LotR1-FotR-Seq07

[Essex]

Originally Posted by Lathriel

The only thing that realy bothered me with weathertop was that Strider just left the hobbits for no apparent reason. He's like,"Here are your swords,bye."

Yep. Change the story and that's what you get! 'I'm going for a look around' - doesn;t sound very Tolkien does it? That's what you get when you mess with the plot. Where on earth did he get 4 hobbit sized swords from? not in movie Bree, as there were no other hobbits there. How did he know there were 4 hobbits travelling? He didn't - if Gandalf had somehow got news to him then he would have had two swords for frodo and sam.

I'm moaning about this as they really got their swords from the barrow wights via good old Tom Bombadil - Bring back Tom! that's what I say. When my mini series get's made, he's gonna be one of the biggest stars!

[Lathriel]

I don't neccessarily think Tom had to be in the movie although it would have been nice if he had. I would simply like to have had a better explanation from Aragorn. For example he could have told the hobbits that The Ringwraiths are afraid of fire and don't make too much noise. That is another little peeve of mine, the hobbits make enough noise to attract attention from any creature who happens to be 5 minutes away from weathertop..

[alatar]

Can't really justify placing Tom in the movie just to give the swords their lineage, but on the other hand the fact that Aragorn just happened to have four 'long knives' just laying around is a bit silly. And though some of us have gone round and round regarding Merry's W-K bane, the fact that Aragorn chases *five* of them away with a little more than a no name sword and a torch begs the question: so just how hard is it to defeat these wraiths?

One was put off by thrown luggage, another or the same wasn't able to make any headway after surprising four hobbits in darkened woods while on horseback, and the Lord of Angmar himself simply sticks Frodo to the ground instead of killing him (like Saruman taunted Gandalf with) and fails to recover the One Ring because some Ranger just happens to show up with a torch.

I would conclude that PJ lessened the mystery of these creatures and erased much of their backstory so that they could be dealt with by Aragorn, around whom much of this action movie centers.

Bring on the mini-series!

[Essex]

i'm in an argumentative mood here!

'justfy' tom? OK, understand this point from a point of view of cutting down time in the movie, but if we're talking about cutting characters out - let's start with Galadriel.

what did she add to the movie? yes, she gave frodo the light, but he could have picked it up elsewhere (hey aragorn or elrond could have given him it) - what else did she 'add' - yes she shows that the temptation of the Ring nearly takes her but she passes the test - so adds more drama to the Ring - but so does Tom by his reaction to the ring - he is not controlled or tempted by it -

could go on for ages about this, but I've got a conference call to join so must dash!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Essex

i'm in an argumentative mood here!

'justfy' tom? OK, understand this point from a point of view of cutting down time in the movie, but if we're talking about cutting characters out - let's start with Galadriel.

...but so does Tom by his reaction to the ring - he is not controlled or tempted by it

Before we begin cutting Galadriel, assume that we have time to include Tom or another Pippin joke, and have to decide between the two. I'm PJ (I'll even wear shorts for the exercise) and you're one of the writers. Convince me that within the flow of the story that we have, and using the PJisms noted in the SbS (i.e. elevating Aragorn, making Pippin silly, etc) that we could include the character of Tom Bombadil. You can even suppose that he would only appear in the extended edition.

My argument is that any appearance of Tom would only slow the pace and confuse the average viewer, and PJ endeavored to avoid doing both. Since first seeing the Ring, we've only observed *bad* connected to it. Sauron, its first bearer and maker, gets a finger-ectomy. Isildur goes for a face-down float, Déagol gets strangled (though we see that later), Sméagol gets an extreme makeover and Bilbo starts to get really odd and is not content in Paradise. Gandalf won't take the thing. Frodo is pressed by the wraiths to place it on, and when he finally does, he not only sees the Eye full screen but also has to endure its moronic rambling ("I'm a He-Eye, and I SEE YOU! "). And the next time Frodo places the Ring on his finger, he gets stabbed.

So if we had Tom, who is immune to the Ring, appear and caper about, I think that the audience would wonder (1) who Tom really was, (2) why he was immune (3) why the Ring was so important and (4) why Tom did not keep the Ring.

Anyway, maybe others have more pros and cons.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by alatar

So if we had Tom, who is immune to the Ring, appear and caper about, I think that the audience would wonder (1) who Tom really was, (2) why he was immune (3) why the Ring was so important and (4) why Tom did not keep the Ring.

Fair point. Except number 4 - he doesn't need it, and it does nothing for him, so why would he keep it?

PS haven't we ALL wondered from time to time about the first 2?

I suppose we have to except that the average movie goer is a stupid, "Just show me the Action, Jackson!" type person. Oh well. But I don't think they are myself - Yes they want action, but if there are conflicting views of how the Ring affects people (and we have a contradiction inasmuch as Sauron is not invisible when he wears it), and we want this movie to be Tolkien, then why not show this?

Now what about having Tom not show his powers against the Ring - but have him saving the hobbits from Old man Willow and the Barrow Wights? That would have been OK to me (and perhaps showing his power in the EE). We are still 'moving the characters along' - through the old forest and past the Wights - and just imagine the scene jackson could build in the Barrow itself - the sword across the hobbits' throats - Wow!

This way

1/ no 'pace' problem
2/ we're still getting the hobbits along the jorney
3/ we can then see Bree isn't just round the corner from the buckleberry ferry
4/ IT'S CLOSER TO THE BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mormegil]

I think the main problem with Tom is he's superfluous to the core story line. While I like the Tom sequence in the book I have met many people who get hung up there and never finish the book because of him. Why? Because really he's not needed for the integrity of the story and the confusion he would add would not outweigh the small faction of fans that would actually enjoy the sequence.

Galadriel, as one of the bearers of the three, is much more important to the story than Tom. The books even could be just fine without Tom in them. I feel that it would make the movie too choppy and scattered at that stage.

I disagree about pace problems but even more so I think that this would add at least 15 to 30 minutes to an already long movie.