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.

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.

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

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.

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







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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. =]

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



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

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.

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?

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.

That a real question? The answer is most people.

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.

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.

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.

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.

....

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!