Topic: The Hobbit

[sabbathfan]

Something I just saw over on IMDB when I went looking for any news on the Hobbit. Something I never knew until now...Guillermo Del Toro is directing??!! What the fuck? Peter Jackson is an executive producer only? Its being made by MGM??!! For the love of god why??

Guillermo Del FUCKING Toro?! What the fuck right does he have to touch anything Tolkien wrote?!

Sorry if this has been previously posted but I am in a fucking tizzy over this!

[Texas Reds Fan]

Who's he?

[sabbathfan]

He directed Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth and Blade 2. Hardly what I would call sufficient to be given this task. He has already shown that he is total hollywood with that shitty Hellboy fiasco. If he ruins The Hobbit (and The Hobbit 2 (?)) I will hunt the fucker down!

[Texas Reds Fan]

I was thinking Benecio del Toro... just shows how bad of a choice it is. I'm with ya.

[Bob Loblaw]

This has been widely regarded as an excellent choice i thought. Haven't seen Pan's, and only enjoyed HellBoy. I'm sure Jackson had a big say if he didn't pick Del Toro himself, so, hardly anything to get your knickers in a twist about.

[Okkervil]

I think Guillermo Del Toro is a fantastic choice. Ok Hellboy and Blade 2 are gash. But Pans Labyrinth is a total work of genius. One of the best films of the decade.

And on that basis alone my hopes are high.

[GinKop]

I think Guillermo Del Toro is a fantastic choice. Ok Hellboy and Blade 2 are gash. But Pans Labyrinth is a total work of genius. One of the best films of the decade.

And on that basis alone my hopes are high.

Agreed - his new film The Orphanage is meant to be class too. Pan's Lab is a masterpiece, anywhere close to that and we're on to a winner.

[Vinay]

Anyone criticising del Toro like "that" must EITHER not have done their homework on this fella, OR has a very low movie IQ.

He has for a long time been touted as the best candidate for The Hobbit.

[Dread Breath]

Pan's is indeed a great, great film. If the first Hobbit film is half of Pan's it will be well worth seeing.

[RJH]

I think Del Toro could be a very good choice. Pan's Labyrinth is an absolutely fantastic film, and very well made.
I think with Jackson there as executive produce to give advice, this could be a very good film.

[Regi]

Pan's probably got him the gig, and with good reason.
What a show

[IrishDave]

Did a lot of people not think the same about Peter Jackson a few years ago when he got LOTR?

[Robb27]

I can see I'm in the minority here but I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth at all and I'm usually pretty easy to please with movies too.I just didn't enjoy watching it one bit.

[Vinay]

Agreed - his new film The Orphanage is meant to be class too. Pan's Lab is a masterpiece, anywhere close to that and we're on to a winner.

He only 'Presents' The Orphanage, and I can see why (think El Espinoza del Diablo).  It is not, technically, his film.  I am downloading the movie right now!

[james_f]

Did a lot of people not think the same about Peter Jackson a few years ago when he got LOTR?

Exactly, I think most people would struggle to name a previous Peter Jackson film to LOTR. I can only think of shitty horror movie Braindead. Del Toro seems like a good choice, Pan's Labyrinth is one of the best films of recent times, the Orphanage looks like it'll be great as well (even though he's only producer not director on that).

[RF]

Lets hope Guillermo Del Toro sticks to the original story then, unlike Peter Jackson who although got a lot of the original LOTR  characters, story, scenery bang on, he also made up a lot of his own story that had fuck all to do with how Tolkein wrote it.

Where the fuck was Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, the Dunedain that joined Aragorn in Rohan, the scouring of the Shire ect.........

[Ken-Obi]

Where the fuck was Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, the Dunedain that joined Aragorn in Rohan, the scouring of the Shire ect.........

To be honest Tom 'Hey Dol Merry Dol!' Bombadill would be an unnecessary addition for the motion picture being that it he didn't quite do anything but provide shelter from the wights of Barrow-Downs and not disappear when putting the ring on, doing nothing to advance the story whatsoever - if anything viewers who are unfamiliar with him might get confused. Agree about the Scouring of the Shire though although the entire thing might become a four movie thing instead of three then!

If anything the LOTR trilogy was an adaptation, so Peter Jackson can do whatever he likes as long as the core of the story remains true. Doesn't quite matter if it was Glorfindel or Arwen who rescued Frodo at the Ford, the most important bit is him arriving into the safe hands of Imladris. Glorfindel the Golden Haired would be really important if they do decide to do The Silmarillion though.

[Sasquatch]

I don't think Peter Jackson is all that great. He and his team managed to fuck up King Kong after all.

[Armin]

Del Toro would be an excellent choice for director. People criticising him for Hellboy should check out his other work. The Devils Backbone for one.

Lets hope Guillermo Del Toro sticks to the original story then, unlike Peter Jackson who although got a lot of the original LOTR  characters, story, scenery bang on, he also made up a lot of his own story that had fuck all to do with how Tolkein wrote it.

Where the fuck was Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, the Dunedain that joined Aragorn in Rohan, the scouring of the Shire ect.........

It would be impossible to fully represent the entire novel on screen. Certainly in a movie format, perhaps some sprawling mini series might include every character, although it wouldn't be an improvement in my opinion. I thought Jackson did a wonderful job and stayed closer to Tolkien's novel than I'd thought possible. Seriously, whatever the deserved plaudits for Casting, Art Direction, Cinematography etc. the best job of all on that film was that done by Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyes who wrote the screenplay.

Glorfindel the Golden Haired would be really important if they do decide to do The Silmarillion though.

That's a good point. If you love your Tolkien and have read the Silmarillion then you start to look for the links between the older mythos and Hobbit/LOTR. Characters such as Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Elrond, The Wizards,Ents etc form a bridge between the two and in the unlikely event the Silmarillion was filmed it would be nice to see those links brought into focus. Really though that's something only hardcore Tolkien fans would care about. For those who wanted to see an entertaining movie the decision to excise Bombadil and reinforce the Arwen role was entirely justified by the end result.

[hooded claw]

Del Toro would be an excellent choice for director. People criticising him for Hellboy should check out his other work. The Devils Backbone for one.

It would be impossible to fully represent the entire novel on screen. Certainly in a movie format, perhaps some sprawling mini series might include every character, although it wouldn't be an improvement in my opinion. I thought Jackson did a wonderful job and stayed closer to Tolkien's novel than I'd thought possible. Seriously, whatever the deserved plaudits for Casting, Art Direction, Cinematography etc. the best job of all on that film was that done by Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyes who wrote the screenplay.

That's a good point. If you love your Tolkien and have read the Silmarillion then you start to look for the links between the older mythos and Hobbit/LOTR. Characters such as Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Elrond, The Wizards,Ents etc form a bridge between the two and in the unlikely event the Silmarillion was filmed it would be nice to see those links brought into focus. Really though that's something only hardcore Tolkien fans would care about. For those who wanted to see an entertaining movie the decision to excise Bombadil and reinforce the Arwen role was entirely justified by the end result.

Bombadil always gets the bum's rush though; the BBC radio dramatisation, the Ralph Bakshi animated version, now Jackson. I know he comes across as a bit of  a folky, but Fog On The Barrow Downs is one of the most atmospheric- and surely filmable- chapters in the whole thing.

[Armin]

I think it works in the novel but not in a movie. FOTR depends on momentum, starting off in sedate, safe Bag End and gradually becoming more and more tense as the pursuit grows and the danger becomes apparent. Tom Bombadil slows all that up. The Hobbits experience peace and a vision of a world apart from the struggle of Middle Earth. Plus the Fal Do a merry oh stuff may lose some of the viewers not yet convinced of the worth of real ale and an open fire.

From a screenplay writers perspective it seems an obvious cut. Sad for those who love the novel because there's a lot in the Bombadil chapters which resonates with the Ents/Scouring of the Shire theme of loss and the conflict between man and nature. Filming such a novel is always going to be a question of how much you lose and anything which isn't moving Frodo on in his quest is always going to be vulnerable. The Council of Elrond is another moment of temporary safety and far more pertinent to the plot. With that included, and it has to be to both get the fellowship together and get some needed back story exposition the film has it's central moment of let up. Another one would unbalance it.

[RF]

Does anyone remember a  good few years ago now, when there was an animated film version of LOTR on tv (could have been Channel 4). They only managed to get to the Battle of Helms Deep though and another film never followed. That was also changed a bit, with no Bombadil and Legolas was the elf who rescued Frodo before Rivendel instead of Glorfindel.

Anyway at the time I recorded it, but lost the tape years ago when moving house. If this version of the film is floating around anywhere, and if anyone knows were I can download it (for old times sake), I'd be eternally grateful.
 

[hooded claw]

Does anyone remember a  good few years ago now, when there was an animated film version of LOTR on tv (could have been Channel 4). They only managed to get to the Battle of Helms Deep though and another film never followed. That was also changed a bit, with no Bombadil and Legolas was the elf who rescued Frodo before Rivendel instead of Glorfindel.

Anyway at the time I recorded it, but lost the tape years ago when moving house. If this version of the film is floating around anywhere, and if anyone knows were I can download it (for old times sake), I'd be eternally grateful.
 

Bombadil always gets the bum's rush though; the BBC radio dramatisation, the Ralph Bakshi animated version, now Jackson. I know he comes across as a bit of  a folky, but Fog On The Barrow Downs is one of the most atmospheric- and surely filmable- chapters in the whole thing.

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3455453/The_Lord_Of_The_Rings_(1978)_-_animated

[RF]

Thanks HC

[RJH]

It would be impossible to fully represent the entire novel on screen. Certainly in a movie format, perhaps some sprawling mini series might include every character, although it wouldn't be an improvement in my opinion. I thought Jackson did a wonderful job and stayed closer to Tolkien's novel than I'd thought possible. Seriously, whatever the deserved plaudits for Casting, Art Direction, Cinematography etc. the best job of all on that film was that done by Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyes who wrote the screenplay.

That's a good point. If you love your Tolkien and have read the Silmarillion then you start to look for the links between the older mythos and Hobbit/LOTR. Characters such as Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, Elrond, The Wizards,Ents etc form a bridge between the two and in the unlikely event the Silmarillion was filmed it would be nice to see those links brought into focus. Really though that's something only hardcore Tolkien fans would care about. For those who wanted to see an entertaining movie the decision to excise Bombadil and reinforce the Arwen role was entirely justified by the end result.

I thought Jasckson did well. He was never going to be able to get in everything out of the books, the films would have been ridiculously long, and it would have hindered the whole flow of the films. Jackson did try and stick to the books as much as possible. Originally Arwen was going to be at Helm's Deep (to the extent that they shot scenes with her there), to develop the whole Aragorn love story thing, but in the end it was decided not to have her there after all.
 I do recall someone associated with the film (can't remember whether it was cast or crew) saying about how they would've liked to do the whole scourging of the shire bit, but it would have just made the film far too long.

I personally would love to see a film of the Silmarillon, but I don't think it would ever be possible to adapt it. The number of characters and the timescale mean it would really need to be several films. There are some great storylines in it, but it would be hard simpy because of all the detail Tolkien went in to (as he did intend to be basicaly a sort of history of what had gone before LOTR/Hobbit, rather than a novel).

[sabbathfan]

Lets hope Guillermo Del Toro sticks to the original story then, unlike Peter Jackson who although got a lot of the original LOTR  characters, story, scenery bang on, he also made up a lot of his own story that had fuck all to do with how Tolkein wrote it.

Where the fuck was Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, the Dunedain that joined Aragorn in Rohan, the scouring of the Shire ect.........

If you understood the idea of adapting books for the big screen you would not have said any of that.

Tom Bombadil - A character I liked in the books but would've been pointless in the film. You have just set up the fact that Frodo is carrying to most evil and corrupting object in the entire world. He cannot trust anyone other than himself. Then along come Tom Bombadil who has absolutely no interest in the ring whatsoever. Making the ring seem less important and less powerful.

Glorfindel - A character I like more than TB. But in the film there was no need to introduce another character that will never be seen again. Instead PJ used this time wisely to introduce Arwen, a character who was given practically no time in the books. It would've been impossible to include her more because she was hundreds of miles away from what was going on in the books. She got more time because movie-going audiences (rather than readers) had to invest something in both the character and her relationship with Aragorn.

The Dunedain - Loved the Dunedain. Cool as hell. But there was no need to introduce yet more characters. Plus it made the army of the dead more imposing to have only three of hour heroes stading before them.

The Scouring of the Shire - My favourite chapter in the book but NOT a part of the main story which is Frodo taking the ring to Mount Doom. Once that was done PJ gave Aragorn, Gandalf and the Hobbits stories there own seperate closure. There was no need to then come back to the shire and have another 30-40 minutes of non-related action. Pointless.

I personally would love to see a film of the Silmarillon, but I don't think it would ever be possible to adapt it. The number of characters and the timescale mean it would really need to be several films. There are some great storylines in it, but it would be hard simpy because of all the detail Tolkien went in to (as he did intend to be basicaly a sort of history of what had gone before LOTR/Hobbit, rather than a novel).

I totally agree with you. I much prefer the Silmarillion to LOTR. The scope and majesty of it is utterly awesome. It would take a long, long (far longer than LOTR) time to adapt it. Many films. Many years. Perhaps too many. One day movies will be easier to make and it will be possible but not before then.

However I would LOVE to see the Narn I Hin Hurin (Tale Of The Children Of Hurin) brought to life on screen. Turin Turambar is one of the greatest, most flawed and tragic characters in all of literature. Really an awe inspiring story.

And the Tale of Beren and Luthien.

If we cant have it all I wish we could have just those two.

Beren and Luthien is one of the most epic and romantic love stories ever told and it is done so in only 42 pages of the Silmarillion.

Wonderful.

[RF]

If you understood the idea of adapting books for the big screen you would not have said any of that.

Tom Bombadil - A character I liked in the books but would've been pointless in the film. You have just set up the fact that Frodo is carrying to most evil and corrupting object in the entire world. He cannot trust anyone other than himself. Then along come Tom Bombadil who has absolutely no interest in the ring whatsoever. Making the ring seem less important and less powerful.

Glorfindel - A character I like more than TB. But in the film there was no need to introduce another character that will never be seen again. Instead PJ used this time wisely to introduce Arwen, a character who was given practically no time in the books. It would've been impossible to include her more because she was hundreds of miles away from what was going on in the books. She got more time because movie-going audiences (rather than readers) had to invest something in both the character and her relationship with Aragorn.

The Dunedain - Loved the Dunedain. Cool as hell. But there was no need to introduce yet more characters. Plus it made the army of the dead more imposing to have only three of hour heroes stading before them.

The Scouring of the Shire - My favourite chapter in the book but NOT a part of the main story which is Frodo taking the ring to Mount Doom. Once that was done PJ gave Aragorn, Gandalf and the Hobbits stories there own seperate closure. There was no need to then come back to the shire and have another 30-40 minutes of non-related action. Pointless.

Rubbish, of course Bombadil was important. He saved them not once, but twice, but oh yeh lets just forget all that and the fact that being a Maia spirit and the oldest being in Middle Earth nothing could touch him within his little realm were he was absolute master, so much so that even the ring had no power over him. Besides I'll bet his mrs Goldberry was horney as fuck.

I agree they would have had to calm down all the singing malarkey with Bombadil, but that was done anyway as a whole, otherwise half the movie would have been a musical. See that I can understand, but leaving out important characters and events did dissapoint me.

Arwen was obviously given more of a part in the film, because she was Liv Tyler and that's the top and bottom of it.

You say there was no need for the Dunedain, so hey lets just forget the sons of Elrond who came with them as well. Oh I forgot Jackson already did that.

See, considering they did all the filming for all the films together over a period of about a year, Jackson did wonders to portray the characters as he did, and they were bang on. Gollum was fantastic, and by far the best representation of a character. Like I said though, just wish he had stuck to the story more without at times making up his own version and missing out important events, but I guess time and budget affected things and if he and New Line had realised how big a hit the films would be, then maybe they would have taken more time and made 6 films. Seems crazy that the Hobbit will stretch to 2 films, yet the LOTR was only 3.

[Armin]

Rubbish, of course Bombadil was important.

Read his post again. He's not saying Bombadil isn't important he's saying his presence makes the Ring less so. To readers of the book that's great, it hints at a deeper level of existence, of powers beyond those in the immediate story. To filmgoers who have only just learned of the existence of the Ring it's a needless complication. How does the Filmmaker explain Bombadil? or the Maia? Does he have to retell the creation story of the Silmarillion or does he just throw Bombadil in unexplained? Even if he did explain it there's other complications, Gandalf and Sauron are Maia as well but the Ring exerts an influence on them etc... It's one for the hardcore Tolkien fans, of which I'd count myself one but Jackson is making a film for everyone, as well he should. If he spends too much time pleasing you or me by including every last detail and fondly remembered minor character then the film suffers for it.

To take another example, the role of Arwen. Aside from being all in favour of as much Liv Tyler on the screen as possible think about how that plot change serves the movie. Instead of a distant character with little knowledge you have a heroic figure who takes her own part in fighting the evil of Sauron. She's thus introduced as a figure of worth and the story of Aragorn and Arwen, a really beautiful and poignant post script to the book can thus be given due weight in the coda to the film. If she popped up only to give Aragorn his sword the modern filmgoer would rightly cry that she was simply attractive padding. Plus we live in a different age and without strengthening her character's participation modern audiences would be rooting for Eowyn over the wishy washy Elf girl.

You're not thinking as a filmmaker, you're thinking as a fan. No reason why you shouldn't but it does make your criticisms of Jackson the filmaker unfair and unfounded.  If Jackson did the same he'd have made a terrible, unwatchable movie. A 6 part LOTR? In effect, with the extended editions that's already there. To incorporate the strict level of representation you're calling for with a strict interpretation would risk losing all but the core audience, given that the films have done wonders in encouraging people to check out the novels is that really desirable? Look at how little the addition of the prequels did for Star Wars. Epic storytelling across a number of films is very difficult to pull off.

As for the point about the Hobbit. I think you could tell the central story in that in one film. As I understand it however the second film will also incorporate elements of the story leading from the Hobbit to LOTR. Perhaps the first appearance of Sauron, the fall of Moria or the corruption of Saruman. You can cynically cry that they're overcooking it or you can look at the quality of what's already been produced and trust PJ and co to maintain the quality. I'll do the latter because I never thought to see such a superb representation of a well loved novel as that which Jackson accomplished. If the team behind that never made another movie or made a succession of duds they'd still deserve a place of honour in filmmaking circles.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Bombadil always gets the bum's rush though; the BBC radio dramatisation, the Ralph Bakshi animated version, now Jackson. I know he comes across as a bit of  a folky, but Fog On The Barrow Downs is one of the most atmospheric- and surely filmable- chapters in the whole thing.

What was weird about Lord of the Rings was that treebeard said half of Toms lines!

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Read his post again. He's not saying Bombadil isn't important he's saying his presence makes the Ring less so. To readers of the book that's great, it hints at a deeper level of existence, of powers beyond those in the immediate story. To filmgoers who have only just learned of the existence of the Ring it's a needless complication. How does the Filmmaker explain Bombadil? or the Maia? Does he have to retell the creation story of the Silmarillion or does he just throw Bombadil in unexplained? Even if he did explain it there's other complications, Gandalf and Sauron are Maia as well but the Ring exerts an influence on them etc... It's one for the hardcore Tolkien fans, of which I'd count myself one but Jackson is making a film for everyone, as well he should. If he spends too much time pleasing you or me by including every last detail and fondly remembered minor character then the film suffers for it.

To take another example, the role of Arwen. Aside from being all in favour of as much Liv Tyler on the screen as possible think about how that plot change serves the movie. Instead of a distant character with little knowledge you have a heroic figure who takes her own part in fighting the evil of Sauron. She's thus introduced as a figure of worth and the story of Aragorn and Arwen, a really beautiful and poignant post script to the book can thus be given due weight in the coda to the film. If she popped up only to give Aragorn his sword the modern filmgoer would rightly cry that she was simply attractive padding. Plus we live in a different age and without strengthening her character's participation modern audiences would be rooting for Eowyn over the wishy washy Elf girl.

You're not thinking as a filmmaker, you're thinking as a fan. No reason why you shouldn't but it does make your criticisms of Jackson the filmaker unfair and unfounded.  If Jackson did the same he'd have made a terrible, unwatchable movie. A 6 part LOTR? In effect, with the extended editions that's already there. To incorporate the strict level of representation you're calling for with a strict interpretation would risk losing all but the core audience, given that the films have done wonders in encouraging people to check out the novels is that really desirable? Look at how little the addition of the prequels did for Star Wars. Epic storytelling across a number of films is very difficult to pull off.

As for the point about the Hobbit. I think you could tell the central story in that in one film. As I understand it however the second film will also incorporate elements of the story leading from the Hobbit to LOTR. Perhaps the first appearance of Sauron, the fall of Moria or the corruption of Saruman. You can cynically cry that they're overcooking it or you can look at the quality of what's already been produced and trust PJ and co to maintain the quality. I'll do the latter because I never thought to see such a superb representation of a well loved novel as that which Jackson accomplished. If the team behind that never made another movie or made a succession of duds they'd still deserve a place of honour in filmmaking circles.

You've totally missed the point. Bombadil was around BEFORE Sauron - and around when the first dark lord came though. He was there when the MUSIC was weaved (And altered)

He was almost certainly the most important character mentioned in Lord of the Rings (Even though he was a Deus Ex Machine and crafted after a doll the writers kids owned)

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Rubbish, of course Bombadil was important. He saved them not once, but twice, but oh yeh lets just forget all that and the fact that being a Maia spirit and the oldest being in Middle Earth nothing could touch him within his little realm were he was absolute master, so much so that even the ring had no power over him. Besides I'll bet his mrs Goldberry was horney as fuck.

I agree they would have had to calm down all the singing malarkey with Bombadil, but that was done anyway as a whole, otherwise half the movie would have been a musical. See that I can understand, but leaving out important characters and events did dissapoint me.

Arwen was obviously given more of a part in the film, because she was Liv Tyler and that's the top and bottom of it.

You say there was no need for the Dunedain, so hey lets just forget the sons of Elrond who came with them as well. Oh I forgot Jackson already did that.

See, considering they did all the filming for all the films together over a period of about a year, Jackson did wonders to portray the characters as he did, and they were bang on. Gollum was fantastic, and by far the best representation of a character. Like I said though, just wish he had stuck to the story more without at times making up his own version and missing out important events, but I guess time and budget affected things and if he and New Line had realised how big a hit the films would be, then maybe they would have taken more time and made 6 films. Seems crazy that the Hobbit will stretch to 2 films, yet the LOTR was only 3.

Absolutely spot on

[PhilLFC]

as long as peter jackson is involved, he slap del toro about abit if he starts wondering around

[Ken-Obi]

Rubbish, of course Bombadil was important. He saved them not once, but twice, but oh yeh lets just forget all that and the fact that being a Maia spirit and the oldest being in Middle Earth nothing could touch him within his little realm were he was absolute master, so much so that even the ring had no power over him. Besides I'll bet his mrs Goldberry was horney as fuck.

That's highly disputable.

Sauron is pretty much the most powerful Maia, on par with the weakest of Valar so his influence via the Ring reaches out to everything below the Lords of the West eg. Gandalf (the Maia Olorin) was afraid of it, High Queen Galadriel (of an even greater lineage than Elrond) wanted it, nature is ensnared by it (Disaster of the Gladden Fields, creature at the Gate of Moria etc) and let's not deny it, Man.

But not Tom.

He puts it on, flicks it into the air, gave it back to Frodo without hesitation. Elrond even mentioned that the strange man might just misplace it and even he will not be safe from Sauron should the dark lord descend upon the Shire.

[JoeH]

It will be interesting how they split the Hobbit into two, I think this is just a money spinning exercise on the prodcution side. Also look forward to the introduction of Gollum and how they will bring Smuag to life.

*Edited, meant to put Smaug the Dragon* 

[Armin]

You've totally missed the point. Bombadil was around BEFORE Sauron - and around when the first dark lord came though. He was there when the MUSIC was weaved (And altered)

He was almost certainly the most important character mentioned in Lord of the Rings (Even though he was a Deus Ex Machine and crafted after a doll the writers kids owned)

The point is about making a film. Tolkien himself said:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative."

If you've read the entire canon then sure he has an importance but if you need to tell the story of the LOTR he's hardly essential to the narrative. In fact including him in a film would severely impact on its effectiveness as a movie.

[Okkervil]

The point is about making a film. Tolkien himself said:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative."

If you've read the entire canon then sure he has an importance but if you need to tell the story of the LOTR he's hardly essential to the narrative. In fact including him in a film would severely impact on its effectiveness as a movie.

Totally agree. The movie (in particular) very simply is about Sam and Frodo and the Journey of the Ring. As much as i love Bombadil and find him essential to Tolkiens legendarium. In the film, unfortunately he just is not needed.

[RF]

The point is about making a film. Tolkien himself said:

"Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative."

If you've read the entire canon then sure he has an importance but if you need to tell the story of the LOTR he's hardly essential to the narrative. In fact including him in a film would severely impact on its effectiveness as a movie.

Guess we'll just have to beg to differ on the Bombadil thing Hank Armin
Tell me this though...did this debate speed up your morning and take your mind of the upcoming game a just a tad?




Thought so 

[Bob Loblaw]

Only read the LOTR once, so my knowledge is shite on it. Have to agree with Armin though, Bombadil would serve no purpose to the telling of the story and in a movie where every scene and shot has to count i'm pretty sure it was an easy choice to exclude him.

Is Bombadil a giant?

[sabbathfan]

You've totally missed the point. Bombadil was around BEFORE Sauron - and around when the first dark lord came though. He was there when the MUSIC was weaved (And altered)

He was almost certainly the most important character mentioned in Lord of the Rings (Even though he was a Deus Ex Machine and crafted after a doll the writers kids owned)

Sauron and Gandalf are just as old as Tom Bombadil...

He is NOT the most important figure in the book, even if you look at it from a "whole mythology" perspective. Sauron is the most important, not just to the story of LOTR but to the entire history of Middle-Earth. Tom Bombadil lived his happy little life in the woods and never visibly had much of an effect on anything.

Sauron was very important even from the Eldar days because he was intimately involved in every one of the great wars.

Gandalf doesnt really have a history as such (at least that Prof Tolkien had a chance to write) but he would have been involved when he was Olorin.

Tom Bombadil never involved himself with the goings-on in the outside world and that is the point. He deliberately took no part in the LOTR. Ok he is in the book but all the while he is saying how he has no interest in being part of whats going on. That is why he was left out.

And why isnt anyone mentioning Saurman in this argument? He is just as old as the other three.

The fact is that the Ainur (Valar and Maiar) were all present at the conception of Arda, so to say that any one of them is older or yonger than the rest is a fallacy.

Also Tolkien never said one way or the other, exactly what kind of being Bombadil was. All he said was that he was not Eru Iluvatar (The One) so if he never told us how can you possibly know?

[Finn Solomon]

I liked Hellboy. Think he will do an okay job, The Hobbit's basically a fairy tale for children FFS. Not expecting much anyway.