Cool forest! Reminds me of the nasty forest in the movie version of the Wizard of Oz, when the trees started pelting Dorothy and her pals with apples. Hey, and there's even a scene where the hobbits are all overcome with sleep, just like in the poppy fields on the way to Oz. Except LOTR is much more sinister, with the trees actually trying to swallow up the heroes, or drown them.
I quite like Tom Bombadil. And what a great name. Bombadil. I like the description of the food on his table, as well: yellow cream, honeycomb, and white bread an butter. Yummmm.
Replies: 13 comments
Yes, and have you heard? Tom is getting the ax by Peter Jackson :( He's one of the character casualties in the movie, sigh.
Posted by Tinuviel @ 2001 May 16 01:43 PM EST
Up to this point, I've been content with simply reading Debbie's comments and the replies she has received. I do feel I have to comment myself on Tom, however.
While I absolutely love LoTR, I have always felt that this particular portion was arguably the weakest in the books. I believe that Tom's appearance in the books is due primarily to the fact that Tolkien wanted to find a place for one of his favorite characters. Tom is truly absurd and unfathomable, and his only purpose appears to be to rescue the Hobbits from the dire situations they have put themselves in. In all honesty, I wish Tolkien had come up with another way to get the Hobbits past these first hurdles. Tolkien does make an attempt to flesh out Tom a bit during the discussions at Rivendell, but all-in-all I think he misses the mark in this instance. No doubt the Bambadil fans out there will disagree with me. :)
The fact that Tom will be missing from the movie doesn't disturb me per se, though I am concerned about how the Hobbits will get past Old Man Willow and the Wight. The implication is that all of these scenes are gone as well. This is a little scary, as is the prospect of what they've ADDED to the movie.
Posted by Baron @ 2001 May 19 02:24 PM EST
I'm disappointed that there won't be a Tom Bombadil in the movie. :-( I really liked his character, and the fact that he seemed set apart from the other characters, what with being immune to the Ring and all. However, I also agree with Baron that he doesn't seem to be necessary to the plot (unless he shows up later...I'm on Book IV right now).
Posted by Debbie @ 2001 May 24 09:34 AM EST
Sorry, much though I enjoy LoTR, I found Tom Bombadil excessively irritating the first time I read it and I STILL find him irritating today. And I don't think I'm the only one. Having said that, his banishment of the wights and rescue of the hobbits from the barrow-downs goes give an image of a great power underneath that irritating leprechaun-in-yellow-boots exterior. I'm not particularly sorry that he won't be in the film, but I would be interested to see how PJ copes with the Barrow Downs episode and how the hobbits (particularly Pippin) get their Westernesse swords/daggers. Maybe Frodo rescues them from the barrow wight on his own... (Dum dum dum dum - cue atmospheric music)
Posted by Anthony @ 2001 Jun 01 03:46 AM EST
It is difficult for me, as one who loves the story of Tom and Goldberry, to explain why they are an integral part of the story. For those who see the books as an "adventure story" I suppose the chapter isn't neccesary. They aren't exactly "party animals" by today's standards, and contribute little to the immediate quest to destroy the ring. However, for those who see The Lord of the Rings as more than a story about an event, Tom's story is as important as the fact that Bilbo's wanderlust comes with the Falling of the leaves, or that the smoke of Mt. Doom brings night during the darkest hours of The War.
Someone asked Peter Jackson why he didn't just film all of the tedious "on location" shots on a stage. He replied that he wanted to make it "more real". I personally think there is more that he did not say. I think the real mountains and forests provide a certain "magic" of their own, which even the actors can feel. Filming on stage would be like writing the books without Tom, and Farmer Maggot's mushrooms, and the Pipeweed, and all of the details that make up Tolkien's Middle Earth. For this is a story not about an event, but about a world; not some future or past fantasy world, but merely another view of our world. Where family jealousy and good food are an integral part of life, and where the magic comes not from fireballs flying out of some Wizard's eyes, but from Sam's simple kindness to a pack animal, a powerful wizard's appreciation of a seemingly insignificant group of little farmers, and from the love of a merry country bumpkin for his beautiful River Daughter.
Posted by Russell @ 2001 Jun 01 10:58 AM EST
Tom Bombadil is a great character. When reading about him, I felt an overwhelming desire to be around someone so friendly yet so strangely powerful as Tom is.
Posted by Glen @ 2001 Jun 01 11:58 AM EST
I was interested in your mention of Oz, because that struck me here too. In one of the later Oz books, there's a character (Ojo) who is captured by a man-eating plant, and rescued by the Shaggy Man, who whistles to make the plant let go. When I read the LOTR the first time (in 1970; I've read it about twenty times since, including once out loud to my kids) I had a real feeling of connection to my childhood favorites, the Oz books, when I read this chapter. There are other things that also made the connection for me: the hobbits are a bit like munchkins (in the books anyway) and the Nomes are like a cross between dwarves and goblins.
Posted by Karen @ 2001 Jun 01 03:43 PM EST
Russel,
I recently spent some time looking through the new comments on the chapters, and I must say that I really like the one you made above. "For this is a story not about an event, but about a world... (etc, to the end). Beautifully expressed! And I truly agree, even if I 'm still not too fond of the Tom Bombadil episode.
And I really hope that Peter Jackson manages to present that world, and also the psychological magic between the characters, and not drown the movies with special effects and Big Action-Drama... I have a lot of faith in him and the project, but worry about that sometimes.
Posted by Katarina @ 2001 Jun 02 06:46 AM EST
I should add that in the Oz book (the Patchwork Girl of Oz) the illustration of the Shaggy Man looks like Tom Bombadil: He's wearing a broad-brimmed hat with a pointed crown, a big pair of boots, and a big bushy beard. So when I first discovered Tom Bombadil, that illustration popped into my mind.
Posted by Karen @ 2001 Jun 05 05:23 PM EST
I really doesnīt like Tom Bombadill - he has a part in the bigger plot (ie the cosmology), but in the books he just makes a one-shot wich doesnīt affect either mood or events in the longer run. OK - the part wih the old tree and the barrowwights are cool (and perhaps needed) and itīs cool that he toys with the Ring, but Tom really has no place in the film...
Posted by Mattias @ 2001 Jun 06 10:45 AM EST
I dont mind the loss of Bombadil, but i really think the loss of the Wight is shameful. That would have ruled in a movie!
Posted by K@os98 @ 2001 Jun 12 07:51 PM EST
2 me, bombadil is like (i know this is a bad comparison) brittny spears at a dr. dre concert. just like u don't mix teen pop with old-school rap, u do not mix sissy men with an epic quest/war/(love story?)like this. my apoligies 2 anyone who is absolutly obsessed with bombadil.
BARROW WIGHTS ROCK!
Posted by vikki @ 2001 Jun 13 03:54 PM EST
I ADORE Tom! He is such a crucial character! The Hobbits must get through the Old Forest. By cutting this adventure there decent into danger outside the Shire skips straight to Bree. However, the hobbits could never get through the Forest without Tom, and the advice he gives Frodo is extrememly important. I especially like that the Ring has no power over him. He actually makes it dissappear and dismays Frodo greatly without thinking the thing very valuable at all! As Gandalf later says, Frodo's test in the Barrow Downs is perhaps the most important and to cut that is to completely alter the first half of the story. Yet you cannot have either the Old Forest nor the Barrow Downs without Tom. The hobbits go into the forest innocent and they come out wielding swords. Their transition from the Shire to Bree would be weak without these adventures and Tom to guide them (and liven the mood after all the grim happenings that have followed them).
Posted by GEM @ 2001 Jul 05 02:35 AM EST
