Tom Bombadil

According to some sources, Tom isn't going to be in the movie!! What do you think about this? I think that while he is a great character, he is minor and is a little too enigmatic and confusing for the general audience . And this movie can't be 10 hours long, so he was the obvious character to cut. While I'd like him to be in it, I'd rather they cut Tom than, say, Sam.

You removed my post to post THAT?! You suck

Some sources? It's right from the mouth of PJ himself!

Yeah I know, but I thought it sounded more mysterious that way . Ryan, your thread was redundant so I got rid of it. This doesn't really replace it all. So, anyone want to discuss the topic?

You suck for deleting my post. Otherwise, No.

Ok, Tom Bombadil. What is he? Oh, we talked this to death at JC.N

..Anyone want to start a Coat of Arms war?? Let me try one.. <FONT COLOR=Blue>></FONT><FONT COLOR=Green>~</FONT><FONT COLOR=Purple>H</FONT><FONT COLOR=Green>~</FONT><FONT COLOR=Blue><</FONT> Eh..

I don't really mind that they're taking Tom out, though I would like it much better with him in. After all this is a movie, it can only be a certain length, and we have to remember it's not Tolkien, just someone elses view of it.

His absence is sad but probably necessary dur to time constraints. I don't really think they could pull off TB anyways.

Here's the Second AICN Peter Jackson Interview, and the pertaining segment: <FONT COLOR=BLUE>AICN: Also, will you be including Tom Bombadil? The Ralph Bakshi production cut it out, as did the BBC radio drama.</FONT> <FONT COLOR=MAROON>PJ: At this point in time Bombadil is out. The main reason is not just time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus ... the Bombadil sequence has so little to do with Sauron or the Ring, it is difficult to justify the screen time. It simply doesn't give us any vital new information. A very simplest rule of thumb that I use in movie storytelling is to try and further the story with each new scene. I'm flicking through our Fellowship script ... it is 138 pages long. The Hobbits leave Hobbiton on page 30, and arrive at Rivendell on page 63. Even that 33 pages on the road feels a little long and will probably get trimmed in our next draft.</FONT> And: <FONT COLOR=BLUE>AICN: As you've whittled away at the characters and storylines to complete your script, were there any characters or storylines set aside whole, to an extent that they might themselves serve as a framework for sequel/prequel/parralelquels for yourself or another film maker if these 3 films prove to be a wild success.</FONT> <FONT COLOR=MAROON>PJ: Not really. The key events and characters are all there - at least in my mind. Of course the depth of Middle-earth is so great that there are many imaginative ways to create sequels (beyond the obvious Hobbit prequel). One idea I've got (if the trilogy is successful) would be to gather the cast together again and shoot another couple of hours worth of scenes to flesh out The Lord of the Rings as a more complete "Special Edition". In other words, we would write and shoot the Tom Bombadil stuff, or scenes involving Gandalf and Aragorn hunting Gollum, and his capture by Orcs ... and any number of other bits of business that we can't fit into the 6 hour version. That would be a really cool way of creating a "sequel" - expanding the existing The Lord of the Rings from 6 to 8 or 9 hours! It would be the first time that has ever been done (except for CE3K perhaps).</FONT> In an earlier(?) interview, PJ had maintained that the transition from previous to following scene will be such that the educated viewer will still be able to *imagine* that the meeting with Bombadil did in fact take place offscreen. But that interview was over a month ago and I've heard stirrings that the plot Will be changed to excise him from the remotest offscreen inference.

Thank you, Hernalt. That was very interesting. :-) I wonder if they're just going to cut the Old Forest and barrow wights too along with Tom. Otherwise it would make no sense. But from what he's saying, that doesn't seem to likely.

They don't really progress the story much, either. My guess is they get the ax.

Although there's a rumor old man willow will be kept in. How much sense does this make? None at all.

content edited. This is a forum where kids might post, we don't want posts like this here.

This thread needed hosed down..

You're quite welcome. Now, can we get back to the topic we are discussing?

In the interest of proliferating knowledge, here's a site which deals with the intriguing dichotomies in Bombadil. Such things are no material for a screen with children in the audience; their relevance can ONLY be lost on a directer keenly interested in maximum 'effect' on maximum 'audience'. Reading more about him takes the sting out of not seeing him in the movie. (Also, Gene Hargrove's homepage has numerous links to Tom Bombadil sites.) Who Is Tom Bombadil

I'd say 99.9% of the discussion we had about Bombadil at the JC.N a while back was based on that page Hernalt.

Oh - ok. Being that I didn't get a <FONT COLOR=GREEN>Personal Invitation From Quaff Down Ginn,</FONT> I was kind out of the loop and figured everyone was merely stabbing in the dark at what Gene Hargrove had already distilled into the fundamental arguments. After all, Miscellaneous was a wretched Hive of Scum and Villany and I must be cautious..

Hernalt, I was just staiting a fact, not accusing you. I know perfectly well what Misc. was at that time.