Why Removing Tom Bombadil Was The RIGHT Decision...

Welcome to Episode 5 of "Movies vs. Manuscripts". A show where I analyze the differences between Peter Jackson's adaptation of "Lord of the Rings", and Tolkien's original works... scene. by. scene. Today we head into a portion of Tolkien's writings that are totally excluded from the films. Specifically, Tom Bombadil.
Watch Ep. 4 - • How Peter Jackson FRAM...
I am NOT a Tolkien professor, and I haven't been studying this for decades. I am simply a fan. If I missed anything, please let me know in the comments and I will be sure to make corrections in the next episode!
By the way... I LOVE the movies. These videos are not to hate on Peter Jackson or the films at all. Simply comparing the adaptation to the original. :)
-
Read along with me! 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring” on Audible for FREE: www.audibletrial.com/factorfa... 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!
Looking for the PERFECT men's wedding band?
Get 25% OFF your purchase at Manly Bandz with my code (FACTORFANTASY),
and support the channel at the same time! 👉 manlybands.com/FACTORFANTASY
-
Business Inquiries 📩 [e-mail]
-
Want to join an awesome community of fantasy fans?! Check out our Discord server! RPG 🐉 Battle Royale 🗡️ Art 🖌️ Community Adventures 🧙‍♂️ and a chance to nerd out with others! 👏
Join: / discord
-
Music:
🔻
"Arthur-Marie Brillouin - Bien-Aimée" is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0) license.
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
@arthur-mariebrillouin4496
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🌼 Ambient Piano (Royal...
🔺
🔻
"Scott Buckley - The Long Dark" is under a Creative Commons (CC BY 3.0) license.
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
/ musicbyscottb
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🌑 Dark Ambient (Free M...
🔺
🔻
"Alexander Nakarada - Frost" is under a Creative Commons (BY 3.0) license:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
/ creatorchords
Music promoted by BreakingCopyright: • 🍺 RPG & Celtic (Free M...
🔺
-
Timestamps:
0:00 Tom Bombadil's Removal...
1:44 Chapter Sumaries
7:08 Analysis
-
Sources:
"The Fellowship of the Ring," directed by Peter Jackson, New Line Cinema, 2001.
-
#tolkien #tolkienlore #lordoftherings #lotr #peterjackson #newlinecinema #warnerbros #jrrtolkien #tombombadil #thefellowhsipofthering #fellowshipofthering

[@factorfantasyweekly]

Want to get into the Lord of the Rings for the first time OR simply rediscover Middle Earth in a whole new way? 📖 Claim Andy Serkis’ narration of “The Fellowship of the Ring” on Audible *for FREE with my code:* www.audibletrial.com/factorfantasyfellowship 👈 Every free trial supports the channel!

[@Webhead123]

To what extent Tolkien himself recognized or acknowledged it, Tom represents that certain "feeling", which was very much part of Tolkien's personality, which is the love of nature and the joy of a simple life. Unlike most every other character in the story, Tom is not burdened by (in fact, hardly even notices) plays of power, wars, politics, the ages of men or other such concerns. He is innocence, love and joy personified. He is "Master" of his realm and yet not a warrior, lord or even a being particularly impressive to look upon. He doesn't display the power of wizards or the nobility of kings. He doesn't so much "rule" the Old Forest as simply watches over it, like a gardener tending his flower bed. So filled with joy is he that he can't help but sing just about every spoken word. So far removed from the frailties and temptations of most people that The Ring *literally* has nothing to offer him (and thus he perceives no true power within it). He doesn't battle Old Man Willow or the Barrow Wights with impressive spells or weapons. He pours out his innocence and lulls these threats into submission. No, Bombadil is a reminder of what Tolkien thought was the real prize and peace waiting all around us, if only we would take the time to see it. That a simple life of little pleasures was a greater power than all the weapons, secrets and ambitions of any would-be tyrant.

[@sheridansherr8974]

Great analysis! Love it 😍💖👍

[@FirstnameLastname-rc8yd]

Well said. Many seem to miss the point of Tom. I concur with much of what you stated.

[@iBalushi]

Yes! Placed early in the book, it showcases how despite knowing a huge journey is unfolding, faced with great evil and courage and scary beings, one decided to live a simple joyful life, with no Kingdom to seek or name to find. One could see himself hustling and anxious with money and titles in the everyday life, seeking challenges or travels across the world. Meanwhile we see our grandparents’ or elders’ simple, minimal and joyful life; content with what they have (as farmers for example), or with few benefits and low salary, in villages no one hears of, but to the, it’s their whole world. In Arabic we also say it as Zūhd زهد

[@kdaddy310]

Tom Bombadil is the One Piece

[@DitchBankBandits]

Very well said.

[@otttimon5654]

I believe you missed the most important reason for the removal of Bombadill, his relationship with the Ring. The movies put a lot of emphasis on the Ring and it’s corrupting power having even Faramir fall to it at first. Including Tom would have us see a guy do tricks with the Ring and see through the invicibility in the first hour, which would lessen the threat of the Ring a lot for the rest of the movies.

[@northlight6759]

Also, if Tom is so powerful that he can sing away threats, why isn't he in the Fellowship? If he refuses, then why doesn't he help them on their way from Bree to Rivendell? Frodo nearly died and could definitely have used some more help. So yeah, it's best that Tom is just not mentioned at all

[@somersault1123]

@@northlight6759 And who do you suggest steps up to make such a command to one who can sing away threats?

[@selwynevonbeereskow8053]

Faramir did not fall to it - not in the books. "Not if it lay by the wayside..." But he took it very serious and didn't play with it. And even he still might have fallen if he had been longer in the rings company. He understood the danger of the ring - as Tom Bombadil did not.

[@martinbatistelli]

You mean Boramir, Faramir's brother

[@choke9270]

It’s exactly this reason. Having Tom flick the ring around like a toy cancels all the trepidation Gandalf has when offered the ring by Frodo.

[@chrisvickers7928]

When I heard The Lord of the Rings was being made into movies, I guessed Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire would be omitted for both time and elimination of a side quest and anti-climax respectively.

[@heatherqualy9143]

Interesting! Tom Bombadil totally made sense to me, but I never thought the Scouring of the Shire would be omitted, and THAT killed me. I would have way rather had that than the 3 endings leading up to it. But that’s because personally, Frodo is my favourite character, and I loved those final chapters. Because they drove home the tragedy of Frodo’s story, that everyone else got a happy ending, and he was the one person who didn’t . I love a good tragedy! 😛

[@DanielDuhon]

@@heatherqualy9143I am surprised Frodo is your favorite lol, but the scouring of the Shire would extended the end by so much it wouldn’t have been good. I liked the ending of the movies

[@josephconnelly7939]

I was expecting you to mention the fact that the part where Tom saves them from Old Man Willow was repurposed later to Treebeard saving them in the extended version of the Two Towers.

[@factorfantasyweekly]

I’m sure once I get to that scene in this series, I will relate it back to this moment. But since it hasn’t happened yet in the films I didn’t mention it. Good note though!

[@friezasama8860]

@@factorfantasyweekly WHAT? THAT MOVIE CAME OUT 20 YRS AGO LOL

[@factorfantasyweekly]

I’m doing a series where I analyze the films next to Tolkien’s writings, scene by scene. I’m very early in the series, so we haven’t gotten to meet Treebeard yet! Obviously I’ve read the books and seen the movies many times. I’m just talking about not reaching it in this KZbin series yet.

[@michaelcoscia51]

Have no problem with cutting Tom out. But you’re 100% wrong saying he serves no purpose to the later story. Merry’s blade comes from the barrow downs and it is Tom that gives it to him. It is enchanted and made specifically to harm beings like the witch king.

[@ulfberht4431]

That still doesn’t help. Even if that one little moment made its way 2 books later (which by that time you mostly forgot about the events of Tom Bombadil) it’s still pointless since he’s never referenced again as far as I’m aware. I think it would’ve have been better if the blade Merry is given was from the Elves since they are VERY prominent throughout the story.

[@SRWhitting]

@@ulfberht4431 Tom is mentioned later in the books, and the ancestry of Merry's dagger - made specifically to fight the witch-king - is also mentioned in Return of the King.

[@Palendrome]

@@SRWhitting Once again, it is a better and more elegant option, in the context of a film, to just have it be his elven dagger.

[@ulfberht4431]

@@Palendrome Exactly!

[@AnOldeSpartan]

​​@@PalendromeExcept it's not an elven dagger. It was made by the Men of Westernesse.

[@Hahndrei]

You know Amazon will attempt to do both and end up doing neither.

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

Yeah and that is why I can not argue against a inclusion of more Tolkien, especially if it is done by Peter Jackson or Del Toro....for there is no way it would be even close to as bad as what Amazon has done.

[@captainflint89]

nah they will "fix" tom and make him lame and gay

[@boskilingenfelter9515]

Tom Bombadil will be a gay black woman that dual wields great axes.

[@macrosense]

In the books, Tom Bombadil is integral in inaugurating the hobbits into the dangerous world outside of the Shire.

[@DuckDando1066]

I think the issue with cutting the old forest and Tom Bombadil is actually a problem of timespan and pruning of unviable options. Plus the hobbits get the sword that i believe allowed Pippin to stab the witch king and make him vulnerable from the barrows. Why is going to Mordor the only option? Because entrusting the ring to Tom is a bad idea, since he would easily forget about it and then lose it. its similar to my issue on the Elves in the Hobbit. Rivendell was described as a bunch of singing mischeiveous Elves when visited in the Hobbits, seeing it as a more serious place later shows that the weariness of the elves has gotten so much worse because an age is ending in the lord of the rings.

[@Enjay001]

I very much agree that the whole section feels like a side quest or a segment of the world isolated "in a snow globe". And the whole singing thing - totally agree. Jackson was totally correct not to include these chapters. They add nothing to the core plot progression; indeed, they slow it and even muddy it. It would ruin the pacing and be a slow inclusion at a time where the plot needs to start picking up pace. Not good for a film. (I also feel that omitting the scouring of the Shire was the right choice for similar pacing reasons.) In fact, more than merely being a side quest, to me the whole section feels more like DLC content for a game that doesn't quite fit the style of the core game and which, if you didn't buy the DLC, it wouldn't affect your enjoyment or experience of the game at all. It's an optional extra; some background colour to the world, but (ultimately) not that important. To me, Bombadil has always felt a bit awkward - even since long before the films. Perhaps it's because I know that he was styled around Michael Tolkien's doll, but Tom Bombadil has always felt like a crass, clashing fan-service insert into the story (where the "fan" is Tolkien's son). All the "he's so powerful, but doesn't use it", "the ring doesn't affect him", "he's basically and ancient god" etc etc is just "and... so what?" territory for me (and feels like the kind of stuff you'd make up about your child's toy). As far as I'm concerned, he's a crudely inserted side note and not a particularly interesting one at that. In my opinion, he would have been better mentioned in Tolkien's notes or letters (or not at all) rather than having chapters in the core book. Your mileage may vary, of course. Let the hate begin. 😉

[@CountingStars333]

🤖

[@edgarcossy]

Tom Bombadil bothered me from the second or third time I read the novel, way before the movies. They are very intriguing character and situation, but also frustratingm because it goes nowhere. It is a good argument in favor of Chekov's rule about loaded guns at the beginning of a story. And the whole thing feels like a return to "The Hobbit". Songs, whimsical character and repetition of once in a life time opportunities. Like any other day that Frodo and company went there and they would have been doomed, but they were lucky to get to Old Man Willow on the first day of spring (or last, I don't remember), wich is the only day of the year Tom goes there to get the water lilies. And after the barrows Tom gives the dagger made to fight the Witch King of Angmar to the only of the four hobbits that is going to be near said Witch King of Angmar. It felt like when Bilbo, the dwarves and Elrond are reading the map to the Lonely Mountain exactly the night and time of the year in wich the moon would reveal the path to the secret entrance. And they get to that secret entrance the precise day and time in wich the sun rays reveals it... So, yeah, I pretty much agree with this video and think that it was a good idea to remove the whole Tom Bombadil affair, not because it is not interesting, but because stops the script and it is of no real consequence (the movie solves pretty well the dagger problem by not caring about it and replacing with just a dagger). A good idea really, just as taking out Glorfindel and putting Arwen in his place.

[@madworldproductions855]

I love the movies, watch them at least once every year, with every other year being the extended editions. However, when I tired reading the books for the first time, I could not get past the Tom Bombadil parts. The singing was so jarring and felt like it kept pausing the story just to have this character in it singing. So personally I’m really glad he isn’t in the movies.

[@init000]

You should probably stick to the movies. I hear Fast & Furious part 933 is being puked onto the market this year. That may be something for you.

[@joelincz8314]

I like the theory that Tom is the embodiment of the music that created Arda. I love the books but you cannot put all details from the book into the movie and I agree that cutting this was smart it would only add to the confusion and in the end people will argue why didn't Tom on an Eagle bring the ring to Modor.

[@AnotherViewBot]

As Arda itself is the embodiment of the Music, I would think of Tom as the observant silence between notes that lets them have form, and not all blend together as one long note.

[@WhereInTheWorldIsGinaVee]

I got a little lucky and was able to ask Stephen Colbert, a big Tolkien fan, before his show if he was sad Peter Jackson didn't include Bombadil in the LOTR films. Colbert said he got it that Jackson couldn't include Bombadil in the films....definitely felt like I was talking to a wikipedia of LOTR given Colbert's knowledge of all things Tolkien.

[@beverlykrebs4372]

I totally agree with you. The only questionable exclusion for me would be the barrow downs. Frodo is tempted to put on the ring so he can possibly escape, thinking Gandalph would have to agree that it was the only thing he could have done. But his hobbit bravery kicks in & he chooses to try to save his friends. Later, when Gandalph is discussing Frodo's journey to Rivendell with him, Gandalph says that decision in the barrow to not put the ring on and to try to save his friends may have been the most dangerous moment that Frodo has faced so far. I think Pete could have possibly included the barrow incident, leaving out Tom. He would have had to change how they escaped, but that wouldn't be any worse than the other changes in the films. Also, I completely agree about the decision to leave the Crickhollow storyline out, but I do wish they could have put Farmer Maggot in there. They did have him yelling at them, but I would have liked to see the conversation they had about the black riders. Chapters 4&5 are 2 of my favorite in that book. I listen to the audiobook all the time (with Rob Inglis) & I enjoy that part so much! So... Yes, Pete leaving Maggot out was best, but I'm glad Tolkien wrote that part of the story & I get to hear it in the audiobook! 😉 Leaving Tom out - good call. But the barrow downs could have been put into the film somehow, to show Frodo's personal challenge against what the ring wanted him to do. Thanks for the video! Great job!

[@brianmead7556]

To put it very simply just the cinematic cut of the trilogy alone is 10 hours and 40 minutes before credits, the extended additions are even longer, and at the approximate cost of $570 for every single second filmed, you have to prioritize on time and budget. Everyone of my family was reading through the books as the movies were coming out and we came to the agreement that they had to pragmatically trim the books or else the movies would would be seven hours long and completely unwatchable.

[@taivo55]

You nailed it. Even reading the books, I've always been tempted to skip chapters 5-8.

[@circedelune]

I’m glad Tom is in the book, but I agree that leaving him out of the films was best. I don’t see how it would do anything but confuse the audience. I have read the book several times. About half the time, I skip those chapters. I’m glad to have read them, but I find them tedious, and they feel out of place. To me, Tom is basically the spirit of Arda, or the earth in human form. Gandalf basically says this in Rivendale. Nature is powerful and mysterious, but it cannot directly fight against evil. It cannot be tempted by evil. It simply is.

[@boredasf-zy8bj]

I just finished the chapters from journeying to buckleberry until them arriving bree... Imo it is a bit dragging the story, the only fun part of em is when tom bombadil in the story... Almost skipped them fortunately i did not lol

[@taivo55]

@@boredasf-zy8bj The key is knowing what you're getting into in advance so you can have plenty of food and drink handy to entertain yourself :p

[@boredasf-zy8bj]

@@taivo55 I've known tom bombadil for sometimes before reading the book but i didn't expect the long drag in the old forest and their journey to buckland lol

[@taivo55]

@@boredasf-zy8bj I've read all the explanations for why that section of the books exists, but to me the only part that's really relevant to the ring job is the Hobbits getting their sidearms.

[@Zeppelin0731]

You are 100% right with your analysis here. I have been in this camp for many years now. Bombadil/Goldberry (and Beorn for that matter) are integral portions of the world/lore, but they do not belong in abridged film versions of the story that are meant to be more grim/dark/serious. They fit the world/books/lore, but they do not fit the films in my opinion.

[@avi.chan23]

Thought, I really loved Beorn in the Hobbit movies. He was well integrated and played an important role for the story, if he would just have appearded in the final battle no one would have known, what Beorn is at all. Tom Bombadil on the other hand, wouldn´t really fit into the movies, especially, if he also does not re-appear later in the story.

[@beefabob]

I have been a LOTR fan now since I first read the books when I was about 12 years old and that's over 60 years ago now. I have read the trilogy countless times and watched the movie more than is probably healthy, The thing is when you get to my age you pretty do what you want as people humour you! I have just watched your ongoing video series comparing the books to the films and I really can't congratulate you enough, they are outstanding. I have subscribed to your channel and activated the notification icon without hesitation. I am very much looking forward to the next episode in this well presented and well thought out diagnostic series. Thank you so much.

[@MarkFilipAnthony]

I like that Jackson added the tree part in fangorn. It's a nod to the scene, showing they're aware if it, but purposely left it out. It adds to the fangorn events, as it adds to the tension that nature has awoken to join in on the fight for middle earths survival. It actually makes the ent scenes less dull, despite them taking their time, nature isn't. Nature is ready to fight back

[@somersault1123]

I don't care for it. Brought way too many hype punks and edgelords to the community.

[@MarkFilipAnthony]

@@somersault1123 in what way?

[@andresmullerbeck2427]

Tom is, in fact, a cameo, of one of tolkiens muses when his kids were growing up.

[@laurhisiel1073]

I think for me it is more "I want to see Tom Bombadil" as opposed to "I wanted to see Tom Bombadil in the movies".

[@7bombarie]

He is a fascinating, enigmatic character. But filming him will never do Tom right.

[@squint101]

The film had to account for Merry’s powerful, and essential-to-the-plot, barrow blade by making it a gift from Galadriel.

[@bobs2809]

I think Tom represents some aspect of Eru Ilúvatar that Tolkein decided not to specify. I also agree that leaving those chapters out of the movie was best for the reasons you mention. Nice analysis!

[@brianhelm2328]

Eru sang the Maiar into existence and their combined songs created the world and everything else. Goldberry says that "He Is", (as the presenter here says "I Am" is God's name for himself) and he is still singing almost everything he says. I think that, no matter how much Tolkien denied it, Tom is Eru.

[@DanielAnicSaz]

@@brianhelm2328 I dont think he is Eru. I think he is an avatar of the song of existence itself. A manifestation of the song itself. There is a whole website about Tom Bombadil theories, and the guy has this as his most probable solution to the question of who is Tom Bombadil.

[@chedsalvia6270]

Tom basically has the middle earth cheat codes in his pocket

[@antoniotruong5647]

I always thought that at the end of the movie when all the stories have been wrapped up they would show Gandalph walking up to a house being greeted by a woman and he tells her he's there to visit a friend who he'd like to share his tales with.

[@mevb]

While Tom Bombadill, Old Man Willow and Old Forrest was cut from the movies, some parts are included but in a different way and in a different part of the story. In the Two Towers, during the Uruk-Hai and orcs camping at the edge of Fangorn, before the argument between the two factors werever they should eat Merry and Pippin or not, as the Uruks chop the trees, the hobbits hear groans and Merry say that it is the trees and he says "Remember The Old Forrest, Pip, at the borders of Buckland..." which refers to The Old Forrest and the moving trees like Old Man Willow. In the books Treebeard explains that Fangorn was so big in the past that a squirrel could go from tree to tree from The Old Forrest and all the way to Mirkwood but have been deforrested thanks to Sauron's Forces marching to the west to claim The Elven Rings, and to the Men of Númenór that cut down the trees for ship building. In the Ent Draught sceen later on, Merry and Pippin gets caught by a Willow Huorn the same way Old Man Willow does in The Fellowship of the Ring book but Treebeards appear and says the lines "Away with you! You should not be awaken! Go to sleep, eat earth, dig deep, drink water. Go to sleep. Away with you!" and the hobbits gets released. The lines that Treebeard quotes are Tom Bombadill's from the book.

[@keithtorgersen9664]

Though I respect the reasons why it was not included, I wish that there was indeed some struggle that Frodo and company had in the film against the Barrow Wights, because it shows a kind of inner resilience that Frodo possesses.

[@aliismail2962]

And you think the events of the three movies didn't show frodo's resilience?

[@keithtorgersen9664]

Not to the extent that the book did.

[@samkornrumph8545]

@@aliismail2962 The movies actually nerfed Frodo, especially in The Fellowship of the Ring.

[@sameehkins5957]

I disagree (kind of). Tom Bombadil absolutely has a role in the books. The whole journey between Hobbiton and Bree is a 'fish out of water' tale. By that, I mean the Hobbit's are completely clueless about the outside world because Hobbit's are sheltered by nature. It's only Frodo and Bilbo who knew somewhat about the outside world and even then it was only from tales of events from thousands of years ago. Between Hobbiton and Bree is like a mini-adventure for the Hobbits who struggle coming to grip with this wild world, Middle-earth. It's even worse for them because they are being pursued by Black Riders WHILE familiarizing themselves with uknown world. Tom Bombadil acts as a means of "reality check". What do the Hobbits learn? I'll get to that. "Old Forest" is the chapter before Tom Bombadil. In this chapter, the Hobbits are in the Old Forsest and suddenly feel sleepy. None of them are alerted by this strange sudden feeling of sleepiness (because they are naive Hobbits and don't know about Trees that can put you to sleep). Unknown to them, Old Man Willow is casting a spell on them and is trying to kill them. He nearly succeeds had it not been for Tom Bombadil who came by. Next chapter is Tom Bombadil. Here, Tom talks about what just happened to the Hobbits - how it was the tree making them sleepy. He teaches them about the world of Middle-earth (although you have to study his songs to understand what he's teaching them... no wonder people think he's useless because no one reads the songs). Tom also teaches the Hobbits about the Barrow Downs and how everything in his land has a song. Next chapter is Barrow Downs. Here, the Hobbits accidently stumble into this grave site. A Barrow Wight appears and casts a similar sleeping spell on the Hobbits, except this sleeping spell is deadly. Frodo (who is now aware of the danger and knows what to do) he is the only Hobbit with the willpower to break out of the Wights spell. Frodo then cuts the Wights hand off in an effort to save his friends. Then he remembered the song that Tom taught him and so Tom arrives to beat the Wight. All 3 chapters, shows a progression of the Hobbit's and their understanding of the outside world. You have to remember, Hobbits love staying in their warm homes. They don't know how to survive in the wild, let alone know anything about Wights and sleeping spells. Tom helped them learn and adapt to this wild new world they're in. Now, does it make sense in the movies to have Tom? No, because the whole "mini-journey" from Hobbiton to Bree is cut out of the movies. So it's fine to have Tom not in the movies. I wouldn't say Tom is useless though, like some people in comments.

[@factorfantasyweekly]

Agreed! Good analysis. Like I said in the video, if someone made a tv show that was able to do more than the 12 hours Peter Jackson did, you could possibly devote a couple episodes to Tom and those side quests. I still think it would be hard to reconcile his light heartedness with the rest of the dark dark world. It would be a little bit of thematic whiplash. But who knows, maybe someone someday will be able to figure it out in a visual format!

[@trengilly01]

However the Hobbits have the entire trilogy to gradually show their development. Its hardly confined to just those chapters and those chapters don't present anything unique character development that isn't expressed in later scenes.

[@sameehkins5957]

@trengilly01 it doesn't really make sense to develop survival instincts after the whole trilogy is over. It makes more sense for survival instincts to develop at the start, which they can use later.

[@Eagle-eye-pie]

Tom isn’t useless, he saves the hobbits twice and supplies the blades of Westerness that are integral to the grand narrative, I can see why he was left out of the movies though.

[@GizmoJunk]

Tolkien fought his publisher's demand to remove Tom Bombadil. One purpose of Tom was to establish that there are entities in Middle Earth that are unaffected by the ring.

[@JosephLayden]

When I was a kid I fell in love with fantasy largely because this book was read to me by my parents. I didn't know what Tom symbolized or what part he might play in the Hero's Journey at age 8...I just remembered it as the most vibrant and magical part of the story, singing scattered versus of his song even years later.

[@MarcyPeska]

I 1st read the books at 11 and, likewise, found Tom & Goldberry utterly enchanting. They also felt safe and almost real in a way that elves did not. I don’t love them for plot reasons, I love them because of how they made me feel.

[@darrylldoucette6895]

You must have had very wonderful parents.

[@JosephLayden]

@@darrylldoucette6895 Yes they were awesome read Tolkien to me and also made up their own stories for long rides home.

[@alexdoorn234]

I only recently read the books but it was inevitable that I did, my dad likes the books it is his collection I borrowed from. My mom would always joke that she picked our names because dad was bad at naming us but he would always retort that he would have named me Galadriel. Love for Tolkien has been there since birth for me and while I might not have turned out as they expected I will still wear the name Feänor with pride once I can officially change my names. I am trans you see and I have thought long and hard about my names but one thing I know for sure I want to carry my love and my father's love for fantasy in my name. Feänor almost rhymes with the other names I have chosen, otherwise I would choose the name of my favourite elf Fingolfin.

[@sydmoore6]

I agree! The only thing that I miss from those chapters is how it shows Frodos loyalty to his friends and DECIDING to be brave for them. And also the relationship that Merry and Pippin have with Frodo. But I believe those were covered in different ways in the movies later on.

[@RaptorJesus.]

i'm glad those sections were cut too. it would feel like filler and make LotR feel more like the Hobbit movies. one of my gripes with those movies was that you could tell it was being stretched for the sake of stretching. if the Hobbit cut out all of the "filler" stuff and was cut down to 2 movies it would have been far better.

[@annatar9365]

Removing Barrow Downs ruin Witch-King defeat on Pelennor Fields by the hand of Merry and Eowyn, blade of Westernesse broken the spell that was protecting Lord of Nazgul, so Eowyn could destroy his phisical "body".

[@isomeme]

I came here to point this out. Yet I agree that leaving out Tom was a very good choice. It's just a shame that it carried this cost.

[@trengilly01]

No it doesn't . . . in fact removing the blade of Westernesse from the story puts all the emphasis on the deeds of Merry and Eowyn and their willingness to fight against all odds. It ENHANCES their character stories (at the cost of some of the background lore). I think that was a good decision for the movie.

[@tonyottoway8648]

Physical*

[@tarvoc746]

@@trengilly01 Well, yes and no. Tolkien's "No man will kill him" is a critical reply to Macbeth's "No man of woman born shall kill Macbeth" (except Macduff, who does end up killing him, was born via a primitive C-section). Tolkien had the strong intuition that this was cheating. Removing the Blade of Westernesse from the story puts all emphasis on Merry and Eowyn's deed, but it also makes the story less original and takes away its intended point: It turns what used to be a reflection on prophecy in Macbeth from the point of view of modern fantasy into a mere repetition of Macbeth. This is significant because Tolkien pretty much invented a new genre with Lord of the Rings: that of modern epic high fantasy - and one of the hallmarks of that genre is tightness in world-building and cause and effect. For better or for worse, it is a defining characteristic of the genre and part of what makes Tolkien special compared to what came before him.

[@isomeme]

@@tarvoc746 , also, I think it's important to understand that Glorfindel's prophecy did not establish a requirement; it was a simple statement about the future. Eowyn and Merry were not able to kill the Witch-King *because* they were not men. It's more accurate to say that they were destined for that task, Glorfindel had a vision of how it would play out, and noticed that neither assailant was a man.

[@heatherqualy9143]

I didn’t like the chapters with Tom the first dozen times I read the book. Because it delayed the true quest. Later on, I came to love him, because of how unique he is, in the way the Ring has no power over him. But, I still speed-read these chapters. When they announced he wouldn’t be in the movies and everyone was crushed, my reaction (as someone who wanted every moment I loved in the books included) was, “Really? *shrug* I suppose. 100% unnecessary to the story itself. I see dropping it.” Gave them more time to really do the important scenes right, like Moria.

[@hollyingraham3980]

The third time I read through it (which I did every summer for years) I stapled those pages shut, because pulling them out would have killed the binding.

[@heatherqualy9143]

@@hollyingraham3980 🤣🤣🤣

[@alexeng19]

I would agree with you if they didn't have the time to add unnecessary stuff not in the books

[@matthewoconnell114]

I totally agree with everything you said. I’m currently writing an adapted screenplay of my 3rd novel with a successful Hollywood screenwriter. It’s all - 100% - about the audience experience. I’ve read the LoTR about 6x - and I’d argue it’s one of the greatest works of fiction ever written - and yet I still think the entire Tom Bombadil sequence makes for terrible movie entertainment. Great character, but he doesn’t really play a significant role in the movie except for in the 1st book where he saves the Hobbits. Honestly, I found myself skimming through a lot of sections of his singing. Love the guy. Great character, but a huge distraction from a movie perspective.

[@mauriziocorradi1598]

I agree with you. What let me down, per se, when I first watched the movie and realized Tom Bombadil had been taken out of the plot, was not the fact he wouldn't be there, but because I was genuinely curious to see how they would have adapted that specific character to be part of that movie, without compromising the mood of the narrative... Guess I'll find an answer now, with Amazon's series 😅

[@metashadow3924]

Anyone who writes novels or stories would know all of this. Having read the books, like many have, it always baffled me as to why people were so upset over Tom not being in the movies. He provided nothing to progress the narrative, and your points here were well said. Just watched The Fellowship of the RIng again in theaters last weekend, and it's so damn good. Having Tom in there would be such a huge distraction and take away from the story in the movie adaptation.

[@MrLefrog1]

There's always side trips in movies. It's like you've never seen one before.

[@GrimmWarrior19]

I always viewed Tom as something like a karmatic aspect or even an echo of Eru Iluvatar's One Chord on Arda, Tom's presence is something akin to beings like Ungoliant or the nameless things tied directly to creation and is there as proof of Eru's will done. It's not a matter of belonging or being included, he is there whether shown or not by Jackson. Just a man and not a man at the same time, plot armor incarnate.

[@Lin10uson]

I love what you've said here. I love that he's included in the series!

[@darrylldoucette6895]

I always had a vague notion of the Hobbits, during those early chapters, being quite innocent and very much childlike, requiring a certain amount of special protection by the likes of Tom before passing from a mystical, dreamy, fairy veil existence into the more complex affairs of Elves and Men. In the films, however, the hobbits begin the tale with a more anchored, sophisticated outlook on the world and reality itself. They are more like teens eager to grow into the challenges presented by the wider world. This places their story arcs on a more streamlined (albeit less magical) track which works well for the films. They no longer require side quests or special council to prepare for entry into the wider world. They already have one hairy foot firmly planted in reality.

[@jrpipik]

I've never heard anyone I know complain about missing Tom. Even Tolkien called it an adventure by the way.

[@Kirschhoch]

Your comment is funny to me, since my brother was furios about it. 😂

[@ulfberht4431]

Oh you poor soul. You must be living under a deep rock because I’ve heard people complaining about the exclusion of Tom for decades! All I hear is Tom this and Tom that at least once a year from the Tolkienites who hate everything except the books.

[@jrpipik]

​@@ulfberht4431 On the contrary, I'm most fortunate to know many Tolkien fans who are smart enough to know that you can't put an "adventure by the way" in a two hour movie. I have many problems with the movies, but the lack of Tom isn't one of them.

[@MatthewTheWanderer]

@@ulfberht4431 That sounds horrible! Tom Bombadil is the Jar-Jar Binks of LotR! What is WRONG with those people!?

[@ulfberht4431]

@@MatthewTheWanderer Yeah, Tolkien book fans are some of the most obnoxious arrogant people I’ve ever met, to the point they are borderline bullies.

[@evuilliomenet]

To me, Tom Bombadil represents a person having achieved complete, pure peace of mind. Not another person's thought or actions, including an invoice or threat of life, would shake that person. Not even the thought of death would. That's absolute power, and Tom has it! In DnD terms, it's pure True Neutral character, without the desire to disrupt any wind of change, good or bad.

[@GM_Joe]

I actually agree wtih leaving out Tom was the right decision, but I will never forgive leaving out The Scouring of the Shire

[@jimslancio]

Tom Bombadil is an episodic story like those in The Hobbit. Tolkien's thinking, at this early point in the story, had not yet evolved from bedtime stories to epic fantasy.

[@morganbartfield5457]

tom bombadil (and Goldberry) were there to be a contrast, a beam of light from the times long before the darkness of sauron. they were a window of hope. imo they are essential amongst others to remind middle earth what they are fighting for. for that reason he should never have been left out. he was left out because his character was 'uncool' and not in keeping with the dark tinted movies. which proves to me that directors don't always understand the books they adapt to film. I didn't really like the portrayal of Beorn in the hobbit movies, but at least he was left in.

[@SSDsmiley]

My only issue with removing the Tom Bombadil portion of the story was that Peter Jackson never gave an alternative reason for Marry being able to strip the Witch King of his immortality.

[@iohanngarcia]

In the game Battle for Middle Earth 2 (2006) you can summon Bombadil as a special hero from the good side. It was absolutely bonkers to watch him fight hoards and hoards of orcs and goblins just by singing and hop/skipping. His actions all did AoE damage like Sauron's weapon swings! I always wished such a scenario existed in the books/films, but he would just be too overpowered lol

[@DusanPavlicek78]

As a side note: seeing these well known scenes from LotR with that different, nostalgic sounding background music (makes me think of the Silent Hill games), plus the desaturated filter gives them a very different feel. Very interesting!

[@deeterful]

I completely agree with you and your reasonings as that was the conclusion I had come to.

[@JobiWan144]

Idk how true it is to the original lore from Tolkien, but the video game Lord of the Rings Online made the wights of the Barrow-Downs servants of the Witch-King of Angmar: he raised them up to be serious impediments to the Ring-bearer and to spread darkness and evil in Bree-land.

[@professorbugbear]

I would have loved to see Bombadil, but i completely understand why he was omitted.

[@thorburnjschwegler]

Is this in the book what book is this from

[@gheckolock81]

I always thought Tom represented the Author and Goldberry the feeling of the story and the Barrow, the author’s mind. I imagine that every time Tolkien sat to write, he went through this mystical land to release the characters from the worldly concerns of his own mind and allow them to continue their quest.

[@nichobee]

Adding in Bombadil isn't technically impossible, but it is technically impossible with Amazon

[@MelodicTurtleMetal]

Not at all. Tom would be a cowardly little man, heavily corrupted by the ring, but his strong black wife will keep him in check - herself unaffected by the ring. She would then instruct him to escort them to the edge of her lands.

[@robertkaroly1718]

I am very glad they left that part out of the movie. I literally threw the book into the corner at that part to never open it again. I intended to read it, as it's a fundemantal piece of fantasy, but that Bombadil part totally ruined it for me.

[@AtomicArcherGuy]

The problem with removing Tom Bombadil from this film is that the implied promise of the film trailers was to faithfully reproduce the narratives in the books as a live-action trilogy without any compromises or constraints. I liked the movies. I wish they included Tom. But in life, you get what you get, and you can decide whether or not you’re happy about it, and I think I’m pleased with the films.

[@irishspudlad]

Tbh the new Hunt for Gollum movie should just be unfinished tales, also including things not in the films from the book like hollin and the chapters mentioned in this video. Each story could be 40 minutes long, could be a bit like Pulp Fiction or Buster Scruggs where they merge multiple fairly unconnected stories.

[@ColoradoStreaming]

I still think they should make it like Apocalypse Now where you have this psychological story set against the greater war with Gondor and Mordor. Maybe have accounts or flashbacks of both Aragorn and Gollum showing how they both lived under the influence or the shadow of the ring.

[@haukionkannel]

Yeah. But because they don’t have any rights to those books. They have to invent 95% of that movie by themselves…

[@robinkockovski2413]

Love this, watch the trilogy Every year but never read the books so Im learning so so much from this series, commenting and liking every video to help out and hopefully going all the way through all movies/ books

[@GrowLLLTigeRRR]

Tom should have been included. His presence adds a flavor of mystery to the story. I was sorely disappointed.

[@sunshinecodex4426]

I 100% agree with you! Thank you for explaining this so well.

[@adamschaafsma5839]

It does make sense. I was mad as a kid because Tom was my favorite character and his part was my favorite. I can see now why it would have thrown things off, but I think it also reveals something about us and our culture. We are so business-like about everything, even story telling, elements can’t just be elements that build the world, all things must serve the utility of moving the plot forward, I think this is just another thing I don’t appreciate about Hollywood.

[@otaku-sempai2197]

I'm still a bit surprised and disappointed that Jackson didn't work out a way to include the Wight and the Barrow-downs. He probably would have needed to expand the role of the band of wandering Elves, allowing Gildor Inglorion to replace Tom Bombadil in the story.

[@ColoradoStreaming]

That is a tricky one. Jackson did a great job compressing the events of the flight from the Shire to create tension and it worked really well. I think the barrow downs would have slowed down the pace too much from the black riders hunting them. It would have been cool to see in cinema though.

[@dorbie]

It would have been awesome, Treebeard singing the tree in Fangorn back to sleep after they drank the growth water & were ensnared in the roots in the extended edition of The Two Towers was an interesting homage to Tom that reassured me that Jackson & team would have handled it masterfully. It also needn't have been particularly long, 15 minutes screen time could have covered it.

[@keithtorgersen9664]

For ch. 9's analysis, it's weird that there was not even an attempt to explain where Bill the pony came from or even Sam's fondness of him, before they had him just disappear. With the film version, you have Sam say "Bye Bill", right before the watcher in the water attacks and no concern over what might have happened to him.

[@sursomsatan1225]

Old forest being left out made me sad. Now Sam had to eat Frodo instead of the tree.

[@dklustick]

I love these chapters because they’re such high fairy tale fantasy… the books become more “historical epic style fantasy” as they go on… but this feels very globlin-core and fun. But from a dramatic narrative pov… starting a perilous adventure and then introducing a character that literally voids all weight and importance of the ‘McGuffin’ ring … would cause the story to come to screeching halt, and diminish why frodo alone is the only one that be the ring bearer.

[@gadget133]

Tom Bombadil was the intentional “enigma” as you said. He was never meant to be an understood or known character… “He (just) is”… my own inflection of “just” to give more contemporaneous understanding to what Tolkien was getting at. When the Fellowship of the Ring first came out I was one of those who ruminated about Tom not being in the movie. However, I knew instantly why. It just didn’t drive the plot and there was no throw back to Tom at a latter time that required a plot device to cover his absence. However, having said that, Tom is more than “just” a tonal “enigma” for the book. A way of Tolkien showing that in Middle Earth there are things even the author/narrator does not know. Tom is a reflection that regardless of the machinations of men, elves, dwarves or even the Valari, nature will continue. He is… he will be… you’re of no consequence to his voice… And yes, I agree that Tom Bombadil is actually Tolkien imputing the smallest of small hints to religion in his story. In fact, he does this numerous times through the story. Tolkien never stated that Middle Earth was allegorical in nature of Roman Catholicism, however he most definitely imbued his tails with references to the tenets of Roman Catholicism as well as his lived experiences through WW1. Examples of this were the running themes of Salvation (Boromir), Redemption (Theoden as well as The Men of White Mountain/Dunhurrow), the Prodigal Son(s) (both Merry and Pipen who left the shire lazy, care free children and returned wisened world weary responsible hobbits), hubris and damnation (Saruman and Grima) and even The Big Evil (no, not The Undertaker from WWE) Sauron. And it is with Sauron that the real importance of Tom Bombadil (in the novelisation) comes in. Although Tolkien never quantifies Tom Bombadil, he has embedded a very direct message of Catholicism… Regardless of whether you choose to act good or evil or somewhere in between, He Is… He will be… Your choice…

[@maxxramas5770]

The chapters of bombadil is very important as the only reason Merry was able to make the Witch King vulnerable was due to his Barrow Blade. A relic of Numenor. The magic within the blade was needed. Their blades were not just random daggers from Aragorn.

[@haukionkannel]

Nothing wrong in Aragorn as a men of the west to give that dagger, so bombadil was not needed.

[@cheifareno4924]

the barrows visit is key to the defeat of the witch king of angmaar

[@MelindaGreen]

I totally agree! Initially I was miffed that Bombadil was left out, but I quickly realized that he didn't advance the plot at all. Jackson and Walsh improved Tolkien's story. No small feat! Now what really pissed me off was having Frodo banish Sam which I think was inexcusable and didn't improve anything. The bond between Frodo and Sam was pure, and this still makes me angry, but on the whole, the LOTR movie trilogy is a masterpiece.

[@greenflagracing7067]

if only JRRT had an acclaimed editor such as yourself to instruct him on how to tell his story.

[@kurtreese7408]

In the most simple context removing Tom and the Scouring of the Shire saved money and time. They’d have to have done a fourth movie

[@esjope]

PJ made the right choice here unlike with Glorfindel and they're taking the hobbits Osgiliath -fumble. I would like to see a long series with no omissions or major changes at all.

[@dklustick]

I guess if you’re a completionist you want that scene in the extended edition. I remember reading the books for the first time excited to get more scenes not in the films. More characters to learn about etc. it’s funny how you meet Tom right at the beginning so it sets expectations high for more unseen turns… then you realize the movies have pretty much everything… but Bombadhil. It’s the one thing that didn’t make the 10hour screen time etc. kinda funny.

[@aestheticalrose4553]

As someone who is a writer… the Tom bits would not have translated well to screen and that’s something that people who are translating books to movies have to keep in mind. When you’re reading a book, if you take a moment to go off on a bit of a side quest, people are far more forgiving than they are when this happens in movies. Movies are expected to be paced a certain way to build excitement and, while books are also expected to do this, the rules can be far more flexible it’s this than films. The Tom chapters would have made the sorry feel like to ground to a halt.

[@jerrybobteasdale]

Bombadil is a movie unto himself. He's a long side-path. It's hard to mention him without devoting long storytelling to him.

[@themunstermen7378]

Bringing Tom could have made great plot progression since in the Barrow Downs Merry receives the sword that was made for fighting the Witch King. It would have been a chance to make the Witch King stronger as a main villian of the story - which he is. (Also there'd be a chance not to mess up the Eowyn vs Witch King scene the way they did)

[@nisselarson3227]

Yeah, it would have been jarring to any audience with a sudden light-hearted musical number in the first movie. Especially, as you say, after hearing about the grave dangers that await them on their travels. :) However, I don't see why the part about waiting many years and planning the trip by fake-moving was omitted. Nor the Saruman vs. The Shire ending.

[@justaguy2365]

They ask who is Tom Bombadil, Goldberry respond with He is. I always read this as a sarcastic response. The way Robert Inglis narrated it

[@Mentallect]

Bombadil was originally just a plot device Tolkien used to add excitement to the Hobbit. Later, fans morphed Tom into potentially by God (Eru). He was not Eru obviously or Gandalf would have given him the ring or asked him to destroy it. He was not a Valar either. Tom was at best a very powerful elf, but the most natural choice was Tom was a powerful Maiar that entered Arda and Middle-earth after Morgoth and before Sauron.

[@Klaital1]

Personally I am perfectly fine with them leaving Tom Bombadil and the whole old forest out as very little actually happened during those chapters, but I however would have very much wanted them to include the Barrow Mounds section as that was one of my favorite parts of the whole book.

[@leehallam9365]

I think in adapting very long books, there have to be cuts, this was an obvious section to cut, the 13 hour BBC version cut it too. The one thing I would say is having nothing between the Ferry and Bree gives the impression that it was an easy journey of no real distance. I think I would have shown some scenes of them traveling through the forest and moors. I might also have put Old Man Willow in while adjusting how they escape (he does appear in Fangorn, so why not have him in his right place. If you put Tom in, then I agree about the tone of the character, but he could be adjusted so that there is less singing.

[@martinwilson8362]

Think it’s obvious if you look past the “making no excuses” caviat. The offense suffered from the effort needed to improve the defense. Not hard to see how that would affect free throws as well. It explains Keegan’s offensive inconsistency as well. I expect the offense to improve next season as they collectively get used to that defensive effort, the only worries being Monk’s status and bringing a key player in who won’t put in the defensive effort.

[@percyblakeney5283]

Cutting him out of the film for time makes sense, although I believed he did serve a narrative purpose in the books. In the books he demonstrates that there are things older and more ancient than even elves, a sort of bridge to the first age. It helps establish that the area around the shire, while quiet, is still an important part of this world. In the movies the shire is just an idyllic home town. I personally wish that bombadill had been worked into the film in some small part, but agree he could not work for a long period of time as he is too out of place and broken.

[@deviandrianto]

i never read Tolkien's books before _Peter Jackson_ made _The Lord of The Rings_ trilogy, so i did not know _Tom Bombadill_ exist.

[@DJJ81]

I feel like if Bombadil had been in the fellowship, they would have had to add him into towers or king and that would have been near impossible without making him a big deal and most likely the one who saves the day, if the original section of the book was accurately depicted in the film. He’d appear to powerful to be dismissed so easily and be a huge plot hole. It would have made it worse than just avoiding him at all.

[@EzekielDeLaCroix]

Imagine spending 50 years watching Frodo do fuck all.

[@jimmurdoch7745]

I recognise that all fans of this epic journey have spent hours and days and weeks, immersed in Middle-Earth,.... Some of us have returned many times,... and it's because we loved the journey,.. The experience was more important than the destination. From various reports, the production company "New Line" were already financially at risk by funding three major releases before they'd seen proof of the revenue from the first film,... This would have driven their desire to remove any scenes which didn't move the plot forward... but it would have been great to have this growth experience of the Hobbits journey in the bigger picture... If Mr. Tolkien took the time to include this scene,.. he must have perceived some strong story value,... or he would have edited it out himself.

[@Shivaxi]

100% agree

[@sinajakelic]

everyone downplays Tom, like JRRT was still developing the story and didnt pass the bedtime storytelling phase before moving onto a larger fantasy adventure. But keep in mind Tom was not invisible when putting on the ring and could see the invisible Frodo. Also JRRT avoided to admit publically anything about Tom. Our boy Bombadil is a mystery for a reason and he is intentionally put in there, and left in there after writing the whole book and reviewing it. Tom is more than you think ;)

[@DitchBankBandits]

I wish they would have had him. He’s the most important character of the whole story.

[@kohlicoide2258]

I have also the feeling doing the Tom Bombadil Chapter right will takes some time, i mean the extended cut already goes over 4 Hour.. bring Tom Bombadil in the movie and some atleast importent stuff like the dreams etc will stretch the movie even longer (maybe 6 Hours etc?) Also imo the "Speed" of the film would feel weird.. from stressfull to more chill to stressfull again and then chill in a very short time.. i mean in the movie after the cross the brandywine river the feeling in the scenes is more calm.. but you feel a treat that is lurking somewhere in the shadows and just wait to attack (what will reach is climax when the Nazguls comes to Bree)

[@TheCreep69]

Tom Bombadil was the reason it took me three tries to get through the Fellowship Of The Ring. I couldn't get through that part, it seemed pointless and ridiculous. Once I got passed that, the trilogy is amazing.

[@simonlinden82]

Good video and of course you are right that excluding Tom from the movie was a good choice. I wouldn’t mind a short film where these chapters were covered though, as a service to the fans. But I reacted to you saying that Tolkien didn’t include his religious beliefs in the trilogy. On the contrary he is known to have said that this is a deeply religious piece of work.

[@thaedleinad]

Tom is like Tolkien's ultimate flex about Arda. It's like Tolkien is stating to us that he is the ultimate god of that world and and thus he doesn't need to make any sense about whatever he creates.

[@vilandar]

Leaving Tom, or more specifically the Barrow downs, out and shoehorning in Aragon having some extra Numenorian daggers on his person i Bree was painful and lazy. And when It came to the two sentances "they have a cave troll" and "an orc throws a spear" getting six minutes of choreography that ends in a troll that can crush solid rock pillars stabbing Frodo that survive because it does not penetrate. It all became unexcusable, he killes the sense that this is just a continuoation of an old conflict with neutral powers on the sidelines. And add useless fight scenes, comedy dwarves and plot armor.

[@triandfit1]

The only plot device that comes from that set of chapters is Merry’s sword which he struck the Witch King with. The idea he did damage like he did was because it was a sword of Westernese that Tom gave them from the barrows, not just some random sword, but the detail is so minute that it really wouldn’t make a big difference to a no book reading person who just goes to see the movie adaptations. I would have loved for the stories omitted to be in, but then you have a bloated movie that will turn away the average fan.

[@Alte.Kameraden]

Issue I think many die heart book or even comic/manga fans is. Just because it's written on paper, does not mean it translates well to film or TV. It's why it's called an adaptation. A film or TV episode has to flow like water, and sadly sometimes many things have to be skipped over, or changed. Sometimes pointless elements of a novelization have to be weeded out, something that cost almost nothing to print in a book but would cost a fortune adding to a film with no narrative value whatsoever. You see this with real life events being portrayed in film/TV as well with Emily Watson's character replacing dozens of other scientist resources and investigators for narrative reasons in the mini series Chernobyl and it was the right decision.

[@danmcconnell5941]

Bombadil is the embodiment of the secret fire, the eternal flame sent to live at the heart of the world. he is not eru per se but close - the fire that gives life to all. That is why he "came first"