Why was he left out of the film?

Why was he left out of the film?

He didn't fit the tone

He was a shit character with no story relevance.

>film
You mean flick

then you wouldn't be able to meme about it.

these movies really were ahead of their time.

Why were Merry and Pippin dumb comic reliefs?

Why were songs left out of the films?

What purpose does he serve the overall plot apart from adding mystery and wonder into the world? He's a great and necessary addition to the novels, but is totally unnecessary in a film format. Plus you would have sperglords ranting about how Bombadil should have shown up at the end to stop Sauron or a bunch of fa/tv/irgins complaining that he caused a bunch of needless plot holes (which is true).

because they're all fucking stupid

He was supposed to be included but his method actor walked off the set, apparently wearing a prop of the ring around his dick.

You can't make a trilogy 30 hours long

Why was he left out of The Simpsons Movie?

that fucking song in Rivendell
I just couldn't understand it.

>Why was he left out of the film?

Hmmm...

>Film is all about how powerful and corrupting a force the ring is
>To merely be in its presence can consume a person with greed, it's THAT powerful
>For Frodo to be able to resist its will and carry it to Mordor is an unthinkably monumental task no other person on Middle Earth can equal.
>First chapter of the book
>This Bombadill faggot walks in, picks up the ring, laughs at how dumb it is and gives it back, shirking off its power and influence like it was nothing.

Everyone jacks off to the books, but the VERY FIRST FUCKING THING Tolkein does is undercut the threat of the ring by having some dude touch and say it isn't shit.

Jackson was right to cut that entire segment out (though I wish we hadn't lost the Barrow-Whites as a consequence).

This. Bombadil brings a dissonance to intense gloominess of LotR. And his indifference to the big game happening between forces of good and evil also would be a problem in black-and-white story told by Jackson.

There's a lot of retarded shit Tolkei wrote in Fellowship that fans willfully ignore.

Like the part where he gives an inner monologue to a fox. Not a magical fox, but a regular fox. Then doesn't give inner monologues to any other normal animals for the rest of the book.

It's like he started writing a children's fairy tell and then 2 chapters in decided he wanted to write an epic fantasy for grownups instead.

>that he caused a bunch of needless plot holes (which is true).
reread the Council of Elrond chapter

that's exactly what he did though.

he wrote stories for his grandchildren and then other people really liked them too.

The thing with Tolkien is that he goes to lengths to show that things outside 'good/evil' exist. Bombadil has no draw to the ring because he has no concept of anything beyond his boundaries.

Because they already put a perfect being in it.

What is the most popular fan theory for this guys existence?

Is he Eru?
Tolkien self insert?

Then when they visit the Wood Elves, Galadriel also shows that she's immune to the ring's influence.

That was a big problem with the book; Tolkien was constantly introducing characters who were immune to the One Ring while simultaneously trying to build it up as this all-powerful corrupting influence. In the first book alone they introduce two characters who'd be better at carrying the ring than Frodo.

It wasn't that he "didn't fit the tone". The book is large and the movies were long enough as they was, and like it or not Tom's story is not very important to the overall story.

Peter Jackson said that if there were no time constraints on the film he would have included it, but it was one of the few things in Fellowship they could actually leave out without the story being severely impacted.

Tom Bombadil is a fictional character WITHIN the fictional story. He is Hobbit folklore. His inclusion in the book can be attributed to the fact that Sam, Merry and Pippin wrote the book, as an official government document. A historical record written and re-written over and over.

Tolkien's meta-narrative is that he himself translated these ancient books and presented the interesting hero's journey as a novel.

Well, within the context of a fictional history, re-written for local drunken pig farmers, it isn't unreasonable to assume someone along the way inserted their own local legends into the book when the characters are still near the Shire, to give credence to the story OR to draw younger, incredulous readers in.

Tom Bombadil can take the Ring, take it off and throw it around like it were crumpled paper because he's a literal over-powered god-character.

He doesn't feature prominently in the narrative because that would literally fuck up the historical document. Just having a cameo for your local god near the beginning wouldn't. Even the lines in Rivendell where L.Ron Hubbard and them say "WHY DON'T WE GIVE IT TO TOM? NAH HE'S SO POWERFUL HE'LL THINK NOTHING OF IT AND FORGET ABOUT IT" are janky and seem like cut-paste ass-covering.

>Then when they visit the Wood Elves, Galadriel also shows that she's immune to the ring's influence.

really? In the movie she nearly loses her mind with the temptation over it. That wasn't in the book?

I understand the reason why Bombadil was immune to the ring, and also why, despite what said, he wouldn't have been a good bearer of the ring (he was too retarded and would forget his mission in under a day).

But to START the book that way, by out of the gate introducing a character immune to the one ring and pull the rug out from under it and Sauron as a threat, that seemed like a dumb move. And especially bad, since Bombadil REALLY doesn't add much of anything to the story. It's a pointless diversion that does more harm than good.

So is Legolas surfing on a shield down some stairs, but that was left in.

>Then when they visit the Wood Elves, Galadriel also shows that she's immune to the ring's influence.
no she doesn't

well it did start off as a straight sequel to the hobbit, and is in the same childlike innocent tone in the early part of the book, the tone doesn't start to shift really til they meet aragorn in bree.

he started over several times, but decided to keep it that way to help illustrate how the hobbits themselves were so innocent and isolated, and hwo much they change and grow over the course of it.

>really? In the movie she nearly loses her mind with the temptation over it. That wasn't in the book?

Nope. In the book, Elves are immune to the influence of the one ring and all the subsequent rings made for their nobility.

They just want to fuck off to paradise and abandon Middle Earth, that's why they won't bring the ring to Mordor themselves.

The books fuck up how powerful the one ring is supposed to be at every turn.

he was one of Tolkien's grandchildren's dolls

galadriel does the same thing in the books as she does in the movie what are you talking about

>Women
>Immune to temptation

Good joke my dudie

>Elves are immune to the influence of the one ring
incorrect
The elves did not succumb the first time because they removed their rings when Sauron created the One, but they can still be tempted by it

>The books fuck up how powerful the one ring is supposed to be at every turn.
The ring isn't powerful. All it does is make you invisible. Sauron is powerful, and he's alive because the ring exists.

The books are overrated.

I'm only referring to Bombadil in respect to the films. I understand his necessity in the novels. The council of Elrond is one of the longest chapters in the whole trilogy in the series but in the film it's only a few minutes. Also, the Council of Elrond is arguably Tolkien's biggest aesthetic flaw in the LotR. Ridculously long chapter which primarily serves as exposition.

Why talk about things you obviously know fuck all about?

Film is a different medium from books and I think both Bakshi and Jackson did a good job in terms of trimming to adjust the narrative of LOTR for the film medium.

One thing they both did (besides ditching Bombadill) was change the identity of the Elf who carries the poisoned Forod to safety when the Ring Wraiths attack.

In the book it was just "some guy". I can't even remember his name; carrying Frodo to safety was his one claim to fame. The Bakshi and Jackson movies swapped him out with a more important character as a means to introduce the central cast earlier and move the story along more swiftly (Bakshi used Legolas, Jackson used Arwen).

Dumping a bunch of one-shot characters who do one thing and then vanish is fine in a book; it makes the world feel bigger and "realistic" in that there are people who are low tier heroes but still matter. But for a movie you have to condense things and get to the point more economically.

elves are temped by shiny things all the time. stupid cunts fucked half the world over for muh silmarils

>all it does is make you invisible
no, it really doesn't

No, the reason Galadriel wasn't fucked up by the ring Sauron gave the Elves is because of She and the rest of the Elf nobility took their rings off when they realized the one ring had been forged.

The rings affected the different races of Middle Earth differently. The Dwarf lords got super greedy and amassed so much wealth they attracted dragons who killed them all. The human kings were turned into ring wraiths.

We never really found out what would have happened to the elves because they took their rings off before they could get fucked up.

>In the book it was just "some guy". I can't even remember his name; carrying Frodo to safety was his one claim to fame
It was Glorfindel you mong
If Glorfindel actually gave a fuck he probably could have fucked Sauron like a little bitch

Glorfindel barely did shit and his fanboys are the worst. He's the Boba Fett of LOTR.

You don't understand Tolkien, there's not much else to say. If you take any of his works with such a humane view of things you simply won't understand most of what happens and why it happens. Elves are not humans, they don't behave according only to themselves, they know that god exists and know about the valar, instead of trying to fix everything on their own they would rather try to understand what is happening and play their part in it.

Bilbo didn't find the ring by accident, nor did Frodo inherit it just because so. They were meant to find and keep it, this is an undisputed fact. Nothing pointed to Galadriel or Bombadill or anyone else bearing the ring, and even if it did, they would likely find it in their hearts much earlier and not bother hobbits with the subject.

What was his problem?

more like highly overrated. the only thing lotr has going for it is world building, everything else is incredibly mediocre.

>Barrow-Whites

>no, it really doesn't
well it's not really known
I believe the most common theory is that it amplifies your powers so in the case of hobbits, it increases their sneakiness.
But that's all fan theories.

yeah shit like this always interests me more

Weird magical animals, mysterious landscapes, magic etc.Any recommendation for this kind of stuff?

>have a bunch of plot holes
>explain them away with your metanarrative
True genius

Normalfags would be confused and call the movie stupid.

That's not exactly right. It's true that what the ring really does is a blurry subject, and the same goes for other rings of power.

If I recall correctly, this idea came from something Gandalf said about Gollum, that the ring gave power according to his stature. It was more of a way of saying "this is what a stupid peasant does with power" than showing the prowess of hobbits.

based cateposter

Tbh the deleted scenes at the beginning of twin towers were the perfect balance between terrible circumstances and humor. It captured the tone of Tolkien very well.

Chapter 18, I think
"Lord and behold Legolas yelled "Cowabunga, dude!" in Elvish and did a sweet grind down the stairs. Totally decapitating a gorillion Orc-dudes while hanging 10.

...

how can got even compete?

reminds me when five armies was made and someone made a similar comment on legolad running on the falling stones

>his

what was his problem?

>got is Altria cosplay

the ring brings out people's corruption and desire for power. Hence why the 9 were so easily corrupted, they lusted for power. The dwarves only care about gold and didn't really care about power. the 3 rings given to the elves were made by celebrimbor and were made so that they wouldn't be controlled by the 1 ring. Tom bombadil has no desire for power, similar to Sam. The ring can't manipulate and corrupt a desire he does not have.


Feanor did nothing wrong

Because "trilogy" has a good ring to it. Each book should have had two movies each (each book is actually two books). The first movie completely left out the initial darkness of the early adventure (the old forest, spooky but it turns out it's not really evil, just a little grumpy) and Tom Bombadil brings the story back into a more joyful tone, before it goes back to darkness with the stalking dark riders.

The first movie should have ended at Rivendell, then the second part would be up to Borimors death. Mines of Moria was cut way too short for the movie and should have gotten almost half a film worth.

The influence is a threat to the new world... The world of men. The fantastical creatures are disappearing despite their immunity

Reminder.

Because after Tom rescues them from the Barrow Wraith the Hobbits run naked in the fields and they didn't want to show that.

>arbitrary scale

What did user mean by this?

Remake can't be far.

Bill Bailey as Tom Bombadil

What are your predictions?

>well it's not really known
yes it is
in the case of men and hobbits, it pulls you into the wraith world which is why Nazgul can see you
Elves and other magical beings already exist in both the wraith and normal world so do not become invisible. It's nothing to do with hobbits being sneaky or any of that shit

if it's over 1.5 hours it's a film

>the wraith world
there is no such thing in the books

I was paraphrasing.

>Feanor did nothing wrong
Here comes the silmaril apologist. Feanor did absolutely everything wrong, but the arda were retarded for releasing Melkor after all the shit that he did so it's like everyone got brain damage for a while.

They only were in Fellowship.

Because Tolkien and Jackson are talentless hacks.

Wasn't Tom Bombadil some kind of force of nature that's second only to Eru in the hierarchy? I read something like that somewhere but it's been ages since I read Silmarillion, so my Tolkien autist-fu is weak.

Anyway, even if there was a good reason why Tom Bombadil was immune to the ring, it would add nothing to the story to explain it.

This. But the books are really only overrated by fantasy fans in comparison to other fantasy books (most of which are just poor copies of Tolkien) and people who were influenced by the pop culture hype and the movies and the trope that books are always better. Most literary critics have always agreed that LOTR's pacing is a mess, his characters are kind of bland, and the books are mediocre. C.S. Lewis would notoriously complain every time Toklien read from it during Inklings meetings. Even Tolkien always seemed to acknowledge that he wrote the books for fun and not to be a real literary achievement; his only real defense to the series' criticism was that he was intentionally writing a mythic story in an archaic style.

But in general, the series was never really regarded as a literary classic before the movies were released. I remember knowing very few people who had heard of them (and the ones who did only because of Led Zeppelin), and the general opinion of them being that they were for nerds and hippies.

i always liked the hobbit more than lotr, it's a well written light adventure book and it knew what it was. lotr is just a confused mess that feels like the ass end of a story that no one has read and is not explained in the story itself, he put almost all of the history in the appendix... that's just fucking stupid. for all of grrms retardation, he at least understands no one wants to read history relevant to the plot in a fucking appendix.

He's not normie-friendly

To lose their innocence

go play a lotr tabletop rpg you geeky twat

its lo and behold, my duder

wasn't is mentioned in a letter somewhere Bombadil was a representation of Eru come to Middle Earth?

if bombadil is eru then that is the gayest god in the history of ever

>it's a well written light adventure book and it knew what it was.
The Hobbit actually has a much better critical record, as far as I'm aware. I've seen is taught in literature classes and used as an example of what light adventure and children's books (for slightly older audiences) should be.

That's really what's disappointing about Jackson's Hobbit movies. The book a much better written, and more concise, than LOTR and should have been easy to turn into a fun movie, but Jackson ended up making the movies much more like the LOTR books.

jackson only did it for the paycheck, they gave him so much money that he couldn't turn it down. the studios expected him to make another huge lotr type of epic even though that was not what the book was like at all. if i ever feel like watching those movies again i'm going to watch the fan edit of the hobbit, it's apparently much better and throws out all the extra legolas crap

They were not considered classics, and you should think any comments saying so with a grain of salt. The books did sell very well, and they went through a lot of revisions, new prints and editions. Those books were not particularly popular before the movies because, assuming you're not 70, they were not a trend and the culture they were a part of wasn't as popular as it is today.

Reviews after the movies are a mess, and honestly I wouldn't take them seriously. The first reviews it received are not particularly accurate to today's work either because of the revisions, but they are more reliable. Tolkien suffers from bad criticism all around, he's a good writer, with an amazing ability for worldbuilding, but a mediocre storyteller. He knew his strengths and played them well, he didn't bother experimenting with characters or drawing gray areas unnecessarily. Perhaps that's because of the nature of his universe and not something he decided, but it worked fine either way.

Bombadil was just Tolkien's self inserted character.

No, Faramir is Tolkien's self-insert. Bombadil was just doll he gave to his children and started writing stories about for them.

This, bob dail is shit and the part where he is in is boring as all hell

Feminism

>yeah let's put an useless anoying cunt as the most powerful witch in the world
>kick out the manly man that gives no fucks about first world problems.

>cop out: the post

> the first movie should have ended at rivendell
So it would have been an insufferable snorefest
Way to get your sixtilogy cancelled after the first part.....

>Then when they visit the Wood Elves, Galadriel also shows that she's immune to the ring's influence.

>Nope. In the book, Elves are immune to the influence of the one ring
Literally KYS.

> I do not deny that my heart greatly desired to ask what you offer. For many long years I have pondered what I might do, should the Great Ring come into my hands, and behold! it was brought within my grasp.

More importntly, why was Radagast left out but included in the hobbit? people would ask alot less about the eagles if radagast and his DUDE NATURE LMAO fuckety were in the movie

Because he's an ancient evil, purer and stronger than Sauron or Morgoth could hope to be. Even Eru, the creator deity, is afraid of him. Read between the lines, the clues are there

Lotr is kino

Feanor a beta

>making up shit, the post

gtfo pinhead