bombadil out....
Is it an Australian and a Hungarian flag?
@@arckocsog253 yes....
Tom is a mystery that is never elaborated on. Putting him in would be narratively unsatisfying. Especially because Tom is limited so greatly geographically. Honestly he only worked in the Fellowship because in a book Tolkien had time to flesh Tom out just enough that he didn't seem like a deus ex machina. Tom would be wasted in the movies.
Tom Baker = Tom Bombadil
The scene where Tom holds the Ring to his eye and looks through it. Now you've said it, I can't imagine anyone other than Tom Baker doing that.. Thanks!
Some things just don't translate well to film
Unfortunately you are correct. I kind of wish there was the purists version of the films and the pop, General public version. 😂👍✌️
Robin Williams tho
if they make an adaptation of 'the adventures of tom bombadil' and cast jack black as the lead, it would make a lot of people very happy
Tom Bombadil strikes me as a character who would have fit perfectly in The Hobbit, but is incongruous in LotR so I fully understand leaving him out of the films.
Anthony Hopkins. No one else.
Tom Bombadil exists outside The Matrix.
Then you also leave most of the audience wondering who the hell Tom is and why is he in this story, unless you really spend a lot of time with him.
jack black as tom bombadil
1:02 He may be taking up a lot of space because he is thematically as important as he's plotwise disposable.
Absolutely, but that’s still really hard to justify in a movie.
@@TolkienLorePodcast depends on the style ...
@@TolkienLorePodcast you know the kind of Japanese movies and mangas that have lots of silence "going on" instead of action?
OK, I get it, 3 hours ...
@@hglundahl And most western viewers condemn Iyashikei as being boring. Doubt western viewers would be willing to read an exposition pamphlet before the movie as Anno has used.
@@tominiowa2513 I haven't seen sufficiently of Japanese films to know what you are talking about - maybe one or two on TV, decades ago.
I'm glad he didn't include Tom , people don't really understand Gandalf , The Ainur and The Valar . The concept of Tom baffles even the well book read Tolkien fans .
Jackson could have followed the lead of the fan-subtitlers and included a note on screen explaining a few things.
Whenever I think of Tom Bombadil, I imagine Gene Wilder.
There's no one in the world who could play Tom Bombadil. That might be a reason too 😁
Only a direct, word for word, scene for scene depiction is appropriate. Leaving anything or anyone out is Wrong.
Adding anything or anyone in, or assigning words and actions to an incorrect character, is also Wrong.
What little I know of the films is enough to make me refuse to ever watch them.
No, to remove him is going against the source material and is a degrace to Tolkien's Legacy.
All of those people who complain that the Eagles didn't take the ring to Mordor would have had a field day with Tom, too!
What about the troll size Tom Bombadil and Goldberry in _Khraniteli_ ?
I was cool with no Tom Bombadil. It threw off the story (I glazed over and skipped through his part of The Fellowship of the Ring) and the movie works better without it.
Robin Williams is the only one who coulda played him