Hi Ho, Merry Dol...
 

In a thread on the movie forum, many comments have been made concerning Tom Bombadil's exclusion from the film. These comments struck a chord with some, and discussion was stirred concerning Tom Bombadil's importance/unimportance in the LOTR.
I am beginning this forum to continue that discusion, because I find it interesting, and because it has become out-of-scope in the thread it currently exists.
So..., with fear that this has probably already been discussed, I would like to say that I think TB is quite important in the book. Some have suggested that he plays an unnecessary role, and that he and GB are annoying. I couldn't disagree more: I think that Tom embodies a spirit of time; that is, he exists to show us that ME is a world that is not wrapped up wholly with the plight of the ring. Tom is the spokesman for a world that has existed before the Ring, and will exist after it. This is important because it makes a connection with the reader. It's as if Tom says to the reader, "Hey, ME is like the world you live in. You are just living a small part in the grand scheme of things. And this ring...nice little piece of gold you got there." TB makes ME, it's history, and it's future more realistic. He helps give the reader a sense of ME's vastness, and I think this makes the story all the more valuable.

Agree?...Disagree?

Wow! That is a very interesting point of view. However, I don't have much to say on this because I feel that you have "hit the nail on the head" about TB. Although, about the film, TB did not play a huge factor in the actual story of LOTR. He did (as you said) give the reader a sense of involvement and someone to relate to, but I am not against the omission of TM. I would have enjoyed it if he was included, but he wasn't completely, absolutely necessary.

Just for the record-I should have said this originally-I am glad they did not put TB in the movie. I don't want anyone to think that because I think he is important to the story, he should be in the movie.

I am sort of wavering on the film thing. Granted, TB is indeed important to LotR, not to the main plot about the ring, but as a deeper message. Also, TB is fun! For the average movie-goer, one who has not read LotR, TB would have looked like 'excess baggage' at first sight. In the books, he does - as you said, Rhudadlion - a lot more. However, for those interested in TB in the movie, there is a site where you can sign up on the petition for the 'LotR: FotR - Director's cut DVD'. I did.

The site is http://www.petitiononline.com/LoTRdvd/petition.html.

(This is perhaps strictly movie related, but...)

I liked Tom, because he embodied something deep and mysterious, yet ultimately sweet. He is wise, but unjaded.
Tom and his lady are "the last great innocents," you may say.

"Nice peice of gold you got there" - ha!

After Ralph Bakshi's 1978 version came out I wondered why the LotR came across as so dark. I realized it was the absence of various lighter moments... The elves in the Shire... baths in Crickhollow... and most important, Tom Bombadil. The LotR is such an expertly crafted story. The darkness creeps in, rather than falling like night on the plains. Those bright moments become fewer and fewer. But in every version of the LotR the change from Happy Hobbitland to Shadows of the Dark is instant.

Good points, Maril(man your full name is large!)

While I think that omitting TB from the movie was smart-it's just one of those parts that couldn't be done-I think he's essential to the story; and I enjoy him more each time I read.

I personally have a different opinion on the importance of Tom. I personally think the Hobbits are the people that kind of link the reader to the world, making it seem more similar. I think Tom is more important because in a way he helps the four hobbits to overcome their fears (with the dreams) Also, he gives them their swords, almost as a "coming of age" point.

I agree with you, Eldar 14! Although I would have liked to have seen godd ol' Tom Bombadil in the movie. I wouldn't have cared if it was 5+ hours long! Alas, I ramble! Forgivenss please.
Hantale (Quenya for Thanks!)

Eldar14 - you have a point, but I feel the real coming of age, for Frodo at any rate, was in the Barrow-Downs (appropriate nod to the barrow-wight), when he chooses to save his friends instead of putting on the ring and running. Tom didn't cause that, in fact they didn't listen to Tom's advice.

Eldar14 (your name is oddly appropriate) Tom is the direct living link to the eldar days. Elsewhere the history of ME is remembered, and in Lothlorien it tarries, like a dream (or Dreamflower), but with Tom Bombadil the ancient world of ME is fresh and alive. After meeting Tom, the ruins of ME are not empty shells but a reminder of something we (through the Hobbits) briefly experienced. He's vital to living breathing underlayer of ME. Just not to the narrative.

Rhudladion - yeah, I get a lot of ent jokes.

-Maril

Good points, Maril.

Eldar14, I agree with you about the Hobbits-I never said that Tom was the only link. And I think actually Maril hit the nail on the head more than I did when I started this thread. I definitely think tolkien saw himself and common people of earth as Hobbits.

-Rhud