Why Removing Tom Bombadil Was The RIGHT Decision...

[@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!

[@Slavic_Goblin]

The actual reason was cause they had problems getting the funding for even just 3 movies... so they trimmed some of the content that was less pertinent to the journey itself. Let's be happywe didn't get the entire thing cramped into 120 minutes. That being said, even if Tolkien didn't intend it, Bombadil adds some nuance and breadth to the setting. It sets a precedent for a fantastical creature that doesn't really get involved in "The Great War" and as such makes the ents being reluctant to join less of a weird moment.

[@dmitritelvanni4068]

Nah 1st movie was boring at times. Couldnhave shortened some parts and expanded that. Idk I get your argument but I disagree. The beginning of the story is pretty important

[@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.

[@spa1ktc]

Back in the day when the movies were announced I was hoping for Robin Williams to be cast as Tom Bombadil.

[@craigbryant9925]

I've never even considered that but it would have been an amazing casting.

[@moseshamlett3887]

Just go watch Hook again :)

[@snickle1980]

Jist a random thought...Robin williams was bOrn to be a hobbit.

[@michaelfritts6249]

​@@snickle1980he would have done well as Tom Bombadil, but he was "born to be" a worthy successor of Jonathan Winters.. Be Well!! 😃

[@plebisMaximus]

@@snickle1980 He could've been a good Bilbo if Ian Holm couldn't play the role for whatever reason.

[@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.

[@roidnerd2501]

​@boskilingenfelter9515 this didn't age well he is in season 2 and it is neither

[@captainflint89]

@@roidnerd2501 poor baby never heard of hyperbole

[@wayausofbounds9255]

Tom Bombadil is a rabbit hole. I think the best explanation is that Tom is there to show there are powers in the universe more than known to hobbits or even Gandalf. That's a level of complexity that would be counterproductive in a movie adaptation.

[@MasterIceyy]

I agree Tom Bombadil would have left the audience with more questions than answers, especially for a character who would only be in one film, it would leave a massive question mark for the audience that would never be paid off or mentioned again

[@edithengel2284]

Exactly.

[@TheColorofQuantum]

Well said. When I read the books, Tom actually made middle earth seem way stranger and deeper, and I never felt like I need to know more about him

[@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.

[@emperorkane317]

@@factorfantasyweekly At the rate you are going, this Lord of the Rings series could easily take a year. I assume you'll do the Hobbit afterwards, that could take another. And once you are done with Tolkien, I can only imagine how long other series like Harry Potter will take.

[@lazerfrogstudios]

@@emperorkane317dude why are you assuming so many things 💀who says he’s doing the hobbit and especially Harry Potter?

[@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.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

It's also worth recognizing that this series was originally 6 books. It's been a while, but I think that Tom Bombadil is part of that first book and does serve as a way of showing how weak and unprepared the hobbits are when compared with the much more powerful beings that inhabit Middle Earth. The section in which Tom is found is actually a pretty substantial chunk of that first book. Leaving him out of the books would have made the 1st one too short and thrown things off. Including him in the movies would have made it too long and thrown the plot off. It's pretty much the norm to cut things out that were in the books when doing an adaptation just because the medium handles multiple threads more easily than movies typically do. That being said, I always assumed that it was essentially cut for time. There's very little actual character arching that goes on during that section and the movies do an effective job of showing us how under prepared the hobbits are and how at the mercy of random events they are in a much more concise way, what with the wraiths and running into Strider when they did.

[@tommihommi1]

​@@SmallSpoonBrigadeIt was always intended as one book, not six.

[@RAFMnBgaming]

@@tommihommi1 1 book, but split into 6 "books" split among 3 volumes, which is how it's formatted.

[@edithengel2284]

@@RAFMnBgaming Yes, not a trilogy.

[@mytruepower2]

Theaters are just a bad format for long-form stories. That's the only real problem. With that limit in place, they didn't do too badly.

[@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

[@FiftyFiverr]

Wow someone 20 years after the fact says they knew what was going to happen all along. It's on the Internet, so they must be telling the truth. Have some pointless, anonymous Internet points.

[@jessicascoullar3737]

I was way more upset that they left out the scouring of the Shire. That was the point when the Hobbits stood on their own with all the lessons they had learned and alone freed their homeland. Very upset they left that out.

[@Mehiel-Sanctoria]

​@@jessicascoullar3737Free from whom? The Shire looked very free to me during the movies.

[@Carolus_B]

I'm surprised that I didn't see any comments pointing out that Frodo's dream in Goldbarry's house was direct foreshadowing of the ending of Return of the King.

[@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.

[@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.

[@dungeonsanddobbers2683]

_Years_ of headaches could have been saved if they had just put the line about why they couldn't just fly the eagles to Mordor in that fucking film.

[@adib3011]

Imagine if Tom was actually illuvitar just prancing about his own creation.

[@rjs3099]

@@dungeonsanddobbers2683 cinemasins and his consequences

[@eddthehead123]

@@adib3011 Actually a possibility. Tom is called "Ben-adar" or "Without a Father". Which is related to Eru Ilúvatar's title 'Father of All'. Which implies that Tom created himself, or he is Eru. The fact that he's constant singing - with The Song being such an important part of the lore - is another bit to this.

[@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.

[@mytruepower2]

It probably would be hard to fit him into a movie that's mostly about something else, but I don't believe there's any character who literally *can't* be depicted well in film, so long as the nature of who they are is respected. I do want to see the character again, but he's not tied as closely to the story as Gildor of the final battle in the shire, and tragically, they took a hatchet to those parts too.

[@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.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

The one issue I had with this analysis is that it ignores that the original series was written and published as 6 books rather than the 3 books that it's more commonly printed as today. That may not seem significant, but those chapters are a much larger portion of a book than it might seem. And, in that format, it does make a lot of sense as it's a way of getting the readers prepared for what's coming and underline just how unprepared and underpowered they really are. The fact that they go through that and don't seem to have really learned much is kind of an important thing to note as Hobbits were pretty well described as not being at all serious about what goes on around them. That being said, while that did make some sense when you're talking about a series of 6 books, a movie, even if it weren't already going to be well over 9 hours , would have cut that out for being too much pipe for basically no benefit. The LOTR writers were able to make the same point during the opening party scene with the fireworks and then the incident once they get to the Prancing Pony and meet Strider. A very short bit of movie that' s incredibly engaging and still communicates the same amount.

[@mytruepower2]

The films are good, but they're clearly their own thing, and as you point out, the mood of the films differs pretty drastically from what's seen in the books. They made the story more grim/dark/serious, and it made it impossible to include certain things that, in the books, serve an important function. Therefore, that function goes un-served in the movies, which is why I still see the first film as the weakest. At least in the second and third books, they were actually in the middle of a war, so the same overall purposes are served by the story elements, but that wasn't the point of book 1.

[@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!

[@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?

[@Damien616]

@@MarkFilipAnthony He'll think of it one day, when you're as old an an elf.

[@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.

[@Dazza_Doo]

Tom is too powerful, the ring has no power over him. Imagine having someone more powerful then all the wizards in middle earth, and he says he can't keep the ring with him, even thought it would of been the safest place on Middle Earth, buy hey, Story time I guess. :D

[@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.

[@lupolinar]

No, including Tom would've kicked the story on their arse, as the movie goer would ask "why is this uncarring superbeing not helping them on their qeuest?". it'ld overshadow the story as a whole, like it does with the book. I always found the parts with Tom odd and out of place.

[@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.

[@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.

[@davddd81]

Adding Tom or Glorfindel into the movie would've also forced many viewers "out of the movie". "Why isn't this powerful badass who has nothing going on not coming along" would be a terrible question for the viewer to be thinking during the movie. Once taken out of the movie, other questions will start popping up in the viewer's mind. And if this happens, you'd better hope your story is so ironclad that there are no questions and that the viewer can fall back into the movie. This is exactly what Disney Star Wars failed at. Too many "I don't know about this" moments and too many viewers were taken out of what are masterpieces of film if you "don't think about it" and stay immersed in the film.

[@erdelegy]

@@davddd81 Goldberry?

[@erdelegy]

I write (hobby), and I've been thinking a lot about typical "story beats" building excitement, etc. as you say. I'm also religious (in an open-minded way), and have been thinking a lot about the spiritual ills of adrenaline addiction, etc. In our modern world, as life speeds up, and attention-spans and videos get shorter and shorter, and fewer people even read books anymore, Bombadil serves such an important function in the book: to pause for joy, and see this "Quest by the good guys against the bad guys" as a worldly, artificial game, a manufactured dilemma that is not the whole world and all of existence. There is a Greater Mystery. And as the computer learned in the 1980s movie "War Games" : "Strange games; the only winning move is not to play." Jesus taught a similar message when he spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven not being on this physical world. And yes, as you say correctly, this all-important theme of the Catholic Tolkien, does not, in fact, fit into a modern "action movie for teenagers" --- as Christopher Tolkien described Peter Jackson's movies. I'll stick to the books, and the Fellowship of the Ring at that, and I'll focus in on Bombadil Land --- because that's Heaven. Tom Bombadil is "in the world, but not of it". He is not playing the games of mortals. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like I'm on to something...imprecisely, of course : )

[@erdelegy]

Oh, and that concept of "the only winning move is not to play"? that's called an "anti-game". There's also a concept called "anti-story", and I think that's what Tolkien is doing by putting in Bombadil and his lands there. Tolkien has said that the "story" just kind of emerged as an afterthought almost, a sort of framework into which to put all this language and song and lore that had been his first love and endeavour. In other words, Bombadil and his land really is the core, the primary Tolkien "heart & soul", if you will, and all the rest, the "story" and "game" and "quest", as it were, is just a sort of "necessary evil" in a way. This might be going too far, but it's how I'm seeing things these days, after five decades of trying hard really NOT to play the game of worldly life...

[@davddd81]

@@erdelegy No. Glorfindel. Glorfindel is a Elf Lord who killed a Balrog. Imagine how many problems on the road to Mordor get solved by having an extra badass warrior on your team instead of Pippin. The Cave Troll that almost killed Frodo for example. This can be explained in a book. Doing so in a movie will make the movie boring.

[@ratboygenius]

The Peter Jackson movies are great cinema, not a documentary of the text. Leaving out Tom Bombadil was a genius move for making a better movie. And also, it rewards the readers of the book for knowing about it.

[@macrosense]

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

[@jawstrock2215]

I disagree, more like save them from their own .. stupidity? obliviousness? carelessness? They were ill-prepared for sure, but I'm not convinced they learned much from the endeavor at that point.

[@lomelyo]

Integral? Wrong. Its nothing that couldn't have been achieved everywhere else.

[@edithengel2284]

I agree. Their experience from their entry into the Old Forest to their departure from Bombadil's country is the beginning of an education for them in the larger history of Middle Earth, especially the history of Arnor. Even Frodo, who has the best intellectual understanding of the part they may be playing, had only just begun to understand the dangers of the world outside the Shire. I don't think this part of Fellowship belonged in the movie, but it is an important part of the books.

[@plebisMaximus]

Which I don't think was even necessary. The hobbits in the books are very much mature, grown men. Sam being the only one suspecting foul play with Old Man Willow was really weird considering the very chapter prior was all about how Merry, Pippin, Sam and Fredegar all saw right through Frodo and even Bilbo, despite active efforts to conceal the truth. They didn't seem like naive kids who would've fallen for either the sleepiness or rested on the cold rocks at the Barrowdowns. If anything, Tom would've fit more in the movies where they absolutely are portrayed as naive kids way out of their depth. They evaded the Black Riders for days, I don't think it was necessary to make them dumb for 3 chapters just so they could be made smart again.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@themurmeli88]

I rarely say this but, this is the most underrated comment that I've seen in a while.

[@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

[@tanikokishimoto1604]

And it would NOT fit into his character.

[@tanikokishimoto1604]

Glad I never saw that game to play it.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@aai2962]

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]

@@aai2962 The movies actually nerfed Frodo, especially in The Fellowship of the Ring.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

@@samkornrumph8545 That was always going to happen. The original source material had a lot of important action being split amongst multiple groups and you couldn't easily cut those ones down to help Frodo retain the same semblance of power that he does in the books. They were able to do a surprisingly good job of avoiding cutting important things in order to get the thing to fit into a 3 movie format.

[@samkornrumph8545]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade I get that. I’m just saying that there were things in the movies that fundamentally changed his character and made him far weaker than his book counterpart. This is why I think a TV/miniseries format would would work much better for book adaptations, because the format allows the writers to include as much of the source material as possible without losing the viewer’s interest.

[@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.

[@RAFMnBgaming]

moving between genres are just as much a translation of media languages as moving between two speaky languages would be.

[@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.

[@howardhoman8233]

Oh no, the real missing part was the Ruin of Bree and the mess Grima and Saruman ( with his voice ) made of the shire by the time the Hobbits returned there. In other words...the heroes returning from war realized that even their small homes were eventually not kept from the taint of darkness and had in fact changed in unpleasant ways. The restoration provides realistic aspects of timing and passing of "leadership" in Hobbiton from the ring bearers to the "others" who would stay and to show how differently the toll was taken on the bearers once the ring was undone ...causing them to seek the departure at the Grey Havens.

[@theeddorian]

The trouble with excluding Tom Bombadil is that it also excludes the Barrow Downs and the acquisition of the magical weapons that Pippin and Merry carry, and in fact Merry's attack on the lord of Ring wraiths in the Battle of the Pelinor requires a different story line. The ancient artificers that crafted those weapons lose the recognition that Gandalf offers in the book as they collect Merry and Eowyn following the battle. Jackson tries to substitute the events of the Barrow Downs by altering Galadriel's gifts to the Hobbits. It's understandable in a fashion, BUT, Tolkien retained Bombadil regardless of the trouble he posed to the mythos Tolkien created. So, it can be taken as a given that regardless of the puzzle Bombadil and Goldberry presents, that Tolkien considered them essential to the story.

[@Vault-vh5jm]

In response to a letter, Tolkien described Tom in The Lord of the Rings as "just an invention" and "not an important person - to the narrative", even if "he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function." Specifically, Tolkien connected Tom in the letter to a renunciation of control, "a delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself," "Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry". (from Wikipedia)

[@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

[@Serbobiv123]

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

[@Noone-of-your-Business]

And it is precisely this reason that makes him break the flow of the narration and the established style.

[@kevincrady2831]

I'm glad he was omitted. The way he played with the Ring, showing off the fact that it wasn't a threat to him and dealing with it would have been trivial for him, then handed it back to the puny mortals to continue to suffer and die over it pissed me off. "I'm alright Jack. I got my super-hot wife, my songs and my pretty forest snow-globe to live in, so what do I care if your whole world gets destroyed? Not my problem."

[@7zobzombie]

Thank God someone said it dude was a jerk

[@tylerthegrimm]

He is your archetype boomer hippie

[@erdelegy]

My Dad, a boomer hippie, used to ask, ironically, "What if there was a war, and nobody showed up?" Does everyone have to "play the game" and seek victory in the material world? WHY did the Ring of Power have no power over Bombadil? Bombadil just wasn't a worldly power guy. What if Sauron wasn't either? What if nobody was? What if nobody showed up to the War of the Ring? THAT's the point of Bombadil in this whole big Story of a whole big Quest in a whole big Game between Good and Bad.

[@erdelegy]

@@tylerthegrimm Oh, and the irony is that my Dad never read the books but he loved the Lord of the Rings movies, which cut Bombadil, and were just "action movies for teenagers" according to Christopher Tolkien!

[@kevincrady2831]

@@erdelegy Your boomer hippie dad had the luxury of a war he had to "show up" for, but wouldn't "show up" on his doorstep. If he had been Vietnamese, with bombs raining down around him, the Bombadil archetype would have made a lot less sense. Also, nobody said Bombadil had an obligation to fight in the war. But if he had dealt with the _Ring_ (which he made look easy), maybe nobody else would have had to show up for the war either.

[@GM_Joe]

The only really important thing that happend in Tom section to the plot was Merry and Pippin getting their enchanted swords, and that played a part in the battle with the Witch King....but that isn't that big a plot point.

[@johnmooers5594]

In the film Aragorn gives these to the hobbits at weathertop. Pippin and merry lose theirs when captured. Merry gets a new weapon from Eowyn. Not a plot point in the films really

[@GM_Joe]

@@johnmooers5594 oh I agree, it was an easily reworked point. I was saying that the swords were the only thing in those 4 chapters that is relevant to the greater plot of the books, and frankly most people miss it.

[@howardhoman8233]

In the book these chapters were a taste of power beyond wizards. Call Tom a druid if you like. They also help explain time sychronizations between the departure, Strider being prepared, escaping the riders and Sauron's gaze early on ( before Bree) , and the timing of Gandalf torture and lateness to the meeting at Bree. The Hobbits lost an entire season almost while they were with Tom.

[@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.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

That was never going to happen and including that would have just broken the movie. The extended version was nearly 11 hours and the sections of the book that involved Tom would have taken the better part of an hour. That would have required breaking the trilogy into 4 movies and required moving around the plot points a bit to accommodate it. There's always going to be compromises and constraints when adapting a book into a movie. You may wish that they had, I'm guessing that if you actually had to deal with the consequences that you'd be wishing they wouldn't have. The Hobbit was incredibly boring in large part because they included too much stuff that stopped the plot and destroyed the momentum. They didn't do that with LOTR and there really aren't any points where the plot starts to drag or wear thing. By the time that dangers starts to close in on the audience, we're whisked away to something else. It reminds me of some of the older editions of the LOTR where there's an excessive time spent talking about the provisions that they were going to take which was left out of more recent editions.

[@tanikokishimoto1604]

There's no way a movie can be built from just about any good book without compromise. Yes, there are things PJ changed that I disagree with, but most did not affect the tale.

[@chedsalvia6270]

Tom basically has the middle earth cheat codes in his pocket

[@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.

[@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.

[@egoncasteel]

It would have been a good nod to keep the 'give the ring to Bombadill?' question in the discussion in somewhere in Riverdale.

[@killerpankakes]

I thought I remembered hearing, or reading, something about Bombadil being almost a Melchizedekian character. In the bible, Melchizedek is a little bit of a mystery. The theory I read was that maybe, among other reasons for Bombadil being a character, he was almost a subconscious cameo of the character of Melchizedek. The only reason that that theory is compelling in any way to me is that, even though Tolkien didn't intend to write in christian beliefs into middle earth, its really really difficult for me to not see certain aspects of Christ in Gandalf, frodo and Aragorn. So maybe the same thing happened with bombadil? Either way, I would have liked to see him in the movies somehow. But the pacing would have certainly not been as smooth

[@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.

[@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.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

His inclusion in the books was fine, although there should have been more plot advancement and character arcing going on in that section of the book. His inclusion in the movies would have been a grave mistake as it kills the plot early on and doesn't pay off.

[@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.

[@factorfantasyweekly]

I definitely should’ve mentioned the swords that Tom gives the Hobbits after rescuing them (my bad), but it will come up in a future episode for sure! That being said, I think it is such a small detail that is easily fixed. It’s not like it’s a massive plot hole in the films. Having to include like 2 extra hours of movie just for that detail doesn’t seem like a good move for an adaptation.

[@keithtorgersen9664]

You know, that brings up a fairly big plot hole. In the ROTK film, Merry received a sword which he then used on the witch king. But normal swords have no power on him; so there would have to be an explanation in the film. As for Eowyn, it was just simply that she was fated to kill him, regardless of what kind of sword she had.

[@roquetinsixtysix]

I was going to say that the barrows were where the hobbits acquired magical blades. Excluding the scene does leave a plot hole but one that could easily have been remedied in other ways. (Perhaps the weapons were given as gifts in Rivendell?) Otherwise, as interesting as Tom Bombadil is, the entire sequence in the books are a distraction from the main plot and would surely bog down the pacing of a film were it included.

[@scottapache5041]

I agree with you. To do it right, it would have added another hour to already long film. I'm the book Tom was of the best characters. I understood immediately why he wasn't in the movie when I saw it.

[@teloce]

I was also noticing the lack of mention of the blades. It is a very nice detail in the books and makes it so epic. It is a chance so tiny, that those artifacts also traveled this long distance to fullfill their purpose. Tolkien often lifted the things, which where regarded unrelevant and/or cast away by all other people. So in my opinion, they are very important and it is a pity, that Jackson never mentioned anyhow their origin, but making the whole plot 1-2h long for such a detail is not good and would feel stretched. I definitely agree that omitting Tom was the right decision of Jackson.

[@СтадникОксана-ю6ф]

If I remember correctly, in the movie these swords were given to hobbits by Aragorn before the first battle with nazguls. He didn't specify what he is giving, but I think I've met somewhere that those daggers were it.

[@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.

[@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

[@neilg6675]

The scouring of the shire is the only part that i felt should have been included that wasnt. Bombadil and the wight would have made the start of the movie confusing and given the ring wraiths entrance less menace

[@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.

[@youtubecrack]

Yeah the books are great and all but after reading them like six times there's parts I skip past and that's one of them.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

You might try reading the books as they were intended, as a set of 6 rather than 3. It definitely makes the whole process a lot more pleasant and even during a few bits like that, you know you're not that far away from being onto the next book.

[@almightyme2188]

glad im not alone, endured till bree but then burnt out because the whole shire to bree (that i loved in movies and loved to meet bombadil that i know about from other media) was dragging and boring at times.. enjoyed bombadils appearence and thats all .. im convincing myself to give them another chance for years now rofl, but im always like "first i have to finish extended 2 and 3 of movies"

[@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.

[@factorfantasyweekly]

Who's watching this after Rings of Power? 🤚

[@PictureThisNewMedia]

😅

[@Wanderer_Rogue]

Gimli: "We could go through the Mines of Moria. My cousin Balin would give us a royal welcome. I hear he's having a Rings of Power watch party." Gandalf: "No Gimli. I would not go through Moria or watch The Rings of Power unless I had no other choice."

[@mystic_disciple]

Nobody is!

[@philochristos]

At least one of his lines made the movie except that Tree Beard delivered it.

[@AlanHollowedPhotography]

Unpopular opinion maybe but aside from my first readthrough, i always skip the old forest, tom bombadil and barrow downs chapters in the book. I alway felt they never added anything and took away from the story (sauron's ring not affecting Tom at all, the happy/almost childish tone of his chapters contrasting with the more serious and dark tones of the rest of the book).

[@aahz42]

Tolkien lore once told me (not sure of the veracity): Tom Bombadill was one of the early stories of Tolkien he'd tell his kids. Tom was a doll his little child accidentally flushed down the toilet. To ameliorate his child, he crafted the story of Tom dancing with the water spirit. It was such a good little rhyme he then crafted it into the Middle Earth lore, as a spirit more ancient and powerful than Sauron...

[@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.

[@justins1917]

Having never read the books, I thought the movies were AMAZING. Props to Peter Jackson for creating such amazing movies.

[@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…

[@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.

[@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.

[@LetsTalkAboutPrepping]

You say that people who wan tom in the film, want it cause itd be "epic" but ive never heard anyone say that. Its that he is deeply loved by fans, and we wish ww got a portrayal on par with the rest of the movies. They should've filmed it for an extended extended edition

[@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.

[@seamasmacliam1898]

Tolkien did not say that there was NO religious influence on the book. He actually called it a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work" in one of his Letters. Of course the book is deeply permeated with Tolkien's beliefs and experiences--everything he held dear. The reader is free to derive religious meaning from the text--to let it "speak to him" or whatever, but what Tolkien did deny, and strongly so, was that there was any allegorical significance to the text. So, for example, some people said that Sauron was supposed to be Hitler. While Tolkien admitted that what he knew and experienced about the world certainly influenced his work, no one place/event/character in the book is supposed to be seen as portraying any one place/event/character in the real world. I hope that makes sense. Great video and series.

[@Webhead123]

I understand why the decision was made to exclude Bombadil, the Barrow Downs and most of the events in those early chapters. It was mostly in the interest of saving time and simplifying the story. Also, to keep a more consistent tone. I do still regret that Tom was cut entirely though, as he represents multiple ideas and themes at the heart of the story, not the least of which being an early spark of hope for the Hobbits. To know that, powerful and wicked as Sauron and The Ring were, they were not unconquerable or without limit. That the Ring's true power was the result of the temptations of its bearer and that an unselfish, stout heart was the only weapon that could truly defeat it.

[@cptairwolf]

I sorta wish Amazon had left him out as well cause they didnt respect the source material enough to make him work.

[@squint101]

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

[@JSeedProductions]

No, it was just handed to him by Aragorn on Weathertop

[@MarkoBotsaris]

Yeah, and that was a nice way to give at least a fan service nod to the books since the blade was made by Aragorn’s ancestors. But the blade had no such power in the film - it was just a knife. A lot of people also seem to forget that its so-called power in the book comes only from one sentence, far removed from the barrow downs, and at least as I read it there is an ambiguity as to whether it has any real “magical” power. I’ve always felt its main magical power was Irony - the knife was made by the witch king’s long ago defeated enemy. At any rate in both the book and movie its main power was only to make the lord of the Nazgûl say “ouch”. The sword that actually kills him is just an ordinary sword, albeit one with a “fate buff”. Not to mention that when Frodo stabs him on Weathertop with one of that blades twins it barely gets the big guy’s attention. So apparently these blades are, like some dwarf made keys, only magical if used at the right place and time. 😂

[@mrurquhart9138]

@@JSeedProductions No. In the movie, the blade Merry uses to stab the Witch King is the one that Galadriel gives to him as a parting gift when the fellowship sets out from Lothlórien.

[@davidbeer5015]

@mrurquhart9138 I was under the impression that it was the Rohan sword? He gets the Westernesse dagger from Aragorn, ditches it for Galadriel’s gift, but then they’re captured and Gimli points out their belts among the dead Uruk-hai. The only blade we see him carry prior to Pelennor Fields that I recall is the sword his gets in Rohan.

[@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!

[@94462]

As much as I love the Peter jackson adaptation of lord of the rings, they should have had Tom bombadil as a deleted scene or a extended extended cut

[@TK-ll7su]

you dont direct something with the intention to cut it.

[@94462]

@@TK-ll7su it would have been extra content that they would intend the public to see, if Lord of the ring took off which it obviously did etc

[@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.

[@Sycokay]

I first saw the movies and then read the books. And when I came across Tom Bombadil, I thought "what a stupid character". He felt like at this point of writing Tolkien wasn't sure if this would be another book for children.

[@fakiirification]

my thoughts exactly.

[@Wanderer_Rogue]

I agree with almost everything you said in the video with a couple minor exceptions. The Barrow Wights _were_ connected to Sauron. They were spirits sent by the Witch King to possess the bones of the lords and Kings of the Dúnedain, who died and were buried in the Barrow Downs long ago. Regardless, your point still stands that details like these do less to move the main story along at a faster pace. Also, Tom would fit well into the movies; *just not for the average moviegoer* . Those like me who have read the books multiple times and love delving into and theorizing about the vast and intricate lore created by Tolkien would have loved 6 movies with as much included from the books as possible.

[@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.

[@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.

[@furbs9999]

I skip most of it in the book, too. He's annoying, and it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the book.

[@OhhJim]

Bombadil’s only purpose is to rescue the hobbits (twice). Other than that, he makes no sense; his whole world is about to be shattered, and he just doesn’t care. And Tolkien can’t have him care; the story is about hobbits overcoming great dangers, not them having a superbuddy to help out.

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

The major flaw with removing this story, is the swords tue Hobbits got are anti undead swords, which is the only reason they were able to kill the Witch King of Agmar. Plus it was a brief moment of peace and recouping after what they were going through. Like a pit stop to rejuvenate the Hobbits

[@ulfberht4431]

In a 2hr 30min movie, that info is largely left ambiguous and for good reason. Also, if the hobbit swords are the “only reason they were able to kill the Witch King” then how did Eowyn kill the Witch King too? So already your reason for wanting it back is two fold a plot hole. Also, I get that that part of the story was a bit of a rest stop for the story to calm the adventure down, but we already have something of that sort in the Fellowship of the Ring movie, do we not? Rivendell felt like the ultimate rest stop after being hunted down by the Nazgûl. Having two would drag out the story.

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

@ulfberht4431 you haven't read the books have you ? It's all good. So when Merry stabbed the Witch king the sword, it basically broke the undead spell over him, making him mortal, allowing Eowyn to finish him off with a lethal blow. Without out that sword hit from Merry, the Witch King could have fought indefinitely, even after the entire army was defeated, nothing they had would have killed him. It could have been a 10-15 minute extra scene, no need to go into detail or take for ever with it. And it was kinda essential to the plot.

[@thisguytucko]

@@CountryLifestyle2023 They could have even made it a 2 minute dialog, since aragorn gave them the swords in the movies and he could have mentioned the swords' powers.

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

@@thisguytucko exactly, something like "I found these in the Barrow downs, they are ancient eleven swords imbued to fight undead" done.

[@matheusbee3441]

​@@CountryLifestyle2023that is not how Tolkien fantasy works, no spell or power is set into stone, and the majority of magic in the world is subtle and almost invisible. The prophecy said that no man could kill the Witch-King because his death was foreseen. The sword Merry used did not break any spell, but rather would strike directly thru the veil, just like when Frodo gets stabbed by the Morghul blade from the Nazgul. Nonetheless, Tolkien world is written in such a way that there is some sort of destiny, but not even this destiny is set to stone because just like the magical aspect, it's subtle and always in motion. If you read how the Witch-King came to an end, you see how this subtle magical and unseen world acts, for when the Witch-King descends, darkness seems to follow on his wake and that is described thru Peppin view and as soon as Éowyn reveals her identity, the Witch-King was taken by doubt, then the fight starts and the sun shines upon Éowyn. As you can see, it is all very subtle, mystical and mysterious, and that is how magic defacto works in Tolkiens World. We came to call that soft magic, for it's fluid and doens't follow well defined rules.

[@ScreamingIntoTheOvoid]

I would loved a limited series about the secondary characters in those world. Just realty get into the texture of it.

[@JohnnyNakatomi]

Turning the Lord of the Rings Books into bad Hollywood action movies is never a good idea. !

[@mattmmilli8287]

okay sure 😂

[@ChristianFrates1997]

The extended editions are more close to the books.

[@blurry67]

Old Man Willow appears in the film in the Two Towers, when Merry and Pippin run into the Old Forest to escape from the orcs. In the film is Treebeard the Ent that saves them.

[@DrHackmoff]

I agree completely

[@robertdemon3550]

I read the LOTR trilogy in the early 90’s and completely forgot about Tom Bombadill until now, I remember when I first seen The Fellowship of the Ring and Tom not being in it and thinking it was from another story that I read. Thanks this was great.

[@disgruntledtoons]

The role of Tom Bombadil in the narrative is to show that the world within which the main characters move is larger and older than what the reader sees. There's no need for this in the movies.

[@MatthewTheWanderer]

There's no need for that in the books, either!

[@teijaflink2226]

I can kind of see the point of the character in the books but I still always skip that part when I read the books, I just find him boring and unnessesary to the plot. To me the Tom Bombadip part is just there to show that the journey will be very long and that it starts slightly lighter and then gets darker and darker.

[@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.

[@funkydozer]

I think the whole willow / bombadil / barrows saga was a hallucination caused by eating the mushrooms after escaping farmer maggot.

[@thomashenderson3901]

I cried a small tear when Tom was introduced on Rings of Power! I was so so happy to see him. I think Peter Jackson did a decent job of condensing the plot into something more digestible in film format, otherwise it would have seemed too complicated and I think Tom's presence would have taken the sting out of the threatening feel of Mordor and the films developments. What he should have done is include him at the end, scouring of the shire...but then again he would have had little context. Either way, very pleased to see Tom on RoP. Very.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

Totally agree. ... with a few remarks, if I may...? Bombadil shouldn't have been included in the book/s, either. He's a total waste of time and effort on the reader's part in that his presence serves no purpose. He hinders, rather than advances, the plot. He doesn't have a character that matters, nor do any of his actions develop the characters of any of the protagonists. He makes no remark or observation that deepens understanding of anyone or anything. He develops no pertinent theme: nothing to do with struggle, self-sacrifice, loss, hope, ambition, pride, grace. And why? Because he, while benign, is preferentially disengaged from the struggles faced by the Free Peoples.

[@Tadicuslegion78]

From an adaptive POV when you need to tell this story to people who've never read the book or know anything about Tolkien, imagine being told for the first 30 minutes or so that this ring is the most evil thing on the planet and that Frodo needs to get out of the Shire only to then take a 20 minute detour with a singing, dancing, forest hobo who treats the ring like a big joke then once Frodo is back onto the plot, the ring is the most evil thing again. Plus I liked the little homages to Tom they did in the extended edition with Merry and Pippin getting caught by that tree in Fangorn and Treebeard saying Tom's words.

[@SwayNoir]

I just don't understand how anyone cannot grasp this concept. You are showing the movie/story to a casual audience. The ring is its own character, being a ring-bearer is meant to be an insanely difficult task. To introduce an individual who is completely unaffected by the ring just dampens the ring's presence/power so much. Gandalf didn't even want to take the ring. Elrond refused to have it stay in Rivendell. Its 100% wise of PJ to leave it out

[@PedanticTwit]

Tom Bombadil is one of the main reasons it took me multiple attempts to get through Fellowship. The sheer, pointless, self-indulgent boredom of it was simply too much. Amputating that gangrenous limb from the narrative was absolutely the right choice.

[@professorbugbear]

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

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

When I heard Peter Jackson was going to adapt LOTR to the screen I wished desperately that I had a way contact him and beg him, "Please pleas please do NOT include Tom Bombadil! I was so happy when I found out e didn't. Regardless of JRRT's intention for including him, I thought he was just a dumb, superfluous character. Maybe he was good for the lore, but from a storytelling perspective, he ground it to a screeching halt. Then spent many pages dancing and singing those ridiculous songs. I also thought, why is Goldberry even partnered with this dweeb? How can she stand him? This ain't trolling, by the way. I really felt that way.

[@corbinhazelwood974]

Tom Bombadil was interesting and fun to analyze from a literary perspective, his singing was annoying and would of thrown off the pace of the already long movie. I like the character, but glad he’s only in the books. He wouldn’t really fit in with the movie, and it would have made the movie way too long. It also leaves an extra layer for readers to discover after already knowing the story from the movie perspective.

[@trengilly01]

You just know Amazon will do BOTH! Sacrifice the Story & Character! 🤣

[@Valkanna.Nublet]

While I would've loved to see Tom in the films I agree that it was a good decision to skip him. It would've added a good 30 minutes to the film and added very little to the plot. However, the should've still included them getting wight blades as that is important to the plot, specifically the death of the Witch King. The film had Aragorn just randomly having blades to give to the hobbits, it would've been good to see a quick scene to show him getting them from the wights.

[@ronwilson9815]

Tom Bombadil was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but by excluding him and the old forest they also excluded the events on the Barrow Downs. Why does this matter? Because the back story of the blade that Merry used to kill the Witch King of Angmar was lost. It wasn't just any old blade as depicted in the film; but an ancient magical blade created specifically to be effective against ring wraiths and their allies. Jackson really should have found a way to include that back story.

[@trengilly01]

Having a super special magic weapon (that Merry just finds/is given) cause the downfall of the Witch King of Angmar cheapens the story and detracts from the heroism of Merry and Eowyn. Peter Jackson made the right decision for the movie . . . and I would argue that Tolkien should have handled it better in the books.

[@ronwilson9815]

@@trengilly01 IMO Tolkien handled it much better than you give him credit for. The poetic link between a people exterminated by the Witch King of Angmar gaining a sort of vengeance on their exterminator, through the hands of a hobbit wielding a blade they forged to fight their mortal enemy. The killing blow being delivered to Angmar's 'Achilles' heel also resonates to me. Nothing that explaining the history and pathos of the blade could possibly detract from the heroism of Meriadoc and Eowyn. Neither could have expected that they would succeed, but they were both willing to die trying.

[@Requiemslove]

​@@trengilly01 Sorry, but that's absolute garbage because Merry still needs to work up the COURAGE to strike a much more deadly foe. In the film we are supposed to believe right that some regular old dagger with no special properties, "hobbled" one of the world of Arda's GRAVEST threats enough for Eowyn to plunge HER seemingly bog standard blade into the witch Kings face. In the book, both Eowyn and Merriadoc have a "storied" weapon of some description or other. In the film both weapons are portrayed as run of the mill tools. Which ultimately detracts from the enormity of slaying a foe "potentially" more powerful than Gandalf... the White. They become "right place right time" characters, because of that, and not characters of great courage who have the one combination of elements to actually beat a great evil.

[@fredericxicluna2036]

I completely understand the need to remove Bombadil in the movie for the reasons you mentioned. One interesting fact (i think) is that Ralph Bakshi and Peter Jackson made similar choices in their respective LoTDR adaptation regarding what they chose to keep / remove from the books. Removing Bombadil is one example.

[@--..-...-..-.--....]

I never liked Tom. He takes away all the mystery and power of the ring. It also lessens the stakes the hobbits and everyone else is going through to destroy the ring

[@Eduisit]

Not if you understand him and his place in the world. Tom is the exception that proves the rule.

[@arnoldstrong5553]

Me too. I read the book ages ago and i only remember being annoyed by that character and his name.

[@hollyingraham3980]

Exceptions don't prove rules. That phrase is and always has been a BS way to dismiss actual problems. It's airy hand-waving. Get a real argument.

[@constantchange1145]

​@@hollyingraham3980 Well Tom is an exception to the influence of the ring, Tom isn't a man at all, he isn't even a God really. He's literally the Old forest. The man is a visual magical representation of the entire forest, or he's the spiritual guardian of it. Either way he has no ego, no capacity for greed or lust for power. So the ring has no effect. Due to his nature he physically has no way to leave the forest (because he is the forest) so he can't help take it to Mordor. By this same logic someone like the Bhudda would also not be effected by the ring, since he achieved enlightenment, no ego. But Bhudda was a human so perhaps it still would be able to influence him.

[@--..-...-..-.--....]

@Eduisit that's a little rude. I do understand Tom. I've read the Lord of the Ring many times over the years and I've watched a lot of videos discussing Tom just to gain more of an understanding of who he is and his purpose. I have a pretty good understanding of him and I think the story is better without him. Just my honest opinion

[@MrNoucfeanor]

Tom would have been too jaring for the movies. Would have completely broken the immersion & stakes the films were building. After all, he's just a remnant from a rejected draft.

[@RedAngelSophia]

There is _one_ adaptation of LORD OF THE RINGS that includes Tom Bombadill -- that being the VeggieTales adaptation.

[@factorfantasyweekly]

Really?!?! It’s been like 20 years since I’ve seen that. I need to rewatch. 😂

[@joyfulwriter7964]

YES! I'm rereading the LotR books and definitely recognized Tom Bombadil in the Lord of the Beans' umbrella boy 😂