Tolkien's T.C.B.S discussion
This topic is about
The Fellowship of the Ring
Group Reads
>
The Lord of the Rings: Part 1
date
newest »
newest »
http://allpoetry.com/poem/8499993-Tom...Tom Bombadil, potentially one of the most eccentric, unnecessary, irrelevant or underrated characters?
Mod
Tom Bombadil, potentially one of the most eccentric, unnecessary, irrelevant or underrated characters?"
Perhaps Peter Jackson viewed Tom Bombadil that way (eccentric, unnecessary, irrelevant), hence he (and Ralph Bakshi) omitted Tom Bombadil from the film trilogy because they felt he would make the film unnecessarily long. I guess it's because Tom Bombadil doesn't contribute much to the Quest of the Ring which directors Jackson and Bakshi were focusing on.
I don't think Tom is unnecessary, however. He and his wife Goldberry serve to shed light on the magic of Middle Earth. They are magical beings and their presence is felt by the creatures of the forest, such as Old Man Willow. In the book, "The Fellowship of the Ring" Tom sings to Old Man Willow at Withywindle to free the hobbits. This scene is similar to that of Pippin and Merry's mishap with the Huorn in Fangorn Forest in the film, "The Two Towers". In Treebeard’s soothing commands to the Huorn (“Eat earth, dig deep, drink water, go to sleep”) is echoed the power that Tom has over Old Man Willow: ”Old Man Willow? Naught worse than that, eh? That can soon be mended. I know the tune for him.”
So, who exactly is Tom Bombadil? According to Goldberry,”'He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.” Furthermore, Tom is the “eldest”, and he remembers “the first raindrop and the first acorn... the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.” Therefore, Tom Bombadil is a vision of the primordial forest, the newly born earth, the untainted heart. That's basically the Middle Earth that the Free Peoples are fighting to bring back.
Mod
Azella wrote: "Woolfie wrote: "http://allpoetry.com/poem/8499993-Tom...Tom Bombadil, potentially one of the most eccentric, unnecessary, irrelevant or underrated characters?"
Perhap..."
Yes of course, but I can see why he was omitted from the movie. Personally I don't think he's unnecessary at all, but as you say the reference fits better with Treebeard, given that it elaborates his tole as shepherd of the forest'.
Tom is definitely important to the story. But I can also see why he was left out of the movie... such an enigmatic character that even those who study and love the books don't fully understand would be overwhelmingly confusing to any in the audience who had not read the books.There are many different ideas as to who Tom Bombadil is... my favorite theory I've heard tossed around is that Tom is Aule (the Valar who created the dwarves) though there are problems with that theory, of course.
This is a good article on Tom and the various theories surrounding who he might have been: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombom...
I can't remember where I read it, but I've heard it argued that Tom functions sort of as an uncorrupted Adam and Goldberry as Eve. That these were the first of the created beings of Middle-earth but they did not fall as Adam and Eve did and so lived on in their own little Middle-Earth version of the garden of Eden. The difference would be that Tom and Goldberry were not the first of the race of men, but merely the first of a kind of which there were no others.Obviously we do not know for sure if this is true, but I thought it was an interesting argument and one that on many levels seems to work.
D.J. wrote: "I can't remember where I read it, but I've heard it argued that Tom functions sort of as an uncorrupted Adam and Goldberry as Eve. That these were the first of the created beings of Middle-earth bu..."I hadn't heard that one before, but I like it!
It's an interesting concept, isn't it?I do confess that when I read the books, Tom was always an enigma to me. I actually have "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" but never got around to reading it! What a shame, I know.
I do think it would have been interesting to see him depicted in the film but, like you Jenelle, I completely understand why they had to leave him out. He really isn't integral to the larger story. Apart from giving the Hobbits the barrow swords and of course saving them from the forest and the wights, his influence is non-existent. You can easily cut his scenes out and the story remains essentially unchanged.
As a bonus treat, I thought I'd post a little song called the "Tom Bombadil Theme". It's from a game of all places, but it's a wonderful piece of music that to me really captures the essence and feel of this merry old soul.
It's well worth a listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3dPAp...
And here's a wonderful artist's rendering of Tom for good measure which I found on the web:
The only slight issue the omission of Tom from the movies had was how Strider knew how many Hobbits there were. Either he, or his associates or even Gandalf had been keeping an eye on the quartet, or more likely 'two eyes, as often as (they) can spare them'. Sam and Frodo were a given, as Gandalf himself saw the pair ofthem onto the long road to Mordor. However he is a wizard after all, and like God he moves in mysterious ways, and so much cause and consequence might be attributed to this mystical implied omniscience perhaps.
Hmm, I don't remember the number of hobbits coming up in the movie. Didn't Strider just pick up Frodo and take him to his room and then the other three showed up afterwards? And I also can't remember how Tom figured into this in the book. Perhaps you could refresh my memory?
Mod
"
What a brilliant image of Tom!
Wasn't the reason Merry was able to kill the Witch King was that he had a sword he carried from the barrows? The sword was made by the men of Arnor, descendants of the Numenorians, the enemies of the Witch King.
Quite Stan, which is why I'm curious to know, how and where Aragorn, in the movie at least, got those short swords from. I forget, he does stab Angmar in the movie doesn't he?
I think Merry stabs the witch king with a simple blade of Rohan so they completely gloss over that connection to the barrow downs in the movie, which is a shame. Merry's presence there as far as the cinematic version goes is entirely incidental. Despite that, Eowyn's slaying of the witch king is one of the highlights of the films.
Yes it does say in the book that no other blade could has caused such harm to the Witch-King. The hobbits recieve the swords from Aragorn at Weathertop in the film, but I'm uncertain whether this is the same sword Merry carries into Pelennor Fields. After Eowyn dresses him for battle he makes a comment about his sword not being sharp, which surely suggests that it is the same sword as Eowyn wouldn't have equiped him with a blunt blade.I always wonder what Tom is referring to when he mentions the woman who wore the blue jewel he gives to Goldberry. Can anyone enlighten me?
The blades from the barrow downs were used in the ancient wars against the witch king and so enchanted as to be able to harm him. I had forgotten about Merry's "blunt blade" in the film but I don't think they really say where he got it from and I think in my mind I always assumed it came with the armor of Rohan he had received from Theoden. He also received an elvish sword from Galadriel in the extended edition of the film so there is a bit of ambiguity as to which one he actually used to stab the Witch King, it seems.
Well the one from Galadriel was more a dagger than a sword even for a hobbit. And they lost those daggers at the borders of Fangorn. Gimli finds the remains of the sheath in the orc burning. It appears in the film these are never returned to the hobbits.
DISCUSSION