Why Removing Tom Bombadil Was The RIGHT Decision...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лип 2024
- Welcome to Episode 5 of "Movies vs. Manuscripts". A show where I analyze the differences between Peter Jackson's adaptation of "Lord of the Rings", and Tolkien's original works... scene. by. scene. Today we head into a portion of Tolkien's writings that are totally excluded from the films. Specifically, Tom Bombadil.
Watch Ep. 4 - • How Peter Jackson FRAM...
I am NOT a Tolkien professor, and I haven't been studying this for decades. I am simply a fan. If I missed anything, please let me know in the comments and I will be sure to make corrections in the next episode!
By the way... I LOVE the movies. These videos are not to hate on Peter Jackson or the films at all. Simply comparing the adaptation to the original. :)
-
Read along with me! 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring” on Audible for FREE: www.audibletrial.com/factorfa... 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
Looking for the PERFECT men's wedding band?
Get 25% OFF your purchase at Manly Bandz with my code (FACTORFANTASY),
and support the channel at the same time! 👉 manlybands.com/FACTORFANTASY
-
Business Inquiries 📩 gabe@factorfantasyweekly.com
-
Want to join an awesome community of fantasy fans?! Check out our Discord server! RPG 🐉 Battle Royale 🗡️ Art 🖌️ Community Adventures 🧙♂️ and a chance to nerd out with others! 👏
Join: / discord
-
Music:
🔻
"Arthur-Marie Brillouin - Bien-Aimée" is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0) license.
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
@arthur-mariebrillouin4496
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🌼 Ambient Piano (Royal...
🔺
🔻
"Scott Buckley - The Long Dark" is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0) license.
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
/ musicbyscottb
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🌑 Dark Ambient (Free M...
🔺
🔻
"Alexander Nakarada - Frost" is under a Creative Commons (BY 3.0) license:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
/ creatorchords
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🍺 RPG & Celtic (Free M...
🔺
-
Timestamps:
0:00 Tom Bombadil's Removal...
1:44 Chapter Sumaries
7:08 Analysis
-
Sources:
"The Fellowship of the Ring," directed by Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, 2001.
-
#tolkien #tolkienlore #lordoftherings #lotr #peterjackson #newlinecinema #warnerbros #jrrtolkien #tombombadil #thefellowhsipofthering #fellowshipofthering - Фільми й анімація
Want to get into the Lord of the Rings for the first time OR simply rediscover Middle Earth in a whole new way? 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring” on Audible *for FREE with my code:* www.audibletrial.com/factorfantasyfellowship 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
The actual reason was cause they had problems getting the funding for even just 3 movies... so they trimmed some of the content that was less pertinent to the journey itself.
Let's be happywe didn't get the entire thing cramped into 120 minutes.
That being said, even if Tolkien didn't intend it, Bombadil adds some nuance and breadth to the setting. It sets a precedent for a fantastical creature that doesn't really get involved in "The Great War" and as such makes the ents being reluctant to join less of a weird moment.
I believe you missed the most important reason for the removal of Bombadill, his relationship with the Ring. The movies put a lot of emphasis on the Ring and it’s corrupting power having even Faramir fall to it at first. Including Tom would have us see a guy do tricks with the Ring and see through the invicibility in the first hour, which would lessen the threat of the Ring a lot for the rest of the movies.
Also, if Tom is so powerful that he can sing away threats, why isn't he in the Fellowship? If he refuses, then why doesn't he help them on their way from Bree to Rivendell? Frodo nearly died and could definitely have used some more help. So yeah, it's best that Tom is just not mentioned at all
@@northlight6759 And who do you suggest steps up to make such a command to one who can sing away threats?
Faramir did not fall to it - not in the books. "Not if it lay by the wayside..."
But he took it very serious and didn't play with it. And even he still might have fallen if he had been longer in the rings company. He understood the danger of the ring - as Tom Bombadil did not.
You mean Boramir, Faramir's brother
It’s exactly this reason. Having Tom flick the ring around like a toy cancels all the trepidation Gandalf has when offered the ring by Frodo.
When I heard The Lord of the Rings was being made into movies, I guessed Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire would be omitted for both time and elimination of a side quest and anti-climax respectively.
Interesting! Tom Bombadil totally made sense to me, but I never thought the Scouring of the Shire would be omitted, and THAT killed me. I would have way rather had that than the 3 endings leading up to it. But that’s because personally, Frodo is my favourite character, and I loved those final chapters. Because they drove home the tragedy of Frodo’s story, that everyone else got a happy ending, and he was the one person who didn’t . I love a good tragedy! 😛
@@heatherqualy9143I am surprised Frodo is your favorite lol, but the scouring of the Shire would extended the end by so much it wouldn’t have been good. I liked the ending of the movies
Have no problem with cutting Tom out. But you’re 100% wrong saying he serves no purpose to the later story. Merry’s blade comes from the barrow downs and it is Tom that gives it to him. It is enchanted and made specifically to harm beings like the witch king.
That still doesn’t help. Even if that one little moment made its way 2 books later (which by that time you mostly forgot about the events of Tom Bombadil) it’s still pointless since he’s never referenced again as far as I’m aware. I think it would’ve have been better if the blade Merry is given was from the Elves since they are VERY prominent throughout the story.
@@ulfberht4431 Tom is mentioned later in the books, and the ancestry of Merry's dagger - made specifically to fight the witch-king - is also mentioned in Return of the King.
@@SRWhitting Once again, it is a better and more elegant option, in the context of a film, to just have it be his elven dagger.
@@Palendrome
Exactly!
@@PalendromeExcept it's not an elven dagger. It was made by the Men of Westernesse.
In the books, Tom Bombadil is integral in inaugurating the hobbits into the dangerous world outside of the Shire.
I disagree, more like save them from their own .. stupidity? obliviousness? carelessness?
They were ill-prepared for sure, but I'm not convinced they learned much from the endeavor at that point.
I like the theory that Tom is the embodiment of the music that created Arda. I love the books but you cannot put all details from the book into the movie and I agree that cutting this was smart it would only add to the confusion and in the end people will argue why didn't Tom on an Eagle bring the ring to Modor.
As Arda itself is the embodiment of the Music, I would think of Tom as the observant silence between notes that lets them have form, and not all blend together as one long note.
_Years_ of headaches could have been saved if they had just put the line about why they couldn't just fly the eagles to Mordor in that fucking film.
I very much agree that the whole section feels like a side quest or a segment of the world isolated "in a snow globe". And the whole singing thing - totally agree. Jackson was totally correct not to include these chapters. They add nothing to the core plot progression; indeed, they slow it and even muddy it. It would ruin the pacing and be a slow inclusion at a time where the plot needs to start picking up pace. Not good for a film. (I also feel that omitting the scouring of the Shire was the right choice for similar pacing reasons.)
In fact, more than merely being a side quest, to me the whole section feels more like DLC content for a game that doesn't quite fit the style of the core game and which, if you didn't buy the DLC, it wouldn't affect your enjoyment or experience of the game at all. It's an optional extra; some background colour to the world, but (ultimately) not that important.
To me, Bombadil has always felt a bit awkward - even since long before the films. Perhaps it's because I know that he was styled around Michael Tolkien's doll, but Tom Bombadil has always felt like a crass, clashing fan-service insert into the story (where the "fan" is Tolkien's son).
All the "he's so powerful, but doesn't use it", "the ring doesn't affect him", "he's basically and ancient god" etc etc is just "and... so what?" territory for me (and feels like the kind of stuff you'd make up about your child's toy). As far as I'm concerned, he's a crudely inserted side note and not a particularly interesting one at that. In my opinion, he would have been better mentioned in Tolkien's notes or letters (or not at all) rather than having chapters in the core book.
Your mileage may vary, of course. Let the hate begin. 😉
🤖
Tom Bombadil bothered me from the second or third time I read the novel, way before the movies. They are very intriguing character and situation, but also frustratingm because it goes nowhere. It is a good argument in favor of Chekov's rule about loaded guns at the beginning of a story.
And the whole thing feels like a return to "The Hobbit". Songs, whimsical character and repetition of once in a life time opportunities. Like any other day that Frodo and company went there and they would have been doomed, but they were lucky to get to Old Man Willow on the first day of spring (or last, I don't remember), wich is the only day of the year Tom goes there to get the water lilies. And after the barrows Tom gives the dagger made to fight the Witch King of Angmar to the only of the four hobbits that is going to be near said Witch King of Angmar. It felt like when Bilbo, the dwarves and Elrond are reading the map to the Lonely Mountain exactly the night and time of the year in wich the moon would reveal the path to the secret entrance. And they get to that secret entrance the precise day and time in wich the sun rays reveals it...
So, yeah, I pretty much agree with this video and think that it was a good idea to remove the whole Tom Bombadil affair, not because it is not interesting, but because stops the script and it is of no real consequence (the movie solves pretty well the dagger problem by not caring about it and replacing with just a dagger). A good idea really, just as taking out Glorfindel and putting Arwen in his place.
I rarely say this but, this is the most underrated comment that I've seen in a while.
I totally agree with you. The only questionable exclusion for me would be the barrow downs. Frodo is tempted to put on the ring so he can possibly escape, thinking Gandalph would have to agree that it was the only thing he could have done. But his hobbit bravery kicks in & he chooses to try to save his friends. Later, when Gandalph is discussing Frodo's journey to Rivendell with him, Gandalph says that decision in the barrow to not put the ring on and to try to save his friends may have been the most dangerous moment that Frodo has faced so far. I think Pete could have possibly included the barrow incident, leaving out Tom. He would have had to change how they escaped, but that wouldn't be any worse than the other changes in the films.
Also, I completely agree about the decision to leave the Crickhollow storyline out, but I do wish they could have put Farmer Maggot in there. They did have him yelling at them, but I would have liked to see the conversation they had about the black riders. Chapters 4&5 are 2 of my favorite in that book. I listen to the audiobook all the time (with Rob Inglis) & I enjoy that part so much! So... Yes, Pete leaving Maggot out was best, but I'm glad Tolkien wrote that part of the story & I get to hear it in the audiobook! 😉 Leaving Tom out - good call. But the barrow downs could have been put into the film somehow, to show Frodo's personal challenge against what the ring wanted him to do.
Thanks for the video! Great job!
I'm glad he was omitted. The way he played with the Ring, showing off the fact that it wasn't a threat to him and dealing with it would have been trivial for him, then handed it back to the puny mortals to continue to suffer and die over it pissed me off. "I'm alright Jack. I got my super-hot wife, my songs and my pretty forest snow-globe to live in, so what do I care if your whole world gets destroyed? Not my problem."
The film had to account for Merry’s powerful, and essential-to-the-plot, barrow blade by making it a gift from Galadriel.
No, it was just handed to him by Aragorn on Weathertop
Yeah, and that was a nice way to give at least a fan service nod to the books since the blade was made by Aragorn’s ancestors. But the blade had no such power in the film - it was just a knife. A lot of people also seem to forget that its so-called power in the book comes only from one sentence, far removed from the barrow downs, and at least as I read it there is an ambiguity as to whether it has any real “magical” power. I’ve always felt its main magical power was Irony - the knife was made by the witch king’s long ago defeated enemy. At any rate in both the book and movie its main power was only to make the lord of the Nazgûl say “ouch”. The sword that actually kills him is just an ordinary sword, albeit one with a “fate buff”. Not to mention that when Frodo stabs him on Weathertop with one of that blades twins it barely gets the big guy’s attention. So apparently these blades are, like some dwarf made keys, only magical if used at the right place and time. 😂
@@JSeedProductions No. In the movie, the blade Merry uses to stab the Witch King is the one that Galadriel gives to him as a parting gift when the fellowship sets out from Lothlórien.
I think for me it is more "I want to see Tom Bombadil" as opposed to "I wanted to see Tom Bombadil in the movies".
He is a fascinating, enigmatic character. But filming him will never do Tom right.
I always thought that at the end of the movie when all the stories have been wrapped up they would show Gandalph walking up to a house being greeted by a woman and he tells her he's there to visit a friend who he'd like to share his tales with.
Tom is, in fact, a cameo, of one of tolkiens muses when his kids were growing up.
You nailed it. Even reading the books, I've always been tempted to skip chapters 5-8.
I’m glad Tom is in the book, but I agree that leaving him out of the films was best. I don’t see how it would do anything but confuse the audience.
I have read the book several times. About half the time, I skip those chapters. I’m glad to have read them, but I find them tedious, and they feel out of place.
To me, Tom is basically the spirit of Arda, or the earth in human form. Gandalf basically says this in Rivendale. Nature is powerful and mysterious, but it cannot directly fight against evil. It cannot be tempted by evil. It simply is.
I just finished the chapters from journeying to buckleberry until them arriving bree... Imo it is a bit dragging the story, the only fun part of em is when tom bombadil in the story... Almost skipped them fortunately i did not lol
@@boredasf-zy8bj The key is knowing what you're getting into in advance so you can have plenty of food and drink handy to entertain yourself :p
@@taivo55 I've known tom bombadil for sometimes before reading the book but i didn't expect the long drag in the old forest and their journey to buckland lol
@@boredasf-zy8bj I've read all the explanations for why that section of the books exists, but to me the only part that's really relevant to the ring job is the Hobbits getting their sidearms.
Tom basically has the middle earth cheat codes in his pocket
I like that Jackson added the tree part in fangorn. It's a nod to the scene, showing they're aware if it, but purposely left it out.
It adds to the fangorn events, as it adds to the tension that nature has awoken to join in on the fight for middle earths survival. It actually makes the ent scenes less dull, despite them taking their time, nature isn't. Nature is ready to fight back
I don't care for it. Brought way too many hype punks and edgelords to the community.
@@somersault1123 in what way?
Though I respect the reasons why it was not included, I wish that there was indeed some struggle that Frodo and company had in the film against the Barrow Wights, because it shows a kind of inner resilience that Frodo possesses.
And you think the events of the three movies didn't show frodo's resilience?
Not to the extent that the book did.
@@aliismail2962 The movies actually nerfed Frodo, especially in The Fellowship of the Ring.
@@samkornrumph8545 That was always going to happen. The original source material had a lot of important action being split amongst multiple groups and you couldn't easily cut those ones down to help Frodo retain the same semblance of power that he does in the books. They were able to do a surprisingly good job of avoiding cutting important things in order to get the thing to fit into a 3 movie format.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade I get that. I’m just saying that there were things in the movies that fundamentally changed his character and made him far weaker than his book counterpart. This is why I think a TV/miniseries format would would work much better for book adaptations, because the format allows the writers to include as much of the source material as possible without losing the viewer’s interest.
I think the issue with cutting the old forest and Tom Bombadil is actually a problem of timespan and pruning of unviable options. Plus the hobbits get the sword that i believe allowed Pippin to stab the witch king and make him vulnerable from the barrows. Why is going to Mordor the only option? Because entrusting the ring to Tom is a bad idea, since he would easily forget about it and then lose it. its similar to my issue on the Elves in the Hobbit.
Rivendell was described as a bunch of singing mischeiveous Elves when visited in the Hobbits, seeing it as a more serious place later shows that the weariness of the elves has gotten so much worse because an age is ending in the lord of the rings.
I love the movies, watch them at least once every year, with every other year being the extended editions. However, when I tired reading the books for the first time, I could not get past the Tom Bombadil parts. The singing was so jarring and felt like it kept pausing the story just to have this character in it singing. So personally I’m really glad he isn’t in the movies.
You should probably stick to the movies. I hear Fast & Furious part 933 is being puked onto the market this year. That may be something for you.
Yeah the books are great and all but after reading them like six times there's parts I skip past and that's one of them.
You might try reading the books as they were intended, as a set of 6 rather than 3. It definitely makes the whole process a lot more pleasant and even during a few bits like that, you know you're not that far away from being onto the next book.
While Tom Bombadill, Old Man Willow and Old Forrest was cut from the movies, some parts are included but in a different way and in a different part of the story. In the Two Towers, during the Uruk-Hai and orcs camping at the edge of Fangorn, before the argument between the two factors werever they should eat Merry and Pippin or not, as the Uruks chop the trees, the hobbits hear groans and Merry say that it is the trees and he says "Remember The Old Forrest, Pip, at the borders of Buckland..." which refers to The Old Forrest and the moving trees like Old Man Willow. In the books Treebeard explains that Fangorn was so big in the past that a squirrel could go from tree to tree from The Old Forrest and all the way to Mirkwood but have been deforrested thanks to Sauron's Forces marching to the west to claim The Elven Rings, and to the Men of Númenór that cut down the trees for ship building.
In the Ent Draught sceen later on, Merry and Pippin gets caught by a Willow Huorn the same way Old Man Willow does in The Fellowship of the Ring book but Treebeards appear and says the lines "Away with you! You should not be awaken! Go to sleep, eat earth, dig deep, drink water. Go to sleep. Away with you!" and the hobbits gets released. The lines that Treebeard quotes are Tom Bombadill's from the book.
No you anti-Bombadil crowd are full of shite. I though it was egregious that Jackson left out Bombadil and the barrow-wights from the LOTR movie. The Barrow wights firmly tie LOTR with the ancient Celtic/Anglo-Saxon and even earlier European past. There are barrow mounds all over the U.K. and Western France, probably made by the same culture that made Stonehenge. I have seen them personally, and they are very mysterious and awe inspiring. The reason LOTR , the books and the movies are so phenomenally popular in my opinion, is because they resonate with the Collective Unconcious of European peoples, or descendents of European peoples, or even non-Europeans who love European culture. As for Bombadil, he was the most magical character in a magical story. Totally mysterious, possesing great power, but down to earth, what is he? We don't know, but the interlude in Bombadil's house with Golberry is, to my mind, even more precious than the stay at Rivendell. There's more I can say, like the clumsy way in the movies the hobbits obtain their swords, but I've gone on long enough.
In the game Battle for Middle Earth 2 (2006) you can summon Bombadil as a special hero from the good side. It was absolutely bonkers to watch him fight hoards and hoards of orcs and goblins just by singing and hop/skipping. His actions all did AoE damage like Sauron's weapon swings! I always wished such a scenario existed in the books/films, but he would just be too overpowered lol
The problem with removing Tom Bombadil from this film is that the implied promise of the film trailers was to faithfully reproduce the narratives in the books as a live-action trilogy without any compromises or constraints. I liked the movies. I wish they included Tom. But in life, you get what you get, and you can decide whether or not you’re happy about it, and I think I’m pleased with the films.
That was never going to happen and including that would have just broken the movie. The extended version was nearly 11 hours and the sections of the book that involved Tom would have taken the better part of an hour. That would have required breaking the trilogy into 4 movies and required moving around the plot points a bit to accommodate it.
There's always going to be compromises and constraints when adapting a book into a movie. You may wish that they had, I'm guessing that if you actually had to deal with the consequences that you'd be wishing they wouldn't have. The Hobbit was incredibly boring in large part because they included too much stuff that stopped the plot and destroyed the momentum. They didn't do that with LOTR and there really aren't any points where the plot starts to drag or wear thing. By the time that dangers starts to close in on the audience, we're whisked away to something else. It reminds me of some of the older editions of the LOTR where there's an excessive time spent talking about the provisions that they were going to take which was left out of more recent editions.
Back in the day when the movies were announced I was hoping for Robin Williams to be cast as Tom Bombadil.
I've never even considered that but it would have been an amazing casting.
I agree with you. What let me down, per se, when I first watched the movie and realized Tom Bombadil had been taken out of the plot, was not the fact he wouldn't be there, but because I was genuinely curious to see how they would have adapted that specific character to be part of that movie, without compromising the mood of the narrative...
Guess I'll find an answer now, with Amazon's series 😅
I agree! The only thing that I miss from those chapters is how it shows Frodos loyalty to his friends and DECIDING to be brave for them. And also the relationship that Merry and Pippin have with Frodo. But I believe those were covered in different ways in the movies later on.
I agree with your conclusion. However, although I love the entirety of The Lord of the Rings, my favorite chapters occurred before the hobbits reached Rivendell. These initial chapters painted the world of Middle Earth, from rock to leaf to blade of grass. They transported me, word by word, to my idea of heaven. Everything from Rivendell on was little more--to me, at least--just a quest. The pre-Rivendell journey itself was more pleasing, especially the journey through the Shire.
i'm glad those sections were cut too.
it would feel like filler and make LotR feel more like the Hobbit movies.
one of my gripes with those movies was that you could tell it was being stretched for the sake of stretching.
if the Hobbit cut out all of the "filler" stuff and was cut down to 2 movies it would have been far better.
Anyone who writes novels or stories would know all of this. Having read the books, like many have, it always baffled me as to why people were so upset over Tom not being in the movies. He provided nothing to progress the narrative, and your points here were well said.
Just watched The Fellowship of the RIng again in theaters last weekend, and it's so damn good. Having Tom in there would be such a huge distraction and take away from the story in the movie adaptation.
I always viewed Tom as something like a karmatic aspect or even an echo of Eru Iluvatar's One Chord on Arda, Tom's presence is something akin to beings like Ungoliant or the nameless things tied directly to creation and is there as proof of Eru's will done. It's not a matter of belonging or being included, he is there whether shown or not by Jackson. Just a man and not a man at the same time, plot armor incarnate.
In response to a letter, Tolkien described Tom in The Lord of the Rings as "just an invention" and "not an important person - to the narrative", even if "he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function." Specifically, Tolkien connected Tom in the letter to a renunciation of control, "a delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself," "Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry". (from Wikipedia)
Old forest being left out made me sad. Now Sam had to eat Frodo instead of the tree.
I love what you've said here. I love that he's included in the series!
I always had a vague notion of the Hobbits, during those early chapters, being quite innocent and very much childlike, requiring a certain amount of special protection by the likes of Tom before passing from a mystical, dreamy, fairy veil existence into the more complex affairs of Elves and Men.
In the films, however, the hobbits begin the tale with a more anchored, sophisticated outlook on the world and reality itself. They are more like teens eager to grow into the challenges presented by the wider world. This places their story arcs on a more streamlined (albeit less magical) track which works well for the films. They no longer require side quests or special council to prepare for entry into the wider world. They already have one hairy foot firmly planted in reality.
To me, Tom Bombadil represents a person having achieved complete, pure peace of mind. Not another person's thought or actions, including an invoice or threat of life, would shake that person. Not even the thought of death would. That's absolute power, and Tom has it! In DnD terms, it's pure True Neutral character, without the desire to disrupt any wind of change, good or bad.
I totally agree with everything you said. I’m currently writing an adapted screenplay of my 3rd novel with a successful Hollywood screenwriter. It’s all - 100% - about the audience experience. I’ve read the LoTR about 6x - and I’d argue it’s one of the greatest works of fiction ever written - and yet I still think the entire Tom Bombadil sequence makes for terrible movie entertainment. Great character, but he doesn’t really play a significant role in the movie except for in the 1st book where he saves the Hobbits. Honestly, I found myself skimming through a lot of sections of his singing. Love the guy. Great character, but a huge distraction from a movie perspective.
For me personally, one of my biggest hates of all time, just behind woke for the sake of woke, is when scenes exist that don't advance the plot. Also scenes that continue after doing their bit to advance the plot. As important as the Tom Bombadil bits were to that book, it was just 1/6 of the books in the series and it probably wouldn't have even been in that book if Tolkiien had been more into outlining his books rather than discovering things as he wrote. The section with Tom doesn't really advance the plot in any meaningful way. The Hobbits don't seem to develop at all as characters as a result of it, and there's no consideration later on for trying to get his help only to find that he can't be contacted, or they contact him and he winds up taking longer than they would like to appear. (Sort of like what happened with The Shining when Danny tries to get outside help)
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Great points. I’ve often wondered what the true role of Tom was in the entirety of the story. I guess he does come in to help them but beyond that , not really anything more than an opportunity for Tolkien to share some songs (which BTW I always skip through). I’ve seen arguments where Tom as seen as a God-like figure. If that were the case, though, why doesn’t he come to the aid of the rest of the team in their quest? I saw another comment in this string where he represents a “feeling” of love, joy, simplicity, etc. That’s wonderful, and I enjoyed his section in the Fellowship. But, I still believe that Jackson was correct in not including him in the movie. His presence is ambiguous and he doesn’t really push the plot ahead in any meaningful way.
I do agree that the only way these scenes would work visually is in a tv series.
I 100% agree with you! Thank you for explaining this so well.
Tom Bombadil is a character from some of Tolkien's early poems / short stories that were published in various magazines
The character was shoe-horned in on the advice of the editor as a way of generating more interest in this character since they planned to republish his poems in a book after LOTR was finished ...which didn't work since a lot of LOTR fans seem to be unaware that the book even exists
(It was a massive flop)
And yes , there is a book published by Tolkien in 1962 called "The adventures of Tom Bombadil".
I would have loved to see Bombadil, but i completely understand why he was omitted.
I first saw the movies and then read the books. And when I came across Tom Bombadil, I thought "what a stupid character". He felt like at this point of writing Tolkien wasn't sure if this would be another book for children.
Love this, watch the trilogy Every year but never read the books so Im learning so so much from this series, commenting and liking every video to help out and hopefully going all the way through all movies/ books
Adding in Bombadil isn't technically impossible, but it is technically impossible with Amazon
Not at all. Tom would be a cowardly little man, heavily corrupted by the ring, but his strong black wife will keep him in check - herself unaffected by the ring.
She would then instruct him to escort them to the edge of her lands.
As a side note: seeing these well known scenes from LotR with that different, nostalgic sounding background music (makes me think of the Silent Hill games), plus the desaturated filter gives them a very different feel. Very interesting!
Tbh the new Hunt for Gollum movie should just be unfinished tales, also including things not in the films from the book like hollin and the chapters mentioned in this video. Each story could be 40 minutes long, could be a bit like Pulp Fiction or Buster Scruggs where they merge multiple fairly unconnected stories.
I still think they should make it like Apocalypse Now where you have this psychological story set against the greater war with Gondor and Mordor. Maybe have accounts or flashbacks of both Aragorn and Gollum showing how they both lived under the influence or the shadow of the ring.
Yeah. But because they don’t have any rights to those books. They have to invent 95% of that movie by themselves…
Idk how true it is to the original lore from Tolkien, but the video game Lord of the Rings Online made the wights of the Barrow-Downs servants of the Witch-King of Angmar: he raised them up to be serious impediments to the Ring-bearer and to spread darkness and evil in Bree-land.
You say that people who wan tom in the film, want it cause itd be "epic" but ive never heard anyone say that. Its that he is deeply loved by fans, and we wish ww got a portrayal on par with the rest of the movies. They should've filmed it for an extended extended edition
People ask, why did Cron not know about the Shire?
The answer is Tom Bombadill camped nearby .
There were many things I wish were included in the movies but Tom Bombadil is not one of them.
The part of the story with Tom gives some insight into Tolkien’s view of the world. Just like the oft quoted line by Thorin in the Hobbit, “If more people valued food and song and cheer over hoarded gold, the world would be a merrier place.”
Only the story of Tom Bombadil would pull you out of the greater story. I love Tom and I treasure the implications in Tolkien’s world.
But it would be bizarre in the movie and they would probably have made him a joke like they did with Radagast the Brown in the Hobbit, or with Faramir in LOTR.
My only issue with removing the Tom Bombadil portion of the story was that Peter Jackson never gave an alternative reason for Marry being able to strip the Witch King of his immortality.
Is this in the book what book is this from
I got a little lucky and was able to ask Stephen Colbert, a big Tolkien fan, before his show if he was sad Peter Jackson didn't include Bombadil in the LOTR films. Colbert said he got it that Jackson couldn't include Bombadil in the films....definitely felt like I was talking to a wikipedia of LOTR given Colbert's knowledge of all things Tolkien.
I always thought Tom represented the Author and Goldberry the feeling of the story and the Barrow, the author’s mind. I imagine that every time Tolkien sat to write, he went through this mystical land to release the characters from the worldly concerns of his own mind and allow them to continue their quest.
Tom Bombadil is an episodic story like those in The Hobbit. Tolkien's thinking, at this early point in the story, had not yet evolved from bedtime stories to epic fantasy.
As I just mentioned in a different post, I don't think that Tom would have appeared in that book at all if Tolkien had been planning things out in advance the way that some writers do. He does sort of get through that bit, but it's one of those bits where it doesn't really feel like he's invested in the plot and is more interested in screwing around a bit to figure out where he's going. If he were more into outlining, I get the feeling that that bit would have been omitted entirely for something that advances the plot a bit and perhaps bigger barriers later on.
So nice to hear this after arguing with people for so long lol
I would loved a limited series about the secondary characters in those world. Just realty get into the texture of it.
Tolkien fought his publisher's demand to remove Tom Bombadil. One purpose of Tom was to establish that there are entities in Middle Earth that are unaffected by the ring.
His inclusion in the books was fine, although there should have been more plot advancement and character arcing going on in that section of the book. His inclusion in the movies would have been a grave mistake as it kills the plot early on and doesn't pay off.
I like these chapters in the book, I enjoy the detour through the Old Forrest and I love Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. Every time I read the books I read Toms lines in the rhythmic singsong they are written in. But I agree that for the pacing of the movie it would have been ghastly. The movies are not excusively for JRRT fans but for everyone else as well. Many people watched the movies that had never read the books. It would have been extremely irritating for them to be confronted with light hearted Tom playing games with this very item that had just been presented as the epitome of all evil only to have Tom afterwards completely vanishing from the story.
A book has much more possibilities to go explore side stories. And even if you read all the comments here there seem to be many Tolkien fans who are bored by these chapteres.
I regretted that omitting Tom Bombadil meant omitting the Barrow Downs as well and the storyline of the swords of Westernesse. I love these glimpses into all the lore behing LOTR. But it didn't matter regarding the prophesy of "not by the hand of man" because nothing was ever said about the kind of weapon that might overcome Sauron. I adore both, the book and the trilogy, each a masterpiece in their own right. And I thoroghly enjoy your comparison between both of them. I eagerly await every new episode. Thank you so much for all your time and effort.
Seeing how much discussion went about "why didn't they just airlift to mt doom with 'em eagles" can you imagine having Tom Bombadil in the movies? He could have simply kept the ring and entertained the hobbits until old age.
It would have been awesome, Treebeard singing the tree in Fangorn back to sleep after they drank the growth water & were ensnared in the roots in the extended edition of The Two Towers was an interesting homage to Tom that reassured me that Jackson & team would have handled it masterfully. It also needn't have been particularly long, 15 minutes screen time could have covered it.
Tolkien did not say that there was NO religious influence on the book. He actually called it a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work" in one of his Letters. Of course the book is deeply permeated with Tolkien's beliefs and experiences--everything he held dear. The reader is free to derive religious meaning from the text--to let it "speak to him" or whatever, but what Tolkien did deny, and strongly so, was that there was any allegorical significance to the text. So, for example, some people said that Sauron was supposed to be Hitler. While Tolkien admitted that what he knew and experienced about the world certainly influenced his work, no one place/event/character in the book is supposed to be seen as portraying any one place/event/character in the real world. I hope that makes sense. Great video and series.
i never read Tolkien's books before _Peter Jackson_ made _The Lord of The Rings_ trilogy, so i did not know _Tom Bombadill_ exist.
I totally agree! Initially I was miffed that Bombadil was left out, but I quickly realized that he didn't advance the plot at all. Jackson and Walsh improved Tolkien's story. No small feat! Now what really pissed me off was having Frodo banish Sam which I think was inexcusable and didn't improve anything. The bond between Frodo and Sam was pure, and this still makes me angry, but on the whole, the LOTR movie trilogy is a masterpiece.
The chapters of bombadil is very important as the only reason Merry was able to make the Witch King vulnerable was due to his Barrow Blade. A relic of Numenor. The magic within the blade was needed. Their blades were not just random daggers from Aragorn.
Nothing wrong in Aragorn as a men of the west to give that dagger, so bombadil was not needed.
Would that have justified the hour of screen time that it would take to set them up for an encounter with Tom and the rest of it though, that's really the question. The movies did a decent job of just handing over the dagger and be done with it.
I think in adapting very long books, there have to be cuts, this was an obvious section to cut, the 13 hour BBC version cut it too. The one thing I would say is having nothing between the Ferry and Bree gives the impression that it was an easy journey of no real distance. I think I would have shown some scenes of them traveling through the forest and moors. I might also have put Old Man Willow in while adjusting how they escape (he does appear in Fangorn, so why not have him in his right place. If you put Tom in, then I agree about the tone of the character, but he could be adjusted so that there is less singing.
I am very glad they left that part out of the movie. I literally threw the book into the corner at that part to never open it again. I intended to read it, as it's a fundemantal piece of fantasy, but that Bombadil part totally ruined it for me.
I recognise that all fans of this epic journey have spent hours and days and weeks, immersed in Middle-Earth,.... Some of us have returned many times,... and it's because we loved the journey,.. The experience was more important than the destination.
From various reports, the production company "New Line" were already financially at risk by funding three major releases before they'd seen proof of the revenue from the first film,...
This would have driven their desire to remove any scenes which didn't move the plot forward... but it would have been great to have this growth experience of the Hobbits journey in the bigger picture...
If Mr. Tolkien took the time to include this scene,.. he must have perceived some strong story value,... or he would have edited it out himself.
They ask who is Tom Bombadil, Goldberry respond with He is. I always read this as a sarcastic response. The way Robert Inglis narrated it
I completely agree with you and your reasonings as that was the conclusion I had come to.
There's always side trips in movies. It's like you've never seen one before.
Most other movies aren't nearly 11 hours long before going into side trips. If the movies hadn't been so long, or there had been something in this diversion to warrant it, I'd agree, but the movies are extremely long and the Tom stuff just doesn't do anything that would warrant the detour. It sort of worked int he books because Tolkien wasn't a fan of planning things out ahead of time, but it could easily have been removed and something more interesting put in it's place without impacting the rest of the story.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade I don't get the relevance to my statement. No offence.
the barrows visit is key to the defeat of the witch king of angmaar
For ch. 9's analysis, it's weird that there was not even an attempt to explain where Bill the pony came from or even Sam's fondness of him, before they had him just disappear. With the film version, you have Sam say "Bye Bill", right before the watcher in the water attacks and no concern over what might have happened to him.
Bombadil was originally just a plot device Tolkien used to add excitement to the Hobbit. Later, fans morphed Tom into potentially by God (Eru). He was not Eru obviously or Gandalf would have given him the ring or asked him to destroy it. He was not a Valar either. Tom was at best a very powerful elf, but the most natural choice was Tom was a powerful Maiar that entered Arda and Middle-earth after Morgoth and before Sauron.
It does make sense. I was mad as a kid because Tom was my favorite character and his part was my favorite. I can see now why it would have thrown things off, but I think it also reveals something about us and our culture. We are so business-like about everything, even story telling, elements can’t just be elements that build the world, all things must serve the utility of moving the plot forward, I think this is just another thing I don’t appreciate about Hollywood.
No Tom Bombadil, no LoTR. Period!
I'd counter that the movies manage to exist without him and nothing of value was lost.
As someone who is a writer… the Tom bits would not have translated well to screen and that’s something that people who are translating books to movies have to keep in mind. When you’re reading a book, if you take a moment to go off on a bit of a side quest, people are far more forgiving than they are when this happens in movies. Movies are expected to be paced a certain way to build excitement and, while books are also expected to do this, the rules can be far more flexible it’s this than films. The Tom chapters would have made the sorry feel like to ground to a halt.
But to me the part until Bree has always been my favourite. It’s small, local, mysterious.
I feel like if Bombadil had been in the fellowship, they would have had to add him into towers or king and that would have been near impossible without making him a big deal and most likely the one who saves the day, if the original section of the book was accurately depicted in the film. He’d appear to powerful to be dismissed so easily and be a huge plot hole. It would have made it worse than just avoiding him at all.
Think it’s obvious if you look past the “making no excuses” caviat. The offense suffered from the effort needed to improve the defense. Not hard to see how that would affect free throws as well. It explains Keegan’s offensive inconsistency as well. I expect the offense to improve next season as they collectively get used to that defensive effort, the only worries being Monk’s status and bringing a key player in who won’t put in the defensive effort.
A tv show! What a brilliant idea!
I once thought the same thing about the idea of a movie.
I wish they would have had him. He’s the most important character of the whole story.
The VHS filter makes me feel sick and is honestly disconcerting when applied to the happy and colorful scenes from lord of the rings
Bombadil is a movie unto himself. He's a long side-path. It's hard to mention him without devoting long storytelling to him.
I have also the feeling doing the Tom Bombadil Chapter right will takes some time, i mean the extended cut already goes over 4 Hour.. bring Tom Bombadil in the movie and some atleast importent stuff like the dreams etc will stretch the movie even longer (maybe 6 Hours etc?)
Also imo the "Speed" of the film would feel weird.. from stressfull to more chill to stressfull again and then chill in a very short time.. i mean in the movie after the cross the brandywine river the feeling in the scenes is more calm.. but you feel a treat that is lurking somewhere in the shadows and just wait to attack (what will reach is climax when the Nazguls comes to Bree)
I agree with you. The BBC Radio adaptation also dropped him, for the same reason.
I feel like you have done a great job of explaining the reasons why i felt those missing chapters were a great loss.
In the Jackson movies, everything is there for a purpose and that purpose is to create the dramatic arc of a Hollywood adventure movie.
In the books, you can get lost in the story, while in the movies you know exactly where the story is. I could tell you where we are on the beat sheet.
I'm one of those few who actually didn't like the Jackson movies from the outset. He did such a great job with the visuals: the sets and locations, the makeup, props and costumes, all of that fealt for me like it went to waste as he failed to capture the essence of the storytelling in the books.
There is plenty of nonsense in the movies that could have been removed to leave room for a more organic pace, for a feeling of a journey though strange world.
Respect to your opinion, but I have two important disagreements with most of your argument: FIRST: There's more to a story than just plot - The Old Forest, Tom Bombadil, and the Barrow Downs all help to flesh out the story's SETTING and create ATMOSPHERE and MYSTERY, which are very important elements in story telling - even on film; SECOND: There IS an important plot piece that comes from this section of the book - THE HOBBITS' SWORDS! In particular, the sword that Merry uses to help slay the Witch King! Knowing the provenance of those swords helps us to understand how Merry's was able to bring harm to the Witch King. "No other blade ... would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his sinews to his will." And having these kinds of threads is a VERY important part of storytelling - even on film!
As you guessed, here's a bit of criticism: anyone going to war prewpares themselves, one way or another. Tom & HIS lady goldberry are the calm before the storm. a necessary side trip. Their recovery from the whole adventure is bad enough. Tom & Goldberry are a memorable distraction of what is to come. He has no purpose, just like shaving or taking a shower before you adventure begins. There probably are so many different reasons for keeping Tom & Goldberry. Un connected, I can see that, but I think it just shows that: Let them a journey new begin,
But I at last with weary feet
Will turn towards the lighted inn,
My evening-rest and sleep to meet. I suppose for the Bree scenes, it is a bit heavier for the real story. Tom & Goldberry still have significance to the whole story. I'm looking forward to what Amazon puts together for Tom & Goldberry. Thanks for this review.
Personally I am perfectly fine with them leaving Tom Bombadil and the whole old forest out as very little actually happened during those chapters, but I however would have very much wanted them to include the Barrow Mounds section as that was one of my favorite parts of the whole book.
Good video and of course you are right that excluding Tom from the movie was a good choice. I wouldn’t mind a short film where these chapters were covered though, as a service to the fans.
But I reacted to you saying that Tolkien didn’t include his religious beliefs in the trilogy. On the contrary he is known to have said that this is a deeply religious piece of work.
Yeah, it would have been jarring to any audience with a sudden light-hearted musical number in the first movie. Especially, as you say, after hearing about the grave dangers that await them on their travels. :) However, I don't see why the part about waiting many years and planning the trip by fake-moving was omitted. Nor the Saruman vs. The Shire ending.
Tom Bombadil was the reason it took me three tries to get through the Fellowship Of The Ring. I couldn't get through that part, it seemed pointless and ridiculous. Once I got passed that, the trilogy is amazing.
Imagine spending 50 years watching Frodo do fuck all.
Issue I think many die heart book or even comic/manga fans is. Just because it's written on paper, does not mean it translates well to film or TV. It's why it's called an adaptation. A film or TV episode has to flow like water, and sadly sometimes many things have to be skipped over, or changed. Sometimes pointless elements of a novelization have to be weeded out, something that cost almost nothing to print in a book but would cost a fortune adding to a film with no narrative value whatsoever. You see this with real life events being portrayed in film/TV as well with Emily Watson's character replacing dozens of other scientist resources and investigators for narrative reasons in the mini series Chernobyl and it was the right decision.
When I read LOTR, I skip everything between the Shire and Bree. Something like ten chapters mostly devoted to walking through forests.
tom bombadil (and Goldberry) were there to be a contrast, a beam of light from the times long before the darkness of sauron. they were a window of hope. imo they are essential amongst others to remind middle earth what they are fighting for. for that reason he should never have been left out. he was left out because his character was 'uncool' and not in keeping with the dark tinted movies. which proves to me that directors don't always understand the books they adapt to film. I didn't really like the portrayal of Beorn in the hobbit movies, but at least he was left in.
I guess if you’re a completionist you want that scene in the extended edition. I remember reading the books for the first time excited to get more scenes not in the films. More characters to learn about etc. it’s funny how you meet Tom right at the beginning so it sets expectations high for more unseen turns… then you realize the movies have pretty much everything… but Bombadhil. It’s the one thing that didn’t make the 10hour screen time etc. kinda funny.
I love these chapters because they’re such high fairy tale fantasy… the books become more “historical epic style fantasy” as they go on… but this feels very globlin-core and fun. But from a dramatic narrative pov… starting a perilous adventure and then introducing a character that literally voids all weight and importance of the ‘McGuffin’ ring … would cause the story to come to screeching halt, and diminish why frodo alone is the only one that be the ring bearer.
Tom Bombadil was the intentional “enigma” as you said. He was never meant to be an understood or known character… “He (just) is”… my own inflection of “just” to give more contemporaneous understanding to what Tolkien was getting at.
When the Fellowship of the Ring first came out I was one of those who ruminated about Tom not being in the movie. However, I knew instantly why. It just didn’t drive the plot and there was no throw back to Tom at a latter time that required a plot device to cover his absence.
However, having said that, Tom is more than “just” a tonal “enigma” for the book. A way of Tolkien showing that in Middle Earth there are things even the author/narrator does not know.
Tom is a reflection that regardless of the machinations of men, elves, dwarves or even the Valari, nature will continue. He is… he will be… you’re of no consequence to his voice…
And yes, I agree that Tom Bombadil is actually Tolkien imputing the smallest of small hints to religion in his story. In fact, he does this numerous times through the story. Tolkien never stated that Middle Earth was allegorical in nature of Roman Catholicism, however he most definitely imbued his tails with references to the tenets of Roman Catholicism as well as his lived experiences through WW1.
Examples of this were the running themes of Salvation (Boromir), Redemption (Theoden as well as The Men of White Mountain/Dunhurrow), the Prodigal Son(s) (both Merry and Pipen who left the shire lazy, care free children and returned wisened world weary responsible hobbits), hubris and damnation (Saruman and Grima) and even The Big Evil (no, not The Undertaker from WWE) Sauron.
And it is with Sauron that the real importance of Tom Bombadil (in the novelisation) comes in. Although Tolkien never quantifies Tom Bombadil, he has embedded a very direct message of Catholicism…
Regardless of whether you choose to act good or evil or somewhere in between, He Is… He will be… Your choice…
Leaving Tom, or more specifically the Barrow downs, out and shoehorning in Aragon having some extra Numenorian daggers on his person i Bree was painful and lazy. And when It came to the two sentances "they have a cave troll" and "an orc throws a spear" getting six minutes of choreography that ends in a troll that can crush solid rock pillars stabbing Frodo that survive because it does not penetrate. It all became unexcusable, he killes the sense that this is just a continuoation of an old conflict with neutral powers on the sidelines. And add useless fight scenes, comedy dwarves and plot armor.