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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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."

Tom basically has the middle earth cheat codes in his pocket

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

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!

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 😉

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

So nice to hear this after arguing with people for so long lol

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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!

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When I read LOTR, I skip everything between the Shire and Bree. Something like ten chapters mostly devoted to walking through forests.

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.

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

I do agree that the only way these scenes would work visually is in a tv series.

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

When the movies came out NOBODY complained about excluding Tom Bombadil!

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

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

I agree with you. The BBC Radio adaptation also dropped him, for the same reason.

Tom B is an end all. His handling in the books is already odd in that Frodo is taught a rhyme that can essentially summon Tom, and it’s only used once. I got the feeling that Frodo knew it would be somewhat of an overstepping of bounds to use it more than the one time, but the handling out of it was still odd. Take that and put it into a movie, we would’ve spent the whole movie thinking “just send Tom to doom.”

I agree with your conclusion. However, although I love the entirety of The Lord of the Rings, my favorite chapters occurred before the hobbits reached Rivendell. These initial chapters painted the world of Middle Earth, from rock to leaf to blade of grass. They transported me, word by word, to my idea of heaven. Everything from Rivendell on was little more--to me, at least--just a quest. The pre-Rivendell journey itself was more pleasing, especially the journey through the Shire.

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.

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.

I don't understand why everyone who argues for either side of this case fail to bring up the single most important reason anything gets cut: runtime. You cannot ask whether or not the scenes deserve to be in the movie in a vacuum. You must ask which scenes that are already in the movie should have been cut to save enough time to include Tom Bombidil. That's just a fundamental limitation of movies. So, I ask anyone who still thinks Tom should have been included: what scenes should have been cut to include him?

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

I feel like you have done a great job of explaining the reasons why i felt those missing chapters were a great loss. In the Jackson movies, everything is there for a purpose and that purpose is to create the dramatic arc of a Hollywood adventure movie. In the books, you can get lost in the story, while in the movies you know exactly where the story is. I could tell you where we are on the beat sheet. I'm one of those few who actually didn't like the Jackson movies from the outset. He did such a great job with the visuals: the sets and locations, the makeup, props and costumes, all of that fealt for me like it went to waste as he failed to capture the essence of the storytelling in the books. There is plenty of nonsense in the movies that could have been removed to leave room for a more organic pace, for a feeling of a journey though strange world.

I watched the films as a diehard Tolkien fan, and I couldn’t agree more. I didn’t enjoy the movies during my first viewing because I was on the edge of my seat, always terrified that Jackson would cut the next scene from the books. I detested the change of Arwen arriving to rescue Frodo. I disliked Jackson’s death of Saruman. But when it came to the removal of Tom and the Old Forrest, I simply shrugged and thought, “Yeah, that makes sense.” Also, can we mention how much better the extended versions are over the theatrical versions?

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

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.

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.

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

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

Tom Bombadil is a character from some of Tolkien's early poems / short stories that were published in various magazines The character was shoe-horned in on the advice of the editor as a way of generating more interest in this character since they planned to republish his poems in a book after LOTR was finished ...which didn't work since a lot of LOTR fans seem to be unaware that the book even exists (It was a massive flop) And yes , there is a book published by Tolkien in 1962 called "The adventures of Tom Bombadil".

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

People ask, why did Cron not know about the Shire? The answer is Tom Bombadill camped nearby .

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

Totally agree. Frankly, I wasn't all that wild about Bombadil in the books. Also, you have to remember that the movies weren't just made for people familiar with the story. Your average person who was seeing Middle Earth for the first time might well have seen the Bombadil stuff as just silly and maybe even walked out.

Seeing how much discussion went about "why didn't they just airlift to mt doom with 'em eagles" can you imagine having Tom Bombadil in the movies? He could have simply kept the ring and entertained the hobbits until old age.

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.

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

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

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

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

Was more annoyed with the omission of The Scouring of the Shire & not knowing how Saruman gets killed in the original release of the films.

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

There were many things I wish were included in the movies but Tom Bombadil is not one of them. The part of the story with Tom gives some insight into Tolkien’s view of the world. Just like the oft quoted line by Thorin in the Hobbit, “If more people valued food and song and cheer over hoarded gold, the world would be a merrier place.” Only the story of Tom Bombadil would pull you out of the greater story. I love Tom and I treasure the implications in Tolkien’s world. But it would be bizarre in the movie and they would probably have made him a joke like they did with Radagast the Brown in the Hobbit, or with Faramir in LOTR.

Syllogism: If I remember well, Eru (Ilúvatar) means « I am ». ( as Eä is « be »? ) Eru created the world by singing. Bombadil « is », and he sings, so Bombadil is Eru Ilúvatar 😊

Tom Bombadil was the personification of good whiskey.

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