|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oakenlass
The Shire
Feb 18 2014, 3:10am
Post #1 of 24
(958 views)
Shortcut
|
"At least he didn't get Bombadilled"
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suppose this belongs in both the LOTR and the Hobbit forums. Anyway. My boyfriend and I were discussing Beorn just after seeing DOS. I was highly disappointed in the portrayal of Beorn; I think he serves the purpose they put him there for, but he just isn't Beorn, or at least isn't Beorn enough. My boyfriend said, "At least he didn't get Bombadilled!" I countered by saying I was glad they left Tom Bombadil out of LOTR. Bombadil is such a wonderful character that I'm happy that he will always remain, for me, as I experienced him in the book. He's one of my favorites, and there's something that I love about the fact that he remains untouched. Am I alone in this? Thoughts?
The TORNsib formerly known as stridersGURL :)
|
|
|
SaulComposer
Rohan
Feb 18 2014, 3:38am
Post #2 of 24
(774 views)
Shortcut
|
Never understood what they're doing in the tale...Tom and Goldberry.
I'm no preacher or a politician…
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Feb 18 2014, 4:13am
Post #3 of 24
(757 views)
Shortcut
|
But they don't belong in the films.I just don't see how they could fit. I think Tolkien said something to the effect that Tom represents something in the story that would otherwise be left out. Of course, he never really elaborated on what that something is.
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Feb 18 2014, 4:14am
Post #4 of 24
(749 views)
Shortcut
|
I was glad he wasn't in there...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because I thought he was too silly, although I came to appreciate his storyline more comparatively recently. I would never have appreciated his silly verses though. For that same reason I was glad that Beorn's animals were not talking and carrying trays, and the elves were not tra la la-ing.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
SaulComposer
Rohan
Feb 18 2014, 6:24am
Post #5 of 24
(725 views)
Shortcut
|
It's like a story within a story
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
These characters just don't fit in the book at all...
I'm no preacher or a politician…
|
|
|
Lissuin
Valinor
Feb 18 2014, 9:30am
Post #6 of 24
(743 views)
Shortcut
|
What I think Tom brings to Middle-earth
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think Tolkien said something to the effect that Tom represents something in the story that would otherwise be left out. There are no other characters who are full of pure happiness unaffected by negativity in any way. There is goodness and virtue and hope in others, but all react to and are touched by the evil moving in M-e. Tom's spirit is immune to that, as I suppose Tolkien wanted to believe - or maybe had seen for himself - that there is some part of our world that could be called pure and undaunted life force, no matter how impossible that might seem.
|
|
|
Elskidor
Rohan
Feb 18 2014, 3:22pm
Post #7 of 24
(700 views)
Shortcut
|
I Tom doesn't even make sense to me. Beorn could be Bombadilled because Beorn actually serves a purpose and a reason for being in the book. Bombadil eats up too much time, and raises more questions than answers. I find Bombadil a little annoying and completey distracting for this.
ROUND 9 is up! Tolkien Elimination Game Finals (Part 1) http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=715402;sb=post_time;so=DESC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread or found in the Pollantir
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Feb 18 2014, 9:09pm
Post #8 of 24
(672 views)
Shortcut
|
As I say, I'm not a fan of his, either, but I think he does serve a purpose...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
he and his abode are the necessary rest stop and means (canon means) by which the Hobbits are armed. Frodo has his first dream vision in this "safe" house. And, perhaps it is a good thing to have a completely enigmatic character in the story. I just don't like the silliness.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
Feb 18 2014, 9:45pm
Post #9 of 24
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
I love T-Bomb (as I call him) but I'm glad he was left out of the films
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tom Bombadil is one of my fave characters/sections in LOTR, I love the whimsical mysterious silliness of the character (it hearkens back to the BOLT and The Hobbit for me-I like the earlier 'childish' chapters of LOTR the most) but I agree there wasn't any reason for him to be in the film. I read the books after seeing the trilogy, so I'm glad I was able to experience the character as written, he definitely comes across as more of literary character than a cinematic one, and I'm glad he wasn't in the film-it would just slow things down, confuse the audience and wouldn't match the tone of the films. As Tolkien never felt the need to explain or properly justify the character, I dread to think how Jackson as co would justify his powers/purpose in the cut down straightforward adaption they made, for me it's more fun to speculate and retain my own images than see someone else fill in the blanks. That said if they had cast Brian Blessed in the role, I'd be all for it. I'm still annoyed the talking purse hasn't made an appearance so far though!
If it's not in your Appendices, maybe it's in mine?
|
|
|
oakenlass
The Shire
Feb 18 2014, 9:47pm
Post #10 of 24
(663 views)
Shortcut
|
Brian Blessed would be the only person I would accept as Tom Bombadil!
The TORNsib formerly known as stridersGURL :)
|
|
|
malickfan
Gondor
Feb 18 2014, 9:57pm
Post #11 of 24
(661 views)
Shortcut
|
...Although I remember reading a rumour ages ago that Tom Baker (aka The Fourth Incarnation of Doctor Who) was linked with a mysterious role back in the earliest days of pre production (in the Miramax 2 film script days), I'd like to think he'd be a decent T Bomb, and with Jackson's fondness for Dr Who he could have something really interesting.
If it's not in your Appendices, maybe it's in mine?
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Feb 19 2014, 10:43pm
Post #12 of 24
(660 views)
Shortcut
|
He needed to left OUT for a simple reason...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Ring did NOT effect him. You DON'T build up this "The Most Evil thing" then introduce someone that is immune to it? Bomby
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Feb 20 2014, 2:54am
Post #13 of 24
(637 views)
Shortcut
|
And since he IS an enigma, the writers couldn't explain why he was immune to it, so they wisely left him out.
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Feb 21 2014, 1:07pm
Post #14 of 24
(604 views)
Shortcut
|
who he was supposed to be, or where he came from, but there's a line later in the book where someone -Gandalf, I think - says that if evil had triumphed, even Tom would have fallen in the end. That was the line that made me see Tom as someone who was very important in Middle Earth as a sort of last bastion of pure good, like a little piece of Arda that had never been corrupted by the dark powers.
|
|
|
Annatar598
Rohan
Feb 22 2014, 10:23pm
Post #15 of 24
(561 views)
Shortcut
|
in the books and the whole Tom subplot in the movie would take up 1-1.5 hours considering most of the (early portion of the) story would need reworking and tinkering. Tom could work in a GoT style series... but even then it's a long detour because you HAVE to go all the way to Buckland before getting to the Old Forest (which by itself is a very very long drag). These scenes in the book work because they're very atmospherical. Cinematically, it's "fluff" that can easily be cut.
"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member. Really? Alright... Well, proud to be one I guess.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 22 2014, 10:50pm
Post #16 of 24
(550 views)
Shortcut
|
Tom was a diversion, yes; but not that long
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in the books and the whole Tom subplot in the movie would take up 1-1.5 hours considering most of the (early portion of the) story would need reworking and tinkering. Tom could work in a GoT style series... but even then it's a long detour because you HAVE to go all the way to Buckland before getting to the Old Forest (which by itself is a very very long drag). These scenes in the book work because they're very atmospherical. Cinematically, it's "fluff" that can easily be cut. Any good director could have dealt with the whole Old Forest sequence in about 20 minutes or so; although some time-compression would have been needed. The Barrow-downs would have probably been another 15 to 20 minutes to deal with in its entirety. 1 to 1.5 hours? Poo, I say. However, after skipping over that, we could have had an explanation of how Aragorn had those extra weapons by reclaiming them from a Barrow. Surely Strider was capable of dealing with a Barrow-wight.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Annatar598
Rohan
Feb 22 2014, 11:06pm
Post #17 of 24
(553 views)
Shortcut
|
The story before and after that needs a lot of tinkering. Any good director would also just cut the whole sequence out?
"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member. Really? Alright... Well, proud to be one I guess.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Feb 22 2014, 11:12pm
Post #18 of 24
(548 views)
Shortcut
|
The story before and after that needs a lot of tinkering. Any good director would also just cut the whole sequence out? I would never state that as an absolute, but few adaptations of LotR have retained Ol' Tom. The only one outside of unabridged readings that I am aware of would be the Mind's Eye radio drama that aired on NPR.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Nuradar
Rohan
Feb 24 2014, 4:52pm
Post #19 of 24
(543 views)
Shortcut
|
I liked what we say of Beorn - he was serious and stoic, but I was very disappointed with how little of him there was in the Theatrical Release. I can only hope we see more of him (way more) in the Extended Edition. He is one of my favorite characters in The Hobbit, and the scene where the dwarves come through his gate, two-by-two, is one of my favorite scenes in the book. I understand how putting that scene in the movie is impractical, but I do wish we see more of him in the Extended Edition of DOS. Nuradar
|
|
|
elaen32
Gondor
Feb 25 2014, 10:26pm
Post #20 of 24
(502 views)
Shortcut
|
Is that some sort of rhyming slang for "killed"?
Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in April. Happy writing!
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
Mar 6 2014, 3:36pm
Post #22 of 24
(463 views)
Shortcut
|
Interesting... I never saw that version. I am curious to how the flow of the story worked without reference to the Arkenstone. I checked Wikipedia and it says: "The Arkenstone and Bilbo's journey to the opposing camp [is omitted]. Although the film lingers on the dwarves' reclaimed treasure, the Arkenstone is not mentioned, and is replaced with truncated verbal negotiations and Gandalf's sudden appearance. Thorin's anger at Bilbo and subsequent forgiveness are still referenced in his final scene." Aside from overall thoughts on the film itself, specifically did you find that the story 'worked' without the Arkenstone?
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 6 2014, 3:58pm
Post #23 of 24
(460 views)
Shortcut
|
Interesting... I never saw that version. I am curious to how the flow of the story worked without reference to the Arkenstone. I checked Wikipedia and it says: "The Arkenstone and Bilbo's journey to the opposing camp [is omitted]. Although the film lingers on the dwarves' reclaimed treasure, the Arkenstone is not mentioned, and is replaced with truncated verbal negotiations and Gandalf's sudden appearance. Thorin's anger at Bilbo and subsequent forgiveness are still referenced in his final scene." Aside from overall thoughts on the film itself, specifically did you find that the story 'worked' without the Arkenstone? The pace of the animated film is so fast (its runtime is a bit over 70 minutes) that one doesn't have time to ponder ommissions until after the end. After Bilbo rescues the Dwarves from the spiders there is a reference to making for the clearing where the Wood-elves had been feasting, even though that sequence had been ommitted. Thorin's final words to Bilbo don't carry as much weight in the film; the closest Thorin comes to being angry with the Hobbit near the end is when he rebukes Bilbo's lack of understanding about warfare. However, Thorin's death scene is still moving. I can't recommend the animated Hobbit as a purchase, but it is still worth a look. As a template for an adaptation, I would rather recommend the graphic novel version of The Hobbit, adapted by Charles "Chuck" Dixon with Sean Deming, and illustrated by David Wenzel.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
|
|