Why Can't Movies Be Like Books?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I can hear every comedian on late night TV doing a bit about dongs and dillos from the LOTR films. That would have had the audience either in embarassed titters or outright stitches.

So much for Bombadil.

It might be pointed out that Gollem was used in a major American TV broadcast using objectionable language for humorous effect. It had the audience in stitches--at least those who weren't offended by a major character of Tolkien's using language which he would never have countenanced in his character's mouth. So making fun of Bombadil wouldn't necessarily mean anything other than an opportunity for more publicity.

Leaving Bombadil out is neither here nor there for me. It has it's drawbacks, such as omitting a character who is immune to the Ring's influence and the subtle hints that the hobbits are in for more than they yet really appreciate. Yet I can also understand the omission from FotR given time constraints.

However, to reply to the criticism that Bombadil is so completely alien to LotR's Middle-earth as to render visual representation impossibly ludicrous, I offer this very fitting, very Shire-friendly portrait of The House of Bombadil by Alan Lee. (My own tastes do not lend themselves to the depictions by, for example, the Hidebrant brothers.) Amidst all the harrowing incidents on the journey to destroy the Ring, it is easy to overlook the fact that Tolkien does provide scenes of significant respit, The House of Bombadil being the first. To lessen the sites of relief represents an interpretation based more on (supposedly) PJ's own philosophical world vision than on Tolkien's. I don't offer Alan Lee's drawing as a definitive representation, but as an example of how Bombadil could have been represented as consistent within the LotR universe. The inclusion of the rainbow suggests just one way in which for Tolkien "hope" remained important.