I agree 100%. They just escaped the old forest and haven’t encountered the Barrow Wights. It’s a nice interlude in between. I often go back just to read that section.
People argue that Bombadil isn’t well explained and comes out of nowhere, but I think if you put LOTR against the myths it was emulating it makes sense. The fact nobody knows who he is, including Gandalf, who was around for Arda’s creation, adds depth to the worldbuilding.
I think he’s more anchored in the story than people think, too. They explicitly mention him at the council of Elrond, and explain why he’d be a bad ring bearer despite the ring not affecting him.
One of my English classes in college focused on remakes and retellings, and I wrote an essay comparing the books to the films. HOnestly can’t remember what I wrote but when I told the professor what I was writing about the first thing she said was “You’re going to say why they cut Tom Bombadil?”
Tom’s incongruity is entirely deliberate. Tolkien worked out Middle Earth in meticulous detail, but thought that a truly believable mythology needed to have a few mysteries, hence Tom.
That entire part of Fellowship with The Old Forest was my favorite. I think Jackson did a fantastic job bringing the books to life, but I really felt the absence of that part.
For the films, it would have ruined the pacing at the very least. And it wasn’t needed information for the rest of the story, which is what tends to get cut out or omitted when trying to reduce the amount. Let’s be honest, if Jackson had done anything with Tom, it would have added to the drama at the time about how he’s ruined everything. Either it wouldn’t have been done right, would have been too much or too little, or would have taken away from the core story. All to include a character that book fans still argue about. It was the best decision, just not to have it at all. (Wasn’t there some very subtle reference, somewhere?)
Tom Bombadil was my favourite part of the trilogy, just a nice relaxing downtime section in the woods… such a shame it was removed
I can’t imagine why they cut it from the 12 hour long trilogy
I agree 100%. They just escaped the old forest and haven’t encountered the Barrow Wights. It’s a nice interlude in between. I often go back just to read that section.
People argue that Bombadil isn’t well explained and comes out of nowhere, but I think if you put LOTR against the myths it was emulating it makes sense. The fact nobody knows who he is, including Gandalf, who was around for Arda’s creation, adds depth to the worldbuilding.
I think he’s more anchored in the story than people think, too. They explicitly mention him at the council of Elrond, and explain why he’d be a bad ring bearer despite the ring not affecting him.
One of my English classes in college focused on remakes and retellings, and I wrote an essay comparing the books to the films. HOnestly can’t remember what I wrote but when I told the professor what I was writing about the first thing she said was “You’re going to say why they cut Tom Bombadil?”
Tom’s incongruity is entirely deliberate. Tolkien worked out Middle Earth in meticulous detail, but thought that a truly believable mythology needed to have a few mysteries, hence Tom.
Ironically cutting him out of the movies like this sort of adds to his mythology
That entire part of Fellowship with The Old Forest was my favorite. I think Jackson did a fantastic job bringing the books to life, but I really felt the absence of that part.
For the films, it would have ruined the pacing at the very least. And it wasn’t needed information for the rest of the story, which is what tends to get cut out or omitted when trying to reduce the amount. Let’s be honest, if Jackson had done anything with Tom, it would have added to the drama at the time about how he’s ruined everything. Either it wouldn’t have been done right, would have been too much or too little, or would have taken away from the core story. All to include a character that book fans still argue about. It was the best decision, just not to have it at all. (Wasn’t there some very subtle reference, somewhere?)