Serving animals in HOBBIT film

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I disagree totally. Bombadil reads like an anachronism - his bizarre behaviour, his bumbling attitude, his strange speaking habits - all in all he reads more like a character from The Hobbit than LOTR. His insertion into the tale seems entirely random and somewhat tedious, and I'd say this one of very few points where Tolkien's writing falters somewhat.

This from a post of mine in the Chapter by Chapter read through:

So, what stories does he tell the hobbits, exactly?

He begins, with the place they’re in - the Old Forest. He tells them its nature & history, the stories of its inhabitants, giving them an insight into the place they’re in. then his stories take them out from the forest into the hills of the Barrow Downs. He takes them, also, back in time, back through the history of the Land, but his stories don’t stop there:

They have been transported from the everyday world, with the earth solid beneath their feet, back to the begining, where the stars of Elbereth shine in the silence. But still, Tom is there, his voice speaking out of that silence. And he is going to tell them something important, something vital - he tells them to ‘mark my words, my friends’:

What Tom is telling them is that his ‘stories’ are not simply stories - they are his own memories - he is telling them of his own experiences. But this visionary experience doesn’t end with Tom standing in the fearless dark, beneath the stars, something else is to culminate the whole mystical experience:

We’ve gone back to the begining of the world, guided by Tom Bombadil, & who do we find awaiting us, bearing a light in her hand, echoing the Secret Fire, telling us that new waters are flowing under the stars, but Goldberry, the River Daughter!

Finally, what do we make of Tom’s verse:

This is a kind of ‘invocation’ - Tom is called by invoking the elements of the Land - water & earth, the living plants & trees (including the ‘dread’ Willow!), the (the ‘Secret’?)‘fire’, & finally, by the lights of heaven, the Sun & the Moon. They are to call on the elements of the Land beneath & the heavens above them, to bring Tom to their aid, & if they do so, he will come to them.

Originally Posted by SK

Also, showing him laughing at the Ring would destroy all the sense of danger that has been built up around it previously. Finally a man in yellow boots singing a tree to sleep is frankly ridiculous, especially when put into movies that have been praised so much for their realistic view of fantasy.

No it wouldn't - anymore than it does in the books. One of the main differences between book & movies is Tolkien's subtle exploration of the nature & power of the Ring, as opposed to Jackson's over-simplification of it.

The movies had a sense of mystery,

No - they just had an air of confusion.

[Sauron the White]

from davem regarding Tom Bombadil

No it wouldn't - anymore than it does in the books.

For once I agree with you since he was a total disaster to the books also. Either way he is simply a bad character.

[Finduilas]

Do you know...some of the most intelligent people I know (davem, my older brother, my sister, Tolkien, others) are the ones who love Bombadil. I wonder what that says about those who dislike him and say that it was Tolkien's worst moment?

-- Folwren, in disguise of her sister Finduilas

(That means, if you disagree with what I said, make your reply to Folwren and not to Finduilas. I was just too lazy to sign out of Fin's account and onto mine.)

[Sauron the White]

Do you know...some of the most intelligent people I know (davem, my older brother, my sister, Tolkien, others) are the ones who love Bombadil. I wonder what that says about those who dislike him and say that it was Tolkien's worst moment?

Well Folwren, when you frame it exactly that way, it means that anyone who does not adore Bombadil is an obvious idiot, has a bottom of the barrel IQ, probably cannot actually read LOTR in text format, and does not even call or send their sweet mother a card on the appropriate holiday occassions.

Does that about cover it?

[Finduilas]

About.

It was mostly a joke - but in all honesty! It is clearly a matter of opinion whether or not Bombadil was a good or necessary character. I think he was supurb - another example of Tolkien's genius of making new and interesting characters! Others, such as yourself (and, I will add, a very dear friend of mine who is intelligent and smart despite her ideas of Tom B. ), do not like him.

That doesn't give you the right to say that was Tolkien's worst moment and that he made a huge mistake in putting so much Bombadil in. For example, I personally think that Viggo played a horrible Aragorn, but I don't bash the many, many other young women or ladies or even guys who think he did a supurb job everytime we talk about it. It wouldn't be nice nor Christian like of me and people wouldn't like me very much if everytime we talked I pushed my opinions on them as though they were the only right opinions.

-- Folwren

[Sir Kohran]

Do you know...some of the most intelligent people I know (davem, my older brother, my sister, Tolkien, others) are the ones who love Bombadil. I wonder what that says about those who dislike him and say that it was Tolkien's worst moment?

Ah. So for loving Bombadil you are intelligent, whilst I am nothing more than a popcorn munching moron who should be taken outside and beaten for my disgusting behaviour in daring to have an opinion beyond 'everything Tolkien did was absolutely perfect'.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Ah. So for loving Bombadil you are intelligent, whilst I am nothing more than a popcorn munching moron who should be taken outside and beaten for my disgusting behaviour in daring to have an opinion beyond 'everything Tolkien did was absolutely perfect'.

Well, if you want to be beaten, sure. I never said so.

I might suggest broadening your horizons.

-- Fol

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

Ah. So for loving Bombadil you are intelligent, whilst I am nothing more than a popcorn munching moron who should be taken outside and beaten for my disgusting behaviour in daring to have an opinion beyond 'everything Tolkien did was absolutely perfect'.

The whole Bombadil 'mythology' (which, let's not forget, was imported virtually wholesale into LotR from 'outside' - the poem 'The Adventures of Tom Bombadil' pre-existed LotR) is full of folkloric elements, & I suppose any reader unfamiliar with British folklore may struggle with Tom - though many readers with no such knowledge take to him straight off.

I find (& I'm generalising here) that those who don't like the OMW/TB/Barrow Downs episode don't like Tolkien's constant 'digressions' into M-e history, & also tend to skip the poems as unnecessary too (& all that description of landscape!- Why didn't Tolkien just tell the story?- a decent editor could have trimmed the whole thing down to about 250 pages & it would have been much better for it, etc, etc.).

This little 'argument' can never be won because its all down to personal taste. For myself, the whole Old Forest, Bombadil, Barrow Downs episode is one of my favourite parts of LotR, & the book would be much, much less without it. I love the strange 'familiarity' (or familiar 'strangeness') of the whole sequence. If the Shire is a depiction of rural England around the time of (Queen Victoria's) Diamond Jubilee, as Tolkien stated, the Old Forest/Downs episode is a perfect depiction of an older, wilder England. I'd also venture to say that without those three chapters of LotR we may never have got Smith of Wooton Major. Both could be seen (on one level) as meditations on/explorations of England's Fairyland, & the Old Forest/Barrow Downs episode must be included, because of its (far more so than the Shire) quintesential 'Englishness'.