|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Elvenhome
Sep 24 2024, 3:55pm
Post #1 of 21
(3063 views)
Shortcut
|
I was listening to the Prancing Pony Podcast--Rings of Power Wrap-up on Episode 6, and the well-justified frustration with Tom being so completely out of character, and I had an epiphany. This is what we used to call in the old days of TORn an Utterly Unsupported Theory (UUT), and I’m not saying I think this is what the show-runners are actually doing, but I’d love it if they were.
What if Tom is not the actual Tom Bombadil at all, but one of those phantoms of Sauron?
Sauron manipulates people by appearing to give them what they want, after telling them a bit of the truth to hook them. What does the Stranger want most of all? A mentor, to help him figure out who he is and what he’s supposed to be doing.
“Tom” wants the Stranger to spend “all the time you need” wandering through that forest of staffs, searching for but never finding the right one. Because the right one is the one he would find if he went to rescue Nori and found it on the way. By setting him this hopeless task, “Tom” hopes to distract him, maybe forever.
A couple of things make this feel right to me, besides Tom’s being so out of character (cruel, concerned with destiny, leaving the Withywindle.)
One is the weird, phantom-like voice of Goldberry (maybe the real Goldberry using osanwe to try to break through and warn the Stranger, since “Tom” claims there was nothing there?)
Another is the cheesy Hollywood-Jesus music that plays faintly when Tom appears. I thought at first it was the show-runners trying to tell us that Tom is Eru, and I didn’t like it. But it could be a hint that Sauron is pulling another moment like his Transfiguration into Annatar, a kind of faux-religious moment.
Anyway, whatever they do with Tom, I think this might be my head-canon.
By the way, the Prancing Pony folks are doing what I feel is a very well-balanced discussion of RoP.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GNU Terry Pratchett
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories
leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(This post was edited by Aunt Dora Baggins on Sep 24 2024, 3:57pm)
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
Sep 24 2024, 4:46pm
Post #2 of 21
(3034 views)
Shortcut
|
I actually really like the way the show is doing Tom Bombadil.
HOWEVER
What a great theory. I think that would be an awesome way to do things and it would also be a genuine surprise in the narrative (rather than the telegraphed "surprises" we've grown used to.)
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 24 2024, 11:40pm
Post #3 of 21
(2969 views)
Shortcut
|
It would be funny if, as we concentrate on the Stranger, the real mystery - Bombadil – is right before us and most of us don’t see it.
I don’t want that theory to be correct though because I like RoP’s Bombadil very much. He’s like an adult version of book Bombadil. That’s not meant to be disparaging at all because book Bombadil is great. But he seems to me to be one of the last vestiges of The Hobbit fairy tale in LotR, as it transitions from what feels like a similar in tone sequel to TH to its own epic story. I don’t believe that he would work in either the LotR movies or RoP.
I have no difficulty imagining that in the millennia between the time of RoP and the end of the Third Age, Tom could have changed, abjured the larger world and set himself boundaries. Nor do I think RoP Tom is being particularly cruel. He’s not always nice; but he’s pushing the Stranger to help him find his destiny, for the sake of the Stranger himself and of Middle-earth. I now ascribe to the idea that the Stranger’s true path is to turn away from the Valley of the Wands to seek Nori and Poppy, and that’s actually how he’ll find his wand and his power.
According to the “Eldest” episode credits, the voice of Goldberry is that of Raya Yarbrough, who, with Rory Kinnear, sings a couple of lines from Tom’s song from the book. She’s a singer, not an actress, and is the longtime partner and collaborator of Bear McCreary. She also performs on a couple of the tracks of the Season 2 soundtrack, including a short variation of Old Tom Bombadil called The River Daughter. I don’t know what these references mean. I think I just supposed at the time that the this was an Easter Egg for book fans, that Goldberry was actually there with Tom but didn’t want to meet the Stranger, so Tom played head games with the latter.
I don’t think I understand the reference to “Jesus” music. As the Stranger approaches Tom from behind, there’s some slightly suspenseful music that does turn sweet when Tom turns around. That music and the camera lingering on Tom’s face makes it impossible to miss that he is a Very Important Character. Tom himself sings and hums bits of the Old Tom Bombadil song here and elsewhere. All the lyrics from the three versions of Old Tom Bombadil on the soundtrack are taken directly from the book.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Mithlond
Sep 25 2024, 4:03am
Post #4 of 21
(2953 views)
Shortcut
|
|
ADB this is one that people will split on
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As Noria may remember I wanted the Hobbit reimagined from the get go as the full blown adult version of the Quest For Erebor (The Arkenstone).
The Number of Dwarves would have been reduced, the Trolls, Beorn, the Fairie Elves of Rivendell indeed just about everything from Hobbiton to The Lake would have been recast in the adult form of LOTR. Transformed as that story was, in the Professors mind, from the sequel to the Hobbit to the Silmarillion.
That lays the back ground for me saying that the Tom of the LOTR was an anachronism of Hobbit think.
Rory has done a wonderful job of being what Bombadil ended up being; a remarkable powerful being who hid from the matters that shook middle earth when Morgoth returned to the North and, who stays hidden in a cloak of rural simplicity.
In a sense Bombadil is the opposite of Shelob hiding away in his own kingdom where he is master.
I also believe the cloak of simplicity and the humble withdrawn vaguely grumpy character is giving Gandalf his lead into his future.
There is an echo of John The Baptist in ROP Tom (John lived away from his family in the desert) and John's relationship with Jesus and Tom and Gandalf.
I have not got my books with me but this encounter feels like the beginning of those words that Gandalf offers the Hobbits, as he leaves them for a visit to Tom, with the Hobbits returning to the shire alone.
Elsewhere the call back reflections have been critiqued but across a very complex multi layered story, multi stranded narrative it is giving PJ film only fans a connection as opposed to someone like myself who had the books introduced to me 58 years ago.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Sep 25 2024, 4:18am)
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Nargothrond
Sep 25 2024, 4:33pm
Post #5 of 21
(2883 views)
Shortcut
|
When the Stranger asks who he is, Tom replies that back in the Withywindle, folks called him "Bombadil-- Tom Bombadil")*.
*(Rory Kinnear has been in four James Bond films-- how many of you caught this joke?).
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
(This post was edited by DwellerInDale on Sep 25 2024, 4:34pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 25 2024, 5:27pm
Post #6 of 21
(2871 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you mean this passage in RotK: “…I am turning aside soon. I am going to have a long talk with Bombadil, such a talk as I have not had in all my time. He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling. But my rolling days are ending, and now we shall have much to say to one another.”?
Good point about “the cloak of simplicity and the humble withdrawn vaguely grumpy character is giving Gandalf his lead into his future”. Even Gandalf’s hat will be identical to Bombadil’s, unless of course it’s actually the same one.
I understand why the writers of RoP are bringing in all these LotR movie references and that they are not aimed at me and you. They are starting to seem excessive, irksome and distracting to me.
Your idea for a Hobbit movie as The Quest for Erebor could have worked, I believe. It could have been a great movie and probably would have satisfied LotR movie only fans. I think a lot of them wanted a Hobbit movie because they really wanted more LotR. So did I, a little.
That adaptation would have outraged Hobbit book fans, with reason. But as I have said many times, I believe that a direct, simple adaptation of the Hobbit was never going to happen after the phenomenon that was the LotR movie trilogy.
So Peter Jackson tried to capture the whimsical quality and fairy tale elements of The Hobbit in a somewhat more adult, geopolitically expanded, epic, action packed trio of movies, with mixed success IMO. I pretty much expected The Hobbit movies we got, and while I do think there were missteps and a lot of excess, overall I really like them.
The movie that I would like to see is the War of the Rings in the North, with Dain standing over the body of King Brand before the Gate of Erebor until the darkness fell.
If RoP had been released in 2004 or so, back when all things Tolkien were still hot, I’d bet it would have been a huge success.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 25 2024, 5:35pm
Post #7 of 21
(2863 views)
Shortcut
|
I've only seen two or three of the early Bond movies, but even I know about "Bond, James Bond".
But I had no idea about Rory Kinnear 's involvement in those films, so I never would have gotten the joke.
Cute.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Mithlond
Sep 26 2024, 5:12am
Post #8 of 21
(2811 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for your most interesting reply and yes that is the passage.
What I wanted to do here, and it has emerged already in various remarks is to deal with the issue of tone.
It seems logical to make the tone of the LOTR movies your starting point for any movie or small screen adaptions. The overall tone of LOTR was grave, and serious, with occasional moments of reflection. I wouldn't say I liked the scenes where Sir Peter's sense of humour, which is famous in NZ, influenced the dialogue. But overall tonally the films were consistent.
One matter that I have enjoyed about ROP is it is tonally consistent. It too is grave with the shadow of the first age cast over the second. The sardonic, down trodden men of the Southlands remind me of some of the atmosphere of "The Wanderings of Hurin."
To bring in Tom and set aside the overtly fey and fairie-like performance of the book fits with that sensible approach to screen adaption. I say that knowing a good deal was written about TB when it was announced he would be included suggesting they should channel the book performance right down to his appearance. This is where adaption can produce a different and more consistent outcome.
The Tom we have met fits with the world we are moving through.
And taking a line of dialogue from the book as they did with Galadriel's remark about always rejecting Sauron and investing it with a meaning that wasn't intended but does not contradict is something I enjoy.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Sep 26 2024, 5:25am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Mithlond
Sep 26 2024, 5:22am
Post #9 of 21
(2808 views)
Shortcut
|
It is interesting because if you consider any fan sites of James Bond they have a good deal in common with Tolkien fan sites.
The cosplay, indeed people take it as their lead on how to dress in their day-to-day life with Bond.
But despite the Five film arc being highly successful, Bond wasn't their bond for a lot of people. It mixed reinvention, with the books as a steer, much better than many gave credit. It is that indefinable point; is it in the spirit of, does it have a flavour of, all matters which I reflect on with ROP however different to the actual narrative facts at source?
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Hithlum
Sep 26 2024, 7:14am
Post #10 of 21
(2745 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's just modern "Prequelitis"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Prequelitis - Every event in a prequel needs to be a set-up for the film it preceeds. Every tiny detail, every prop, every item of clothing needs a dramatic explanation. "How did Indiana Jones get his whip and hat?", "How did Wolverine get his jacket?" It's ridiculous.
Couple this with the modern sensibility that a character is underdeveloped or poorly written if they do not have an arc or show growth and progression. (Ridiculous idea by the way).
Now every character needs to "grow" into who they were in the previous work. The only way you can do that is to present said character in a totally contrarian way.
Eg. Jerry the mouse is known for his love of cheese. So let's make a prequel where he HATES cheese, and then we can see how he learns to love it. It'll be a character arc for him and give him depth.
I have no doubt there will be a scene where Tom passes his hat on to Gandalf and with it he will be passing on his responsibilities as a guardian of middle-earth and we will see him become the Tom from the books. It's forced, faked character development.
They're doing the same thing to Galadriel. Even Elrond who is known for his long hair, they cut his hair short so we can watch it grow as the series continues.
It's as if they write a list of all the traits that define a character and then strip that character of all those traits so that they can introduce them again one by one and the audience gets a tingle each time, as the character slowly morphs into the person we wanted to be watching from the beginning.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Sep 26 2024, 7:20am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Mithlond
Sep 26 2024, 12:05pm
Post #11 of 21
(2657 views)
Shortcut
|
Prequels
If a prequel character is heading directly into a narrative completion how else would you make a prequel have unique dramatic value.
1) If you did not either grow them into where they are going.
2) Or have them start and finish but learn more about them.
If you do not do either one or the other you are merely recycling or am I missing something?
Easter Eggs
Some people like this sort of thing. I remember in the Hobbit Sir Peter promised after H1 to explain the Morgul Blade and how it got back to the WK and never did forgetting what he intended to do. That was part of the chaos of the filming.
Arcs
I do not think the Durin's are arcing, they were established from the beginning, the plot drives their changes. That would also appear too be what is happening in Numenor and in Lindon as well, add to that Arondir. We engage with all these characters know them and see how they react to plot narrative. Celebrimbor is certainly not arcing he was established way back in his first conversation with Elrond.
The only characters that are arcing are Galadriel and possibly Elrond because they will survive. Adar may well be arcing (but not in a good way) we shall see.
Even Gandalf isn't arcing the Stranger is entirely static which is a separate criticism. He is merely on a journey of rediscovery which echoes some thoughts Tolkien offered about how much the Istari remember.
Sauron is not arcing he is morphing until he loses part of who he is through expenditure.
Nori is arcing but then so did Bilbo in the Hobbit and Frodo in the LOTR along with the other three.
It's the core idea that Mr Tolkien was profoundly affected by. We come back changed from our experiences unable to be the same. It was one of the success of the screen adaption of the LOTR the four Hobbits were clearly different when they sat down and had a beer. They had gone somewhere and returned different through growth and change.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Sep 26 2024, 12:11pm)
|
|
|
Aunt Dora Baggins
Elvenhome
Sep 26 2024, 2:26pm
Post #12 of 21
(2622 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not saying I don't like this Tom.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I love seeing Tom on screen, and love hearing him sing. It's just that I get a twinge of "looks fair and feels foul". I like Halbrand too, even though I know what he is.
I'll be very curious where this Tom is headed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GNU Terry Pratchett
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories
leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
Sep 26 2024, 2:55pm
Post #13 of 21
(2610 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree so much with this. I don't think I've ever seen it so well summarized. As a lover of pop culture and big budget films and television I've been first in line for a lot of the prequels and huge legacy sequels that have dominated the market place for the last two decades. I can't think of a single example of this kind of thing that I've loved - they've all felt forced and tired.
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
|
|
|
Hopefull Harfoot
Ossiriand
Sep 26 2024, 3:37pm
Post #14 of 21
(2593 views)
Shortcut
|
Tbh although I love that they have brought Tom into the story (a sad omission in the LOTR films) the character has felt weakly written and played so far to me.
Not that I could do any better. But my feel of Tolkien's Tom is much more mentally diffuse - for lack of a better term. A bit bonkers and childlike, disinterested... but mysterious and posssessing unusual powers.
One of the most pressing questions that remains for me in all of Tolkien is just what is Tom (and Goldberry). And I guess I had hoped for some elucidation on the matter and so far am disappointed.
And elucidation is my $5 word of the day. :D
51 years since I first read The Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Mithlond
Sep 26 2024, 3:47pm
Post #15 of 21
(2580 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree so much with this. I don't think I've ever seen it so well summarized. As a lover of pop culture and big budget films and television I've been first in line for a lot of the prequels and huge legacy sequels that have dominated the market place for the last two decades. I can't think of a single example of this kind of thing that I've loved - they've all felt forced and tired.
I thought he was talking about Rings of Power and in particular Galadriel and Gandalf. He does refer to a substantial number of pre equals, and you confirm its from an entire genre of films. You may well be right but I have no idea what either of you are talking about. I have never seen a Marvel, Star Wars Film, if thats what you are talking about, so my answer was about the subject of the thread. The hobbit was a prequel with its own series of quite separate issues. If Tom gives Gandalf his first pointed hat I am going to view that as fun rather than belleve the entire series falls over.
I having just come off E 7 I thought it was full of inventions and a very fine re imagining of the fall of Eregion.
And I repeat to give Galadriel and to a lesser extent Elrond a degree of development rather than begin with them in Cate and Hugo mode is working rather well.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Sep 26 2024, 4:02pm)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Mithlond
Sep 26 2024, 4:13pm
Post #16 of 21
(2570 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am going to come back on this.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Prequelitis - Every event in a prequel needs to be a set-up for the film it preceeds. Every tiny detail, every prop, every item of clothing needs a dramatic explanation. "How did Indiana Jones get his whip and hat?", "How did Wolverine get his jacket?" It's ridiculous.
Couple this with the modern sensibility that a character is underdeveloped or poorly written if they do not have an arc or show growth and progression. (Ridiculous idea by the way).
Now every character needs to "grow" into who they were in the previous work. The only way you can do that is to present said character in a totally contrarian way.
Eg. Jerry the mouse is known for his love of cheese. So let's make a prequel where he HATES cheese, and then we can see how he learns to love it. It'll be a character arc for him and give him depth.
I have no doubt there will be a scene where Tom passes his hat on to Gandalf and with it he will be passing on his responsibilities as a guardian of middle-earth and we will see him become the Tom from the books. It's forced, faked character development.
They're doing the same thing to Galadriel. Even Elrond who is known for his long hair, they cut his hair short so we can watch it grow as the series continues.
It's as if they write a list of all the traits that define a character and then strip that character of all those traits so that they can introduce them again one by one and the audience gets a tingle each time, as the character slowly morphs into the person we wanted to be watching from the beginning.
I now understood your anger is actually directed at an approach which permeate many franchises. For the sake of a conversation on One Ring.Net may I suggest its best to deal with what we all have seen. You also now I understand come across as being 'over' prequels in general because oddly enough they back into their sequels. For the record I would not be interested in such a thing as it is what Damon Lindelof talks about the march to the inevitable.
Your example of the cheese in Tom & Jerry displays an unnecessary amount of venom to the subject and is not helpful. Equally your distress at the passing of a hat in a small sub plot seems a substantial over reaction to me. As I have said it would be fun.
My thanks to Junesong who has made it clear you are berating a whole genre of prequels. You may well be right but in a huge ensemble to make so much of one main character, Galadriel, who I find very fascinating seems to be tail wagging dog. What Gandalf does in Season 3 to 5 remains to be seen.
What goes on with all the other cinema you watch is frankly of no interest to me. Though I welcome you answering the question I raised.
Equally if you view this as a prequel do you consider the entire thing a waste of time given your dislike of prequels?
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Sep 26 2024, 4:18pm)
|
|
|
Archestratie
Nargothrond
Sep 26 2024, 4:42pm
Post #17 of 21
(2560 views)
Shortcut
|
Tbh although I love that they have brought Tom into the story (a sad omission in the LOTR films) the character has felt weakly written and played so far to me.
Not that I could do any better. But my feel of Tolkien's Tom is much more mentally diffuse - for lack of a better term. A bit bonkers and childlike, disinterested... but mysterious and posssessing unusual powers.
One of the most pressing questions that remains for me in all of Tolkien is just what is Tom (and Goldberry). And I guess I had hoped for some elucidation on the matter and so far am disappointed.
And elucidation is my $5 word of the day. :D
I feel the same way. The casting was perfect. The costuming is spot on. The song is beautiful and captures the spirit of the books as ideally as one could. I just have not enjoyed this storyline one bit so far. :(
My Low-Magic Fantasy Novel on eBook/hardback: The Huntsman and the She-Wolf
The Huntsman and the She-Wolf on audio Book.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 26 2024, 8:58pm
Post #18 of 21
(2530 views)
Shortcut
|
My impression of 3rd Age Tom is that he’s an incredibly old, extremely powerful and thoughtful being who comes across as a bit of a goof but isn’t at all. He has set his priorities and his boundaries and keeps to them, ignoring everything else. To us, he’s ineffable.
2nd Age Bombadil is much more engaged in the world and has a role to play in it. I suspect that we’ll see the last of him in the next episode and that he’ll be as mysterious then as he is thousands of years later.
|
|
|
skyofcoffeebeans
Nargothrond
Sep 26 2024, 9:27pm
Post #19 of 21
(2523 views)
Shortcut
|
I think we might be seeing him more in the last 3 seasons... at least most definitely in season 5
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 26 2024, 11:44pm
Post #20 of 21
(2509 views)
Shortcut
|
I was thinking after my last post that there is a hint that Bombadil may reappear. The second to last track on the soundtrack is a reprise of the Old Tom Bombadil song sung by Tom himself and the Stranger. My fancy is that Tom is teaching the Stranger the song to summon him in case of need.
|
|
|
ArathornJax
Nargothrond
Sep 27 2024, 7:50am
Post #21 of 21
(2476 views)
Shortcut
|
Perhaps Tom grows powerful because he learns to accept his limits, his boundaries and is content to be the master of those boundaries? I often think that is one of Tolkien's messages, that the simplicity of enjoying where one is, with who one is and to live a simple life is of more import than doing great deeds or experiencing great things. Be content with what and who you are and you'll find happiness.
" . . . (we are ) too engrossed in thinking of everything as a preparation or training or making one fit -- for what? At any minute it is what we are and are doing, not what we plan to be and do that counts."
J.R.R. Tolkien in his 6 October 1940 letter to his son Michael Tolkien.
|
|
|
|
|
