Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Poisonfume
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 1120
Location: Greece
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:52 am 
 

iAm wrote:
The movies attempted to cover the characters but ended up with plenty of shortcomings- most notably the complete lack of Tom Bombadill. Compared to Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Gollum and other fairly important side characters it's odd that Legolas' is background isn't touched at all and Gimli only had his short ramblings and anecdotes about dwarves (which also make up the majority of his dialogue if he isn't arguing with Legolas). I hope those two are covered extensively in The Hobbit.


Yes, but were these backstories necessary? Hardly. Admittedly I was disappointed by how relatively underdeveloped and minor Legolas and Gimli were in the films, but that's only because of shitty dialogue. Almost like Legolas was just there so girls had a reason to watch the films. Given just how many characters there are in the story however, there just wasn't any need to add a backstory for each one if it wasn't relevant to the plot. As previously mentioned, it's a story driven tale, not character based like A Song of Ice and Fire.
_________________
LegendMaker on pointless genre dissection wrote:
Will you in turn help me classify the shemale/ladyboy, tranny/ladyboy, ladyboy-shemale/tranny, and tranny-ladyboy/shemale sub-folders of my shemale/ladyboy/tranny collection?

Top
 Profile  
Napero
GedankenPanzer

Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:16 pm
Posts: 8477
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:52 am 
 

iAm wrote:
The movies attempted to cover the characters but ended up with plenty of shortcomings- most notably the complete lack of Tom Bombadill.

You are probably one of the three people in the world who actually lament the lack of that particular hippie in the trilogy. We will cherish you as one of the rarities in our collection of characters, and hope that you won't get omitted once the history of the MA is turned into a CGI animation.
_________________
Chest wounds suck (when properly inflicted).
-Butch-

Top
 Profile  
iAm
Wastelander

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:18 am
Posts: 5630
Location: West of the Duwamish due South of the Sound
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:59 am 
 

Poisonfume wrote:
Yes, but were these backstories necessary?
As previously mentioned, it's a story driven tale, not character based like A Song of Ice and Fire.

Yes, they are.

The movies cover only so many characters. Yet leave other important characters out- where in the case of Legolas in Gimli- they do affect the politics of the fellowship.

Okay, Napero. But I get 30% of the royalties on the action figurines :lol:
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
If the U.N. flew a bunch of C130's over Syria and rained down boxes of Thin Mints, they'd be standing in a giant circle hand-in-hand singing like goddamn Whoville residents within an hour.

I hate music

Top
 Profile  
Poisonfume
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 1120
Location: Greece
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:15 am 
 

Thiestru wrote:
Edit: Deleted because I was wrong. ^_^


Actually I revisited it and you aren't that wrong. The two struggle and seem to fall in by accident. Tolkiens's notion of Providence is still very much intact (though it is a little inconsistent with Frodo's merciful character). I do believe the films watered down these elements from the books, but they are still clearly intact.
_________________
LegendMaker on pointless genre dissection wrote:
Will you in turn help me classify the shemale/ladyboy, tranny/ladyboy, ladyboy-shemale/tranny, and tranny-ladyboy/shemale sub-folders of my shemale/ladyboy/tranny collection?

Top
 Profile  
mindshadow
Echoes in an empty cranium

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 1966
Location: Panopticon
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:50 am 
 

Morrigan wrote:
but the fact remains, the man couldn't write a remotely interesting, let alone complex character if his life depended on it. Even the most rabid fanboys acknowledge that.


:o
Sam Gamgee not a three dimensional character? He's a gardener, cook, loyal friend, warrior, lover (he plans to marry), poet :-D ,

Spoiler: show
'I am learning a lot about Sam Gamgee on this journey.
First he was a conspirator, now he's a jester.
He'll end up by becoming a wizard - or a warrior!'
'I hope not,' said Sam. 'I don't want to be neither!'



Earthcubed wrote:
There were certain characters in the books that I acutely hated (that dancing, prancing, and altogether obnoxious idiot Tom)



It's just he intrigues me. Why add him? as your right he does nothing for the story, a waste of precious time the fellowship can ill afford; I always thought the encounter rather strange.

This is from an interview with Tolkien,
Quote:
even in a mythological Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)"
"Tom is not an important person - to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'."
Tom in contrast, though very powerful, has renounced power in a kind of "vow of poverty," "a natural pacifist view." In this sense, Tolkien says, Tom's presence reveals that there are people and things in the world for whom the war is largely irrelevant or at least unimportant, and who cannot be easily disturbed or interfered with in terms of it

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

At the risk of being called an idiot (again) I believe Tom is very "zen", someone who observes the world around them, laughs and refuses to be influenced by it. Someone who is truly enlightened. He renounces his powers like a Chinese hermit of old would turn down the offer of governing a kingdom by a vexed ruler, knowing he would lose his insight and become someone he didn't want to be.

Even though their world may be ending and evil forces could prevail, he's there to let us know in the big scheme of things, it isn't so important.
_________________
Outgunned, outnumbered, though never outclassed

Top
 Profile  
balbulus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:01 pm
Posts: 953
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:57 pm 
 

I personally love Tom Bombadil in the books, though I agree he is totally irrelevant to the plot, which is why he is dropped from every single adaption (to my knowledge) of the books. He is merely a pseudo-folk tale diversion that Tolkien added for the reasons stated in the above post. I like to think of the whole episode between Buckland and Bree (Old Forest, Bombadil, Barrowdowns) as a stort story in itself, that can more or less be read separately (Tom's irreverant playing with the Ring being the only real link to the rest of the story).

With his quaint folky eccentricities, Tom is a bit like Morris Dancing -- scorned and reviled by many, loved by others.
_________________
‎"Suddenly, life has new meaning..."

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9594
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:59 pm 
 

iAm wrote:
failsafeman wrote:
There's a difference between characters being three dimensional and being particularly complex. Tolkien definitely wrote three-dimensional characters; each of the Fellowship has a distinct personality, and so do a lot of others. You get to hear about their dreams, fears, desires, and backgrounds; they each have a distinctive mode of speech, relationships with each other, etc. No, most of them don't have deep internal conflicts, there's not really any angst, and there isn't a whole lot of character growth either (except for a few key characters), but it's not a character-focused book. That's not where the fundamental conflict of the books lies. Character-focused fantasy is a more modern thing, and if I want that I'll read George R R Martin or Brian Aldiss or Michael Moorcock or M John Harrison or something. If I want a richly-realized fantasy world with a deep history and culture, in which morality plays a central role, I'll reread LOTR.

The movies attempted to cover the characters but ended up with plenty of shortcomings- most notably the complete lack of Tom Bombadill. Compared to Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Gollum and other fairly important side characters it's odd that Legolas' is background isn't touched at all and Gimli only had his short ramblings and anecdotes about dwarves (which also make up the majority of his dialogue if he isn't arguing with Legolas). I hope those two are covered extensively in The Hobbit.

Agreed about Legolas's history - the movie barely mentions the fact that Legolas's father threw Gimli's father in jail for months, pretty much only because of pride and nationalism/racism.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
Eternal Winter
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:21 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:24 pm 
 

If they added all the detail in the books to the movies. The movies would be 14hours long each or there would be 10 3 hour long movies. They HAD to leave some stuff out.

Top
 Profile  
Razakel
Nekroprince

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:36 pm
Posts: 4860
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:29 pm 
 

Leaving out Tom Bombadill was a great idea for the movies. I really don't see how they could have made it work/make sense. Yes, it's one of the most interesting parts of the books, but for the non-reading audience (and let's face it, that's the vast majority) it would have been really confusing since it doesn't advance the plot at all. I just think it would have come across as really tacked on and directionless. I know it pissed off a lot of fans, though.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9594
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:05 pm 
 

I have to agree about Tom Bombadil. For one thing, if you included him, you'd pretty much have to include the scene in the Old Forest where they almost get eaten by trees as well as the scene in the Barrow Downs, which would require Tom singing his silly songs. I really don't think modern movie audiences would've appreciated him defeating the undead by singing, whimsy is at an all-time low these days, not to mention it would've tacked on at least another half hour onto the movie.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
balbulus
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:01 pm
Posts: 953
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:08 pm 
 

Anyway, if I recall, the film skipped nicely from the Buckleberry ferry straight to the Hobbits entering Bree, so there is nothing to say that they didn't encounter Bombadil on the way; it just wasn't shown. Maybe a "Bombadil: The Movie" could be made later on down the line...

Actually no. It would be hideous.
_________________
‎"Suddenly, life has new meaning..."

Top
 Profile  
iAm
Wastelander

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:18 am
Posts: 5630
Location: West of the Duwamish due South of the Sound
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:02 pm 
 

Tom is most important as a catalyst if anything else; but yeah. It would be a five hour movie. That scene would become rather important though Failsafe once Merry and Pippin are introduced to Treebeard.
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
If the U.N. flew a bunch of C130's over Syria and rained down boxes of Thin Mints, they'd be standing in a giant circle hand-in-hand singing like goddamn Whoville residents within an hour.

I hate music

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9542
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:13 pm 
 

Failsafeman, I read the books long ago (long before I read any GRRM or anything like him), but I recall each Fellowship member to be the blandest types of bland, with one or two personality traits each at the most.

And yes, cutting Tom Bombadil wasn't just necessary, it was an improvement. I can't believe Tolkien fanboys still bitch about that.
_________________
Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old
Extreme_violence wrote:
Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

Top
 Profile  
iAm
Wastelander

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:18 am
Posts: 5630
Location: West of the Duwamish due South of the Sound
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:22 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
And yes, cutting Tom Bombadil wasn't just necessary, it was an improvement. I can't believe Tolkien fanboys still bitch about that.

:nono:
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
If the U.N. flew a bunch of C130's over Syria and rained down boxes of Thin Mints, they'd be standing in a giant circle hand-in-hand singing like goddamn Whoville residents within an hour.

I hate music

Top
 Profile  
mindshadow
Echoes in an empty cranium

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 1966
Location: Panopticon
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:05 pm 
 

If your going to make movies on one of the greatest fantasy works of the twentieth century, it deserves to be done right.
When it becomes more a work by the producer than the world Tolkien envisaged
(Saruman met his end in Hobbiton, not Orthanc as in the movie) at least title it as such; Peter Jackson's version of J.R.R Tolkien's - The LOTR's


The Bourne films were nothing like the books either, why not call them something else? ..becau$e
_________________
Outgunned, outnumbered, though never outclassed

Top
 Profile  
waiguoren
Metalhead

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:23 am
Posts: 2160
Location: Make a kiss to her
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:33 pm 
 

All this hate for Tom Bombadil is baffling. Anyway, it would have been great to have included the raucous 'fellow' because then we could've seen Goldberry. To which I say: Hubba hubba.
_________________
I am a Chinese lady with a pair of big water eyes under the long eyelashes.I don't know how beautiful i am , but people usually say that I needn't do face-painting.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9594
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:02 pm 
 

Morrigan wrote:
Failsafeman, I read the books long ago (long before I read any GRRM or anything like him), but I recall each Fellowship member to be the blandest types of bland, with one or two personality traits each at the most.

Well that's just objectively wrong. It's fine if you don't like them, but they clearly have more than one or two personality traits each.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
hey
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:41 pm
Posts: 1372
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:49 pm 
 

Sorry for the dumb question, but what might those personality traits be?

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9594
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:32 pm 
 

What, you seriously want me to describe all nine members of the fellowship at length? Only if you pay me by the word.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
Eternal Winter
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:21 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:45 pm 
 

failsafeman wrote:
What, you seriously want me to describe all nine members of the fellowship at length? Only if you pay me by the word.

Gimli is the shit.

Top
 Profile  
hey
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 6:41 pm
Posts: 1372
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:30 pm 
 

failsafeman wrote:
What, you seriously want me to describe all nine members of the fellowship at length? Only if you pay me by the word.

Well no, that would obviously be pretty unreasonable of me to expect. I guess I'm just a bit confused about why any of the characters would be considered bland due to a lack of personality traits. I hadn't really meant to ask you to supply an in-depth analysis of pertaining to the story, just an example of what you meant by "personality trait". Normally I'd think when someone used that phrase they meant relatively broad terms (brave, intelligent, shy, whatever). In that case, I don't see why trying to force a ton of these qualities into a character wouldn't cause them to seem unrealistic.

Sorry for any possible confusion, I suppose I'm just being idiotic or over-thinking things. Probably both.

Top
 Profile  
Thiestru
Metalhead

Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:18 am
Posts: 1117
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:34 am 
 

Poisonfume wrote:
Thiestru wrote:
Edit: Deleted because I was wrong. ^_^


Actually I revisited it and you aren't that wrong. The two struggle and seem to fall in by accident. Tolkiens's notion of Providence is still very much intact (though it is a little inconsistent with Frodo's merciful character). I do believe the films watered down these elements from the books, but they are still clearly intact.


I completely agree. As The Lord of the Rings is my favorite book (yes, book) of all time, I have issues with certain things the movies did, but overall I'm pleased with them. I remember going into The Fellowship of the Ring with very low expectations, and I ended up captivated. Granted I was rather young at the time, but I enjoy the movies to this day.

It's been a long time since I entered into detailed debate about Tolkien's works, and it's been a very long day, so I'm not going to do it now. But maybe I'll think of something worthwhile to add to this discussion later on. =]

Top
 Profile  
mindshadow
Echoes in an empty cranium

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:36 am
Posts: 1966
Location: Panopticon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:12 pm 
 

Tom Bombadil has many names, most of them meaning "first-born", the Elves called him Iarwain Ben-adar, Oldest and Fatherless

Quote:
Tolkien was fascinated by the Kalevala


Väinämöinen, the minstrel,

"writers described Väinämöinen as the God of chants, songs and poetry. In many stories Väinämöinen was the central figure at the birth of the world"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vainamoinen

Was Tom Bombadil Tolkiens version of the singing wizard?
Idea from,
http://www.amazon.com/J-R-R-Tolkien-Cen ... Century%3A
_________________
Outgunned, outnumbered, though never outclassed

Top
 Profile  
percepticide
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:55 pm
Posts: 345
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:03 am 
 

I am stoked to see the Hobbit movie... I don't go to the theater to see many movies but I definitely will for this one.

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were great. I haven't read the books though so I wouldn't really know of any of the bits of story missing.

Top
 Profile  
iAm
Wastelander

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:18 am
Posts: 5630
Location: West of the Duwamish due South of the Sound
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:45 am 
 

percepticide wrote:

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were great. I haven't read the books though so I wouldn't really know of any of the bits of story missing.

Fix that.


Now. Who goes to a movie based off a book they haven't read :???:
_________________
iamntbatman wrote:
If the U.N. flew a bunch of C130's over Syria and rained down boxes of Thin Mints, they'd be standing in a giant circle hand-in-hand singing like goddamn Whoville residents within an hour.

I hate music

Top
 Profile  
Eternal Winter
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:21 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:41 pm 
 

iAm wrote:
percepticide wrote:

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were great. I haven't read the books though so I wouldn't really know of any of the bits of story missing.

Fix that.


Now. Who goes to a movie based off a book they haven't read :???:


Probably about 80 - 90% of people. Most people now aday are to fucking lazy to read or do any of that, so they'll just go to the movies. I didn't see the Lord of the Rings in theatres. I bought it on DVD when it came out. I've only read the books recently (In the past 3 years or so) . I saw the movies long before the books.

It's the same with the Hunger Games and Harry Potter and all the series such as it. I guarantee about 80% of people haven't read the books before. I mean, come on, did you really just ask that?

Top
 Profile  
Zelkiiro
Pounding the world with a fish of steel

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 4020
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:47 pm 
 

Are people seriously trying to say the LotR trilogy is bad because they left out Tom fucking Bombadill?

Wait, the Harry Potter films left out Peeves! HERESY AND TREASON THESE MOVIES WILL NEVER LIVE UP TO THE BOOKS
_________________
Anime Reviews every two weeks!
Artwork once or twice a year!
M-A reviews every leap year!
Last.fm all day long!

Top
 Profile  
Eternal Winter
Metal newbie

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:21 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:52 pm 
 

Zelkiiro wrote:
Are people seriously trying to say the LotR trilogy is bad because they left out Tom fucking Bombadill?

Wait, the Harry Potter films left out Peeves! HERESY AND TREASON THESE MOVIES WILL NEVER LIVE UP TO THE BOOKS


Who gives a rats tits if they left out Tom Bombadill. He was a minor fucking character anyway and there wasn't any point in adding him in. The movies were great. But, everyone has their own opinion.

Top
 Profile  
Poisonfume
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:26 pm
Posts: 1120
Location: Greece
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 1:03 pm 
 

iAm wrote:
percepticide wrote:

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were great. I haven't read the books though so I wouldn't really know of any of the bits of story missing.

Fix that.


Now. Who goes to a movie based off a book they haven't read :???:


That a real question? The answer is most people.
_________________
LegendMaker on pointless genre dissection wrote:
Will you in turn help me classify the shemale/ladyboy, tranny/ladyboy, ladyboy-shemale/tranny, and tranny-ladyboy/shemale sub-folders of my shemale/ladyboy/tranny collection?

Top
 Profile  
lord_ghengis
Metal freak

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:31 pm
Posts: 5376
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:49 pm 
 

Yeah most people, those books were huge and were pretty daunting. As many have said, the whole thing is an exercise in language, and for that manner a lot of people are going to struggle getting through the thousands of pages of it and would enjoy the more immediate slash slash stab stab of the film versions. I'd read them a few years before, but I still liked the films (And loved the first, that's the one that should have been drowning in awards). I don't mind any of the stuff that was cut out, my only real gripe being the way the ghosts were done and the "gurrrrrrllll powerrrrr!" thing at the end of the third one.
_________________
Naamath wrote:
No comments, no words need it, no BM, no compromise, only grains in her face.

Top
 Profile  
VoidApostle
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:00 pm
Posts: 193
Location: Within The Vacuum of Infinity
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:38 pm 
 

I know this is kind off-topic but since this thread basically turned into a "What Didn't You Like About LOTR"...

The battle of Helm's Deep bothered me a bit. Who the hell brings pikes to a seige? Were the uruk-hai expecting to poke the walls into submission? It's perfectly reasonable for an army to carry pikes into a land where the enemy mainly consists of cavalry, but marching right up to a castle in pike formation is kind of stupid.

Also, the elves showing up out of no where, Legolas skateboarding down a flight of stairs, and the fact that the horn of the Hornburg was the appropriate height for Gimli to blow despite the fact that it belonged to men.

Top
 Profile  
Oxenkiller
Metalhead

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:42 am
Posts: 1291
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:05 am 
 

Loved the Lord of the Rings movies for the most part, looking foreward to "The Hobbit," although I am a bit skeptical about stretching it into 3 movies. I thought he did a good job with it. Like most people I thought some things could have been done a bit better but for the most part I was very satisfied.

I think the character of Tom Bombadil would have been unnecessary in the film adaptation. I have nothing against him. Reading the books, I think he added a lot to the story that would have been too cumbersome to add to the movie. PArtly as an interesting "Zen" type character, as mentioned, but also: one thing he did was, in his own words, describe some of the back story. He gave an account to the fall of the Dunedain kingdoms in the north about a thousand years prior to the current story. If you read carefully, he also foreshadows the appearance of Aragorn; "some wander still; sons of forgotten kings wandering in lonliness, guarding from evil things men that are heedless." This does add some depth to the story, as the whole "Lord of the Rings" had a huge historical timeline associated with it that led up the current events of the story. Again though it would be beyond the scope of the film to show all of that, and casual fans wouldnt really be that interested.

It also would have been cool to include the scene of Frodo being imprisoned in the barrow but at that point, it was just an extra side adventure that didn't really advance the story, and I understand why that chapter would be one of the more logical ones to cut.

Top
 Profile  
Scorntyrant
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:55 am
Posts: 1082
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:48 am 
 

Although Tom is a somewhat annoying character, he does play a somewhat subtle but interesting part in the lore of the ring. You'll note that he's the only character other than a hobbit to handle the ring and give it up IIRC. They folded some of that element into Gandalf and Galadriel, or the ents to an extend, but I think as a link to the Silmarillion, Bombadil is so thoroughly ancient and removed from the struggles even of pseudo-immortals like the elves and wizards that the ring is a silly toy to him, given that it was made by Sauron when he fought and won against Morgoth. Along with certain relics of Numenor, the elves and the wizards, the only real links between the world at the end of the 3rd age and the world of the Silmarillion are Sauron, perhaps Shelob depending on how early she was spawned by Ungoliant, the Balrog lurking under Moria and mr hey-ho-diddle-hey himself.
_________________
J_Ason wrote:

Were it up to me, I'd pick apart your nervous system atom by atom and throw each individual particle into a separate black hole so that you may never think stupid shit like that ever again.

Top
 Profile  
Morrigan
Crone of War

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 7:27 am
Posts: 9542
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:11 am 
 

iAm wrote:
Now. Who goes to a movie based off a book they haven't read :???:

....


:durr:
_________________
Markeri, in 2013 wrote:
you can debate the actual date that metal began, but a fairly agreed upon date is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old
Extreme_violence wrote:
Why Iron maiden is there? It's very far to be metal than a lot of some metal band.

Top
 Profile  
John_Sunlight
President Satan

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:41 am
Posts: 4681
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:21 am 
 

Tom is the last hurrah of the setting of the Hobbit. Tolkien abandoned it to signify the ending of the world of serendipity where every adventurer can live in their own outlandish fairy tale full of convenient and magical plot twists and entering a new era where the industrial revolution has swept away everything of wonder and awe. I'd say it is likely that the same time the hobbits left Tom's territory is when Sauruman lit his forges. Tom is who Tolkein wishes he was, a man of the old world immune to it's changeful effects. It was probably the same time he began approaching the act of writing in a more workman like way (ironically or non-ironically, take your choice).
_________________
"Prayer request Please pray for me, we are selling a car and the car has not been bought..please pray for the car for a buyer to come and buy it..it is a sprinter car."

Top
 Profile  
Burnyoursins
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:59 am
Posts: 953
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:18 am 
 

OneSizeFitzpatrick wrote:
Napero wrote:
An interesting solution would be to have craploads of historical scenes intertwined with the story, thus making it possible to include stuff from distant past and to devilishly cleverly dilute the meagre story to considerable lengths. There will probably never be a Silmarillion movie, mostly due to the lack of a coherent story in the book, so putting that stuff here would be a brilliant stroke.

The story of Beren and Luthien would make a wonderful movie, though.

The only way they could make the silmarillion bearable is if Morgan Freeman narrated it (all 15 hours of it).. I tried to read that book back in 4th grade (back when I was huge into that kinda stuff) and got about halfway through and never touched it again. it's sorta like the Bible of Middle Earth... but more believable.


Back in the 4th grade, haha. Man, a lot happens up in that brain compartment of yours between the ages of 9 and whatever age you're at now. You should really pick it back up again, it's a fucking excellent read. And to add my own spin on this whole topic, no, I do NOT agree with the movie detractors. I can see what you're all saying, but I disagree with just about every bit of it. I have been absolutely obsessed with The Hobbit and every other story Tolkien wrote since the age of 10, and I was utterly prepared to be disappointed and disgusted with the way the movies turned out. But the fact is, for me, they're absolutely the pinnacle of how it could have all turned out. To say the movie was full of terrible actors is absolutely fucking ludicrous. I mean, Orlando Bloom wouldn't of been my first choice to play Legolas, but regardless. I've dabbled in acting, and even though I'm no A-list actor, I can tell you that those movies showcased the best acting any of those actors will ever do. Those guys really went the extra mile, and as far as I'm concerned, I was pretty convinced.

On the topic of The Hobbit, yeah, I'm pretty fucking excited. I also found it kind of ridiculous that they decided to do three movies, instead of the original two, but fuck, as long as it's well written, and executed to perfection, I'll be happy. I really would love to see a movie based of The Silmarillion, but I know that there really is no way to do that well. The story jumps too much. There's no real center focus where everything takes place from.

This is directed at Scorntyrant, but the wizards and Tom Bombadil are all about the same age, since they're all Maiar. He would technically be given over to the same temptations that plague the wizards. Oloin (Gandalf) also fought against Melkor.
_________________
My last.fm:
http://www.last.fm/user/OurFatherChaos

The_Beast_in_Black wrote:
SleightOfVickonomy wrote:
...no one still knows what it's supposed to be about.

Well, I reckon there's a pretty good chance it'll be about gory tits.

Top
 Profile  
Turner
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:04 am
Posts: 1163
Location: Germany
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:21 pm 
 

Including Bombadil would (as others have already said) have confused the shit out of anyone who hadn't read the books, which would have been well and truly over 75% of the people who saw those movies. Plus they would have had to majorly rework the "vibe" of the film - without Bombadil, they just had to get rid of everyone's coloured hats (the retards that watch movies these days like greyscale, cause that's how Batman is) but I can't imagine Bombadil's singing (which is almost ALL he does) going over AT ALL.

I mean in one sense it's a shame, but the reality is those movies weren't made for hard-to-please fanboys.

Top
 Profile  
Razakel
Nekroprince

Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:36 pm
Posts: 4860
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:48 pm 
 

mindshadow wrote:
Tom Bombadil has many names, most of them meaning "first-born", the Elves called him Iarwain Ben-adar, Oldest and Fatherless

Quote:
Tolkien was fascinated by the Kalevala


Väinämöinen, the minstrel,

"writers described Väinämöinen as the God of chants, songs and poetry. In many stories Väinämöinen was the central figure at the birth of the world"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vainamoinen

Was Tom Bombadil Tolkiens version of the singing wizard?
Idea from,
http://www.amazon.com/J-R-R-Tolkien-Cen ... Century%3A


This is a fascinating subject on its own and one that I'm tempted to write my English thesis on. I also love the Kalevala and it's really cool to see Tolkien draw inspiration from lots of works of mythology.

Top
 Profile  
Holy Diver
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:33 pm
Posts: 8
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:47 am 
 

Razakel wrote:
This is a fascinating subject on its own and one that I'm tempted to write my English thesis on. I also love the Kalevala and it's really cool to see Tolkien draw inspiration from lots of works of mythology.


Mythology was the main inspiration for Tolkien, particularly Norse, Saxon, & Germanic.

Also, this movie is going to be awesome.
_________________
If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by, you're thinkin' like a fool cause it's a case of do or die.
Out there is a fortune waitin' to be had, you think I'll let it go you're mad....
You've got another thing comin'!

Top
 Profile  
Orkblut
Metalhead

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:38 am
Posts: 402
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:57 am 
 

Eternal Winter wrote:
Am i the only one who is super excited for the new Lord of the Rings movie: The Hobbit?


Fuck no! i cant wait, definitely going to go to the premier in Aus and then again in Gold Class.

I did an extended LOTR Trilogy marathon last year with a few mates before me and the Mrs wen to New Zealand where one of the days we took a trip to the site location of Hobbiton! was pretty awsome.

I also have a few weapons from the LOTR movies, Anduril, Witchking Sword, Sting, Glamdring, Uruk-Hai Schimitar.

Still a few things to get yet, all in good time. Oh and i have a replica gandalf the white staff!

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GuntherTheUndying, PhilosophicalFrog and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group