If I only had a Bombadil...
Read the article this discussion is about
- proudfoot
- Michael_Martinez
- proudfoot
- jallan
- desertblue
- BandwagonNewbie
- Michael_Martinez
- lawnboy101
- palandiliar
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» proudfoot - Bombadil and the Director's Cut
I know that Peter Jackson is not going to include the Old Forest and Barrow Downs chapters in his film version of Fellowship of the Ring. This means that Tom Bombadil is not going to appear in the film. Actually...I can accept that. It's just that Bombadil is not a good character when transferred to a film story.I mean, Bombadil serves a purpose for Tolkien's literary purposes, which is all well and good for his written novels. In the written story he is an odd but interesting character, another facet to the mystery that is Middle-Earth. Unfortunately, in a movie storyline where the immediately visual and audible is preeminent, Bombadil isn't going to work, especially to the Average Joes and Judys who are going to be most of the audience. I don't really think that Bombadil could be written, directed, and portrayed in a way to make him credible to the average viewer out there. Think on it; the four Hobbits, tailed by sinister & dangerous Black Riders all through the Shire, get lost in a scary forest, and then they meet...a jig-stepping, rhyme-speaking, odd Dwarf-like fellow who doesn't have a care in all the world. Talk about bringing the movie story momentum to a crashing halt! And then they get caught by a barrow-wight, and instead of seeing Frodo throw himself at the nasty wight and kill it to protect his friends in appropriate cinematic hero style, the audience watches Frodo yell for the Dwarf-guy again, and he tells it to get lost! The Tolkien fanboys & fangirls may be sagely nodding at this point, but the other people are going to be wondering what the hell is going on. It doesn't work that way for a film, and Peter Jackson knows it.
Now for dropping Bombadil due to time & money considerations... It sucks, but that's the sucky part of making the Great Trilogy into a trio of films on a budget. Something's got to go so we can get the main story in for everybody to see. In that sense, cutting Bombadil and the barrow-wight is an acceptable sacrifice. The Hobbits show up at Bree anyway, they meet Aragorn anyway, who was already warned by Gandalf (offscreen) that they were coming. The only anomaly is the quartet of long knives that the Hobbits are issued for future action. Most of the audience isn't going to catch it, and a little line-crafting ought to quickly explain their presence so the movie can get on with the story. I myself am more interested in how Peter Jackson is going to handle the interplay between "Strider" and his reluctant Hobbit charges, and their adventures with the Black Riders, than in any nit-picking over things like the arming of Hobbits.
So, is there hope for Bombadil on DVD? I do hope so. These films look like they're going to be blockbuster hits, with lots of subsequent potential to make $$$ for New Line. If the films sell enough tickets, it's quite likely that Peter Jackson will get a little $$ to do some brief filming to make Bombadil supplement chapters for the LOTR Collector's Edition DVD set. Then the fanboys and fangirls will get their Bombadil, and be pleased as pleased can be. Hey it could happen. So get out there December 2001 and buy some movie tickets!
-- posted by proudfoot
» Michael_Martinez - Re: Bombadil and the Director's Cut
In response to message posted by proudfoot:...Actually...I can accept that. It's just that Bombadil is not a good character when transferred to a film story.
I think he's a great character for a film story. Disney would have left him in and been more faithful to the Tolkien in the process. Maybe one day we'll see a Disney adaptation of Tolkien...one day.
...Unfortunately, in a movie storyline where the immediately visual and audible is preeminent, Bombadil isn't going to work, especially to the Average Joes and Judys who are going to be most of the audience. I don't really think that Bombadil could be written, directed, and portrayed in a way to make him credible to the average viewer out there...
Bombadil appeared in the first BBC radio adaptation and Morton Grady Zimmerman incorporated him into the first LOTR movie script (which Tolkien ripped to shreds in Letter 210). And though Brian Sibley left Bombadil out of the first version of the second BBC adaptation, he restored the character years later (using different actors). And Bombadil also appeared in the Mind's Eye adaptation.
So, apparently, most people who have adapted LOTR for dramatic presentation disagree with Ralph Bakshi and Peter Jackson over Bombadil's importance to the story and with many Bombadil nay-sayers over the ease of bringing the character into a dramatic adaptation.
...Think on it; the four Hobbits, tailed by sinister & dangerous Black Riders all through the Shire, get lost in a scary forest, and then they meet...a jig-stepping, rhyme-speaking, odd Dwarf-like fellow who doesn't have a care in all the world...
Actually, they should meet Bombadil, who has many cares and responsibilities. He watches over the Old Forest and the Barrowdowns, and agreed (when asked by Gildor Inglorion) to help Frodo on his way. The fact that he sings and dances doesn't make him out-of-place in the world Tolkien depicted where everyone, including Gandalf, Frodo, Aragorn, Legolas, Sam, Gimli, and many other characters at least sing if not actually dance.
If the singing and dancing are so offensive, they can be easily dropped from a dramatic presentation, although I think that would still hurt the story though not as much as simply dropping Bombadil altogether.
Whether the decision to drop Bombadil was good or bad really doesn't matter any more: the decision has been made for THIS adaptation. Whether Peter Jackson would contemplate adding Bombadil back in for a DvD version, I don't know. He may have changed the story radically in order to get rid of Bombadil, in which case adding him back in would make little sense.
-- posted by Michael_Martinez
» proudfoot - Bombadil and the Director's (Unkind) Cut
I don't really remember the BBC LOTR radio show all that well now. I suppose I'll have to break down & buy it one of these days and listen to it again.I understand what you're saying about Bombadil's relevance to the story and his inclusion therein. My intent was to present an outline of the reasoning that would cause Peter Jackson, his producers, or other people at New Line to cut Tom Bombadil from the film. We don't have to like it, just understand & accept it. It'd be nice if Jackson gave us a Bombadil segment for a special DVD release, but I can live with it either way.
As for a Disney adaptation of Tolkein's works... Brrr! What a fit of chills you gave me! Why? Disney under Walt could have done The Hobbit or Farmer Giles of Ham and made a good job of it. (Rankin-Bass's adaptation of The Hobbit was, I thought, close to a Disney treatment. Their stab at LOTR with Return of the King underlines all my reasons for leaving the Disney approach on some stories.) Disney under Berman taking on ANY Tolkien story makes me uneasy. Berman has made Disney very profitable, but he has wrought havoc in the storytelling department in the process. I really don't want to see LOTR as a Broadway Musical on film. (The concept of a LOTR Ice Capades show doesn't hit me as a good dea either, but we may not escape that in 2005...)
-- posted by proudfoot
» jallan - Tom Bombadil in film
When others have questioned whether Tom Bombadil could have been made to work in a film I say two words: "Gene Wilder!".Usually that is enough for people familiar with his Gene's over-the-top looniness and uncaniness. (And I don't mean that only Gene Wilder could necessarily play Tom, but that the kind of work he's done indicates an acting mode or groove that can used as a basis for a workable Tom Bombadil interpretation.)
More the point is the amount of time needed on screen for the Bombadil chapters if they are to have any meaning.
A possible shortening might be to skip Old Man Willow.
Frodo could learn the Tom Bombadil summoning verses from Merry who might give them as a bit of Buckland lore, meaning unknown, when he discusses the "queer things living deep in the Forest, and on the far side". Or perhaps Frodo might mention the idea of heading through the Old Forest to Farmer Maggot, and Maggot could give the verses.
Then introduce the Barrow-wight tale with Tom as rescuer.
If there was time, a short visit to Tom's home could be inserted following the Barrow-wight rescue, otherwise some of the dialogue from the visit to Tom's house would be used on the downs.
In effect the Old Man Willow rescue and the Barrow-downs rescue are conflated.
One really needs six films!
-- posted by jallan
» desertblue - There are only 3 films to cover six books, which is how Tolkien
There are only 3 films to cover six books, which is how Tolkien broke it down. The entire first book (getting Frodo to Rivendell)is (to my mind)an extended introduction to the hobbits and a metaphor/foreshadowing for events that will follow.I don't mind cutting down the Forest and Bombadil. There are a great many things I am excited that the movie should have the time for: I am hopping in my seat to see Moria, for example.I always get deep, satisfying chills from that part in the book, whereas the "foreshadowing" analog taking place in the barrow doesn't grip me. It's too much like a dream sequence in tone and resolution. Old Man Willow is legitimately frightening in his smothering malice, but there are other moments of terror to come: Weathertop, the scene at Balin's tomb, the Balrog emerging from the fire and shadows, the Dead Marshes, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, Faramir on the Pyre with Denethor.
I won't have any complaints if Jackson covers key events and gets most of the flavor right, even at the expense of canon.
-- posted by desertblue
» BandwagonNewbie - Bombadil and the Ring
Do we have enough information to rule out the possibility that the Ring, in the long run, would have corrupted Bombadil had it stayed with him?-- posted by BandwagonNewbie
» Michael_Martinez - Re: Bombadil and the Ring
In response to message posted by BandwagonNewbie:One can only speculate, but Tolkien seems to have felt that Bombadil was so committed to not dominating other wills that he represented a third point of view (between that of the Elves and that of Sauron, both of which practiced a form of coercion upon other wills) in Middle-earth. However, Bombadil could not have withstood Sauron had he come to take the Ring.
Had the Ring been left with Bombadil, therefore, it would have been only a matter of time before either the Ring found some desire in Bombadil's heart upon which to feed, or Sauron came to claim what was his.
-- posted by Michael_Martinez
» lawnboy101 - Book(s) vs. Films
I must first admit to being a latecomer to middle-earth. I must then confess to having seen "fellowship" (both the original and the extended)at least 20 times. I viewed "towers" twice in theatre. I've read "The Hobbit" all three LOTR books multiple times, all the appendices, and both volumes of the "book of lost tales" as well as several of Chris's other compilations. I've spent hours without measure @ the Grey Havens site and @ the online encyclopaedia of Arda. All this has been since 11/2003. I say all that to hopefully illustrate how Tolkien has captured my fancy as no other work of literature or entertainment ever has.Having said all that, I must speculate that if I had first read the books, then seen the motion picture, I would not have been so thoroughly possessed by the vision. At least I don't think so. While the omission of Tom and the glossing over of the span of years between Bilbos party and the return of Gandalf from the library of Minas Tirith and other "inconsistencies" are certainly noticeable to those who have spent serious effort in the contemplation of this "....imaginary time..." they emphatically do not detract from the power of the story. One must remember that even classics lose a step or two over the years. Jacksons intent, it seems to me, was to devote himself to a translation of the power of the story into film form, not to render every page and paragraph into a script. He succeeded if you ask me
-- posted by lawnboy101
» palandiliar - Re: Book(s) vs. Films
In response to message posted by lawnboy101:Hear! Hear! I whole-heartedly agree. Jackson's intent was to make a great film from a great novel. As much as I'd love to have seen and heard Tom B. in FOTR, as much as I cringe to see a Hollywood love triangle rear its pathetically shop-worn head in the telling of the tale, I can understand the need for it given the medium, the marketing and the financial realities of film-making in this blase age.
I don't think we'll see them lining up to make a better version of LOTR for quiite some time.
Cheers,
Palandiliar
-- posted by palandiliar
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.