I'd been meaning to state this about Tom, but, as usual, had other things to do first.

I never took Tom and Goldberrry as a sop to the power of nature but more of 'how weird and wonderful this new world of Middle Earth is.' Some stories are so tight that one begins to think that nothing happens by chance, at random, or that does not lead to some big revelation at the end.

Tom is completely unnecessary, like whipped cream on pineapple upside-down cake, but all the better for it.

So Peter Jackson wisely left Tom out. Though, as a secret bonus track on RotK, he could have filmed and added the Tom sequence, if just to say 'thanks' to the fans (and to make up for TTT). ;)

I agree that Tom was superfluous, and one of the few edits that PJ inflicted on the story that I actually agree with. I also agree with your pineapple upside-down cake analogy, as Tom was somewhat fruity.

Well, on the EE he gave Treebeard Tom's part (the whole Old Man Willow thing).

Indeed, I agree.

But I always have thoughts of who Tom Bombadill really is. Of course, we all know he is a man with big beard, blue clothes, hat with a feather and all that. But why did he sigh when he spoke of the witch king and their lands?
And another thing - by some reason, I don't know where I read this, but is Tom Bombadill and Goldberry Maiars?

(Sorry if I can't spell or wrote in some awful grammar) >_<

Here on the forum there are both serious and silly discussions regarding the original of ole' Tom. Of course I prefer the later, as seen here.

Regardless, I would have taken Glorfindel, or Eomer over Tom.

With all this whipped cream being licked off fingers and pineapple upsidedown cake and likely faces too, I think it's time to add yet another dimension to Tom, much as I appreciate alatar's clever trekkie attempt to explain all the tribbles we've seen with Tom.

Tom obviously is Tolkien's slight recognition of eastern philosophies, for Goldberry's lilies are obviously lotus flowers, sacred in those philosophies' creation myth and representative of purity and detachment from desire. Just check out the River Goddess too if you need further similarities. Of course, Tolkien was not pure in his assumption of eastern iconography and sometimes got his symbolism mixed up, as when he attributes Sarasvati's white swans to Galadriel, although he did get the use of honey correct.

So it is quite appropriate that so many in the western tradition leave Tom and eastern thought out, speaking only applicably of course and not allegorically.

Well, pineapples are of eastern derivation, I suppose. So, philosophically speaking, Tom and pineapples equate further than we had first surmised.
Deep.

Ick! I use a fork. :D

I have no idea about east meeting west, but I do know that PJ did good leaving Tom and Goldberry out. We saw what he did to Treebeard, and so it's a double helping.

Well, given that "pineapple" first was used, c. 1398, to refer to the reproductive organs of evergreens--what we now call the pine cone--there might be a very fascinating avenue to explore here. Other trees might be involved. It could well be no mystery that Tom had power over Old Man Willow.

I take this to mean you are suggesting that absence makes the heart grow fonder?

Of one or more of the LotR characters in PJ's movies, or your posts here in the movies forum?

It's actually surprising the number of characters PJ *was* able to work in.

When I first saw the movie, I was really upset that PJ had left out Tom. However, after having some time to calm down and actually think about it, I came to the conclusion that leaving him out was probably a good idea. Like so many people before me said, anyone cast to play him would just lead to disappointment and a lot of fans of the books would be unhappy with the portrayal of such a...special character (my vocabulary decided to short out on me on that one :rolleyes:)

Tom Bombadil is a freakin beast:smokin:

Tom Bombadil is one of my favourite characters, but I think it might have been a bit much to put him in the films. I think that Tom would've really confused those non-book readers, although, he confuses book readers too...

Tom was never one of my favorite characters.
He provided some needed plot points in the book, but I always wished he'd been patterned more after someone like Beorn.
To me, Tom was like some weird hippy.
But that's just my opinion... your mileage may vary.

I never liked Tom that much, and was glad that he was left out of the movies.

Bombadil was never a part of the Fellowship. He was a side character. I feel they did the right thing by not including him because, aside from entertainment (and perhaps directing Frodo to Bree), he serves no purpose in the story.

The only real part Tom has in the story is that of giving the blade of Westernesse to Merry, this part is given to Strider on Weathertop, however the importance of that sword/dagger or it's history is never explained in the movie.

Weirdly enough, I forgave PJ for excluding ol' Tom. You know, in any movie made from books there are some scenes that have to be cut out. I think that Jackson chose the right one to throw out of FOTR (rather than, for example, Lothlorien). What I can't forgive him for is the way he changed all the other scenes and characters. :p

Yeh the same for me really, I don't mind so much what he left out, it's what he puts in that annoys me.

I was refering to the name of the film. I am fully aware that Bombadil was simply a creepy guy who lived in the woods.

I could not agree more.

I don't know, I quite liked the story of the Mewlips.

And h aving heard what PJ has done to Radagast in TH, I'm coming around to the idea that we should be grateful he didn't mess with Tom and Goldberry. :D

Excellent point... I can see Goldberry being pulled down the Withywindle in a canoe drawn by fish. Or Tom having a 15 minute fistfight with Old Man Willow. :D

I'm ashamed to say that as much as i love Lord of the Rings, no matter how many times i read the book i can never quite understand who Tom Bombadil is or what he contributes to the story. I think for people who hadn't read the book, it would have been very confusing. Also, they cut out quite a bit of important stuff, so i would have been a little concerned if they had got rid of important bits of the story and kept Tom Bombadil. He is a very interesting character I just don't get what he does in the storyline! Maybe thats just me being stupid but still...:confused:

Well, aside from saving the hobbits a couple times, he doesn't do much, but for me his presence is like the personofication of not only his forest, but part of the good that Frodo fights for. The hobbits were to cherish the memory of his home. As for who he is, he is. :)

Although I am not a great fan as stated on this thread earlier, I have read in UT I think that it was the Nazgul who stirred up the wights on the Barrow Downs and I suppose Tom's natural and basically benevolent power is a counterbalance to the unnatural and malevolent power of the undead.

If one reads LotR only as an adventure epic, then Tom does seem expendable. However, if one reads LotR as a fantasy of earlier ages then Tom's actions and role becomes far more significant. He is also very important to Sam, who is able later in the book to find strength to continue because of Tom's influence.

One thing I really like about Bombadil is his air of mystery. Even the usually highly knowledgeable Elves, for example Elrond and Glorfindel, don't seem to have a lot of firm data about him. That despite his being around for many ages.

Also, I think of Tom as an "anti-Sauron", of sorts. Unlike the latter, completely consumed by a desire to control all Middle-earth, Tom is content to stay is his own little area, and to be left to his own devices. I've always found a striking illustration of the contrast between Tom and Sauron when Frodo gives Bombadil the Ring.

Tom's blue eye, as opposed to the Red Eye of Sauron. I think that's quite interesting, and not merely a throwaway bit of detail on the part of the author.

I want to be Tom Bombadil when I grow up.

Your wish is granted. Now go buy yourself some yellow boots.

Then go outside and start singing Ring-a-dong dillo!. Make sure there are lots of people about.;)

I'm trying to remember the precise reference to that. Does Sam say something like "Well, he's a caution and no mistake ... we may go far and find naught better, not queerer" ... I'm trying to remember where it's said that Sam draws on Tom's influence to find strength. (Although I know it's there somewhere).

I'm trying to remember where it's said that Sam draws on Tom's influence to find strength. (Although I know it's there somewhere

I think you're thinking of Frodo, in the Barrow. (Also, apparently, at the Ford, although only specifically stated in a draft/outline)

Yes, Sam does seem to be the most impressed by Tom, particularly in that passage, Pervinca Took (whereas Frodo is more taken by Goldberry).

Tom's influence on Sam also comes out later in several short scenes where Sam seems to have picked up Tom's penchant for nonsense verse, with the result that Sam is always improving people's spirits through laughter and silliness.

In "Flight to the Ford" Merry asks for a song. Sam responds with the Troll Song, which he says "ain't what I call proper poetry, if you understand me, just a bit of nonsense. But these old images here [ie, the trolls who have just been caught by the sun and turned to stone] brought it to my mind." After Sam recites the verse, Pippin asks where Sam came by the song, since, he says, "I've never heard those words before." Sam "mutters something inaudible" while Frodo claims "It's out of his own head, of course, . . . . First he was a conspirator, now he's a jester. . . . "

Much later, in "The Black Gate is Closed", when Gollem says he's never heard of oliphaunts, in the midst of fear over the orcs, Sam stands with his hands behind his back "as he always did when 'speaking poetry'", and recites the comic oliphaunt verse. Of this song, Sam says, " that's a rhyme we have in the Shire. Nonsense maybe, and maybe not. " The text tells us that Frodo "had laughed in the midst of all his cares when Sam trotted out the old fireside rhyme . . . ."

Later, when speaking with Faramir of the Lady Galadriel in "The Window on the West", Sam says he can't make a poem of her for he's "not much good at poetry . . . a bit of a comic rhyme, perhaps, now and again, you know, not real poetry."

This differentiation between comic and real poetry is a continuing theme with Sam. It relates to the larger topic of how Tolkien uses nonsense throughout his writing. Sorry, I've no time now to go into it further.

I seem to remember that one of these hobbits wished Bombadil was there with them somewhere in/near Mordor (or at least on the East side of Anduin), but I can't recall the exact location nor find the line. Dos anyone know what I'm talking about or am I just imagining it?

Indeed, you are correct, G55. In "Shelob's Lair" Sam, when touching the hilt of his sword and remembering the darkness of the barrow, says, "I wish old Tom was near us now!" It's a fascinating little passage because that wish for Tom's aid seques into a memory of Galadriel's gift of light.

I think the fact that Tom wouldn't work in a film is one of the stronger points against the suitability of The Lord of the Rings for film adaptation. It's an important episode for Merry's acquisition of the Dagger of Westernesse if nothing else, and I think it's thematically useful in terms of the contrast of the Old Forest to Treebeard and the Ents; it adds a layer of ambiguity which might otherwise be absent and is often missed, questioning the rather traditional "nature good" reading of the text. The scene in the barrow is also very striking, and the barrow-wight's song, with its altogether apocalyptic imagery of Sauron (or Morgoth?) lifting his hand "over dead sea and withered land" is something which has always stuck with me. I think the frantic, confusing accident on the Downs could work very well in the oft-suggested television series adaptation.

Professor Tolkien complains in Letter 175 that the 1955 radio adaptation portrayed Old Man Willow as "an ally of Mordor (!!)", further asking "Can people imagine things hostile to men and hobbits who prey on them without being in league with the Devil!" I think Tom and Goldberry, Old Man Willow and the Barrow-wights are just one of the many overlooked complexities of the story, suggesting that there were good and evil forces which could still be parochial, and that existed outside of any central spiritual crisis (although I realise that the wights, derived from Angmar, were ultimately the Dark Lord's servants). The same is true of Shelob as well, perhaps, but in my opinion she is another case of characterisation and theme virtually impossible to convey visually; it will inevitably be less "last child of Ungoliant to trouble the unhappy world" and more "the bit where Sam fights a giant spider". And curse the films for causing me to unconsciously reach for my copy of "The Return of the King" rather than "The Two Towers" just then to find the relevant quotations! :p

I can't imagine how it could be conveyed visually, for instance, that Merry's blade was able to harm the Lord of the Nazgûl due to its origin in the wars against Angmar without some clunky exposition by Aragorn or Gandalf. The Lord of the Rings is one of those stories that really demands the ability to turn the page back and re-read, as well as steady narration; Tom and the scenes around him embody that quality. It perhaps shares more in common with certain Modernist texts in that regard (equally unfilmable despite valiant attempts, I would suppose) than I suspect many would imagine.

Well, I'm personally disappointed that he didn't at least run by them or something, but I'm glad that Jackson didn't massacre their stay at his house.