Where did Tom go?

[Elenanna]

<BR> Re: Tom (and Glorfindel)</b><br><br> I thought you died in the sunlight, and shouldn't you have taken revenge on Tom for ruining your old barrow? And I thought you couldn't move from your barrow... your corpse was buried there <p>Visit me at <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/blorien16140>Lorien</a> friend of <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/bamongwareth>Amon Gwareth</a> and <a href=http://pub2.ezboard.com/brivendel>Rivendel</a> find my corpse at <a href=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi>The Barrowdowns</a> </p>

[The Barrow-Wight]

<BR> Re: Tom (and Glorfindel)</b><br><br> No... the corpse wasn't mine. It was the body of one of the royal line of Cardolan which my master destroyed. My lord commanded me to inhabit the barrow but, as was evidenced when I captured that Frodo fellow, I was able to leave the narrow at will. <p>The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)<br> I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p>

[Samwise of the shire]

<BR> Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> for REVENGE?Ha Ha Ha Ha,I am Samwise of the Shire brave bold and wicked I slew that nasty spider I can take revenge-okay I need to calm down this is not a chat room this is a forum where serious things are talked over-But I gotta have fun some time and not be such a stiff ole idiot.As for fact like I said before TB is'nt importent,tolkien said so Himself so maybe thats why they took him out <p></p>

[Elenanna]

<BR> Re: Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> When did Tolkien say he wasn't important? He is the element of mystery in Tolkiens' works, how is that <i> <u> not important?</u></i>If they take Tom out why don't they take out, lets say, the Druedan, Ghan-Buri-Ghan? <p>Visit me at <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/blorien16140>Lorien</a> friend of <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/bamongwareth>Amon Gwareth</a> and <a href=http://pub2.ezboard.com/brivendel>Rivendel</a> find my corpse at <a href=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi>The Barrowdowns</a> </p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000112>Elenanna </A>&nbsp; at: 3/26/01 8:46:26 pm<br></i>

[Mister Underhill]

<BR> Re: Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> Tom can be neatly excised. They won't mention him at the Council of Elrond, naturally, since he will be skipped in the movie, hence no confusion for movie viewers, who, unless they've read the books, won't even know of old Tom's existence. In fact, you can count on the Council scene as a whole being considerably abridged and compressed in the movie. Filming it verbatim would take up half of the film's running time. You'll get the highlights, and some pertinent information may be shifted to other scenes (for instance, I hear tell there may be a &quot;prologue&quot; showing the Last Alliance, Sauron's defeat, Isildur's blunder, and some other history of the Ring, meaning that stuff can be taken out of the Council scene). <p></p>

[The X Phial]

<BR> Re: Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> As much as I hate to see the work cut up in any way, I have to agree that for the purposes of a major Hollywood picture, Tolkien's mystery in the form of old Bombadillo is the most expendable character. Of course, I also think that cutting the Council Scene up will make for a lot of lost information, but I imagine the average watcher won't leave the theater saying...&quot;Gee, I wish that council scene had been longer.&quot; And, in the end, we are catering to the least common denominator. <p>-*-The X Phial-*- You must believe in free will, you have no choice. Isaac Singer</p>

[Elenanna]

<BR> Re: Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> Well, can you tell me how the hobbits will get their swords and how Aragorn follows them to Bree? And if he doesn't follow them, the how does he know that he is mister Underhill? <p>Visit me at <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/blorien16140>Lorien</a> friend of <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/bamongwareth>Amon Gwareth</a> and <a href=http://pub2.ezboard.com/brivendel>Rivendel</a> find my corpse at <a href=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi>The Barrowdowns</a> </p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<BR> Re: Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> Hmmmmm...for once I have to agree with Underhill. It is absolutely AWFUL that Tom Bombadil has to be taken out. But if someone has to be removed then Tom can be removed with minimum fuss and changes in the story. Plus, his presence isn't of vital importance to the main story, unlike say, Galadriel or Elrond. <p>What if - what if this is as good as it gets?</p>

[Elenanna]

<BR> Re: Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> Well, if you were to cut out everything that isn't absolutely <i> vital</i> to the story it would be a lot shorter and lacking the mystical essence of Tolkiens' work. <br> (sorry, I'm getting a bit eccentric here aren't I?)<br> Does anyone agree with me that Tom Bombadil should not be cut? What don't get is: WHY?!!! Why in blazes are they cutting him out, and replacing Glorfindel... with &quot;superstrength&quot; (or something like that according to the unreliable sources that I have) Arwen, can someone please show me the logic to these cuts (if there is any). <p>Visit me at <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/blorien16140>Lorien</a> friend of <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/bamongwareth>Amon Gwareth</a> and <a href=http://pub2.ezboard.com/brivendel>Rivendel</a> find my corpse at <a href=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi>The Barrowdowns</a> </p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<BR> Re: Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> Sure Tom shouldn't be cut. However, I wonder what you expected when you heard that PJ was making the movie? It's invariable that he will deviate from the original storyline (for which you can't blame just him. That's Hollywood) to make it more comprehensible to people who haven't read LoTR and to make it more commercial as well. So the least 'important' (read vital) charcter has been eliminated-Tom Bombadil. <p>What if - what if this is as good as it gets?</p>

[Elenanna]

<BR> Re: Re:Well what if one of the hobbits came back</b><br><br> if you want to cut out unimportant charators you could cut out Farmor Maggot. Sure he gives the hobbits a lift to the river and the ferry, but then the trip thrrough the old forest prevents the hobbits from being caught on the road to bree <p>Visit me at <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/blorien16140>Lorien</a> friend of <a href=http://pub16.ezboard.com/bamongwareth>Amon Gwareth</a> and <a href=http://pub2.ezboard.com/brivendel>Rivendel</a> find my corpse at <a href=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi>The Barrowdowns</a> </p>

<BR> Keep your fingers of moviemakers!</b><br><br> The question of &quot;ol´Tom&quot; always appear when you try to make a movie out of a book. The Lord of the Rings is no exception... <br> <br> However in some cases it will be a good idea to cut in the material to get a more resonable lenght on the movie. <br> But what I ALWAYS find irritating is when the moviemakers tends rewrite the bits an pieces of the story and change details that theres no need to. The story was written in an certain way so the moviemakers should keep their fingers off. There is no need for a &quot;Hollywoodish&quot; artistic touch.<br> So if I find out when I see the movie that the story has been changed with the cost of for example ol´Tom and other &quot;sidetracks&quot;. An Orc will seem like a kitten in comperance to me. <br> <br> Personally I think that a complicated story with many personalities in The Lord of the Rings would have been good for the movie. The books are &quot;overcrowded&quot; and hard to follow sometimes. But that is why they are so great. They give a fell of a real world, and above all a sence of a very old world.<br> So, I think that another 5 minutes with Tom Bombadill and the old forrest would have been good for the movie.<br> <br> By the way started to read The Lord of the Rings again yesterday...<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000366>Heimdal</A> at: 5/16/01 2:58:03 am<br></i>

[arwentinuviel]

<BR> WHY SHOULD TOM BE CUT OUT?</b><br><br> For starters tell me what is the point of cutting tom out?<br> Though his is not a main part ,i feel his presence is vital and i agree with heimdal it 's really irritating when directors rewrite their own versions of masterpieces <p></p>

[GandaIf The White]

<BR> Re: WHY SHOULD TOM BE CUT OUT?</b><br><br> I remember reading somewhere that he was cut out because the people who made the movie &quot;wanted to focus more on the story of Frodo and the Ring.&quot; I dont remember where I read it, but I think it may be at the E! Site that has all the information about the movie. Search for 'The Hobbit' in the Yahoo Search Engine if you have no idea what Im talking about, and you will see E! Online: The Force of The Hobbit. <p></p>

[Aldaron]

<BR> Re: WHY SHOULD TOM BE CUT OUT?</b><br><br> We just have to remember that we're talking about a two-hour movie. If there were no time constraints and we could have a 13-hour movie, then we could leave Tom in and everything else. Them's just the fact, m'am. <p></p>

<BR>Well you are correct Aldaron...</b><br><br> But I think its like leaving Boba Fett out of the Star Wars movies. <br> But Ill see the movies anyway, In knights armor. <p></p>

<BR> Re: WHY SHOULD TOM BE CUT OUT?</b><br><br> I don't think the &quot;hey come merry-doll, derry-doll&quot; song would film very well. <p></p>

[Elenanna]

<BR> Cutting</b><br><br> Ok, I can see the point in cutting some things, like the songs, maybe. For one thing they probably wouldn't pick a very good tune and ruin it completely. But taking out Tom Bombadil is insane.<br> If you want to focus the story more on Frodo and the ring then thats ok, you can cut out more minor things. But cutting out Tom you can't do! There are threads which reappear in other parts of the story.<br> e.g. In the Council of Elrond they talk about hiding it and giving it to Tom.<br> There are more, I'm sure you will be able to think of a few, but all in all you are cutting out a lot more then however long it would take to just cut out Tom Bombadil.<br> Another point, how will Strider &gt;Aragorn&lt; overhear the hobbits, how will they avoid the Ring Wraiths?<br> What about the swords? In Gondor, when Pippin pledges his loyalty to Denethor, he (Denethor) realizes that it was made by them and it pleases him. How else will the hobbits be armed.<br> All in all cutting out Tom Bombadil is a big mistake! <p></p>

[red]

<BR><br><br> That is only your opinion, Elenanna. I am as huge a Tolkien fan as any of you, but I don't think cutting out Tom is a big deal. I won't miss him at all. And, no, he is NOT vital for Peter Jackson's story, for that is, after all, what it is. Not Tolkien's. Tolkien's story exists in the books, period. The movie is all Peter's (with some influence from the money handlers, I'm sure!!!). It is an interpretation</b>. Is there an echo in here?? lol!! But since some people <i> just don't get it</i>, I suppose it has to be repeated.<br> <br> -red <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000094>red</A> at: 6/4/01 11:36:09 am<br></i>

[GandaIf The White]

<BR><br><br> Well, whatever happens, they are not only taking out Tom, but changing the story in other ways in the same moment. I am guessing that Frodo will now think of some way to get Pippin and Merry out of Old Man Willow, if that scene happens at all. And, Im also guessing that Merry and Pippin will find there swords as they come by the cave of the Trolls. Tom will be left out of the discussion at The Council. And Gandalfs reason for leaving the Hobbits will simply be that he is not responsible for the Middle Earth any more, now that the Third Age is over.<br> <br> Yet, if they do get caught by the Wights, I think that it will be Frodos part in the Movie to save them somehow. I think they want Frodo to look courageous, because besides carrying the Ring, all he ever does is stab the Orc Cheiftan in Moria (Not much in the eyes of Movie Go'ers who have not read LOTR). I guess that is the way it has to be.. this movie is not here to please the people who are really into Tolkien, but to earn money. You have to be happy you are getting a Movie at all, though I can say that I would be happy if I only read the books my whole life.<br> <br> Tom seems like a minor character in the whole story. It was just a bad choice made by them of which scenes to cut to save time. <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>

[red]

<BR><br><br> **sighs** <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p>

[GandaIf The White]

<BR><br><br> Red, you let everything bad in the Movie go right over your head like you dont even care that they are taking Tom out.. why? <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>

[red]

<BR><br><br> GandaIf, as far as I can tell (and seeing as I am the movie news scout for the Downs, I can tell a lot about the movies), there is nothing 'bad' in the movies. As for the rest of your unwarranted concern, read my post in this thread from 6/4 again, as I already explained it there. You are right, I don't care that Tom is nixed!<br> <br> -réd <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000094>red</A> at: 6/5/01 8:17:16 pm<br></i>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<BR><br><br> She's a movie-supporter all the way Gandalf. All the PJ cheerers think the same way. You should see some of the posts in the Movie forum over at Tolkienonline. You'd think they've never read Tolkien, the way they talk. *sigh* Oh well, to each his own. <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p>

[GandaIf The White]

<BR><br><br> I agree with you Lorien Wanderer. It seems like they would rather back a mistake than put down a Movie. But, who cares. I guess I love Tolkiens books more than they do. <br> <br> Take that, Red. <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>

[red]

<BR><br><br> That post does nothing but show me just how ridiculous and ignorant you are. Period.<br> <br> -rêd, die-hard Tolkien fan AND movie-supporter <p><blockquote><p>"He was as noble and as fair in face as an elf-lord, as strong as a warrior, as wise as a wizard, as venerable as a king of dwarves, and as kind as summer."</p> <p>-A Short Rest, <i>The Hobbit</i></p></blockquote></p>

[The Barrow-Wight]

<BR><br><br> I don't know how ignorant it is, but réd is right that it is ridiculous. It is not logical to say or suggest that someone who loves the movies doesn't love the books. It is also not logical to expect a film to be able to include every detail from the novel it portrays. <br> <br> I doubt you'll find someone who is more of a 'book supporter' than réd (or myself). And she and I are both very excited by the prospect of a the films. We've read the books and apparently still have our imaginations intact. Others, it seems, are locked into concrete visions that constrict their ability to enjoy new things.<br> <br> And in case anyone is still having a problem with perspective: Its Just A Movie. (Or three, in this case). <p>The Barrow-Wight (RKittle)<br> I usually haunt <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com">The Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs <a href="http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi">Middle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p>

[GandaIf The White]

<BR><br><br> Geez. Im playing around with you Red. Cant you take a little of my easy-hearted insults once and a while? I dont really mean it. Will try not to be so sarcastic next time I am joking. I know everyone here loves Tolkiens work.<br> <br> Dont think less of me. Thats just my personality. I have a group of online freinds and we joke around with eachother like that all the time, so coming to a serious Forum like this is hard. <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000064>GandaIf The White</A> at: 6/8/01 10:05:05 pm<br></i>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<BR><br><br> Oh no no no. I didn't mean that movie supporters don't love the books. I mean it's pretty obvious Red's as much if not a more an LoTR fanatic than anyone on this board. Just that some of the posts there sounded like the people hadn't even read LoTR (which, now that I think about it, they probably hadn't). They didn't seem to know anything about Lorien or Elrond. All they talked about was Arwen and *sigh* her vital stats and how much they hoped she'd be exposed (This is a G board right? I won't get more specific). <p>Humour is emotional chaos remembered in moments of tranquility.</p>

[GandaIf The White]

<BR><br><br> There is much arguement that Tom is not essential to the basic plot at all. That is the reason PJ took him out and that is the reason that people who dont care that he was taken out give.<br> <br> But dont you think he deserves some credit? He was the first living thing on the Middle Earth. He is the reason the hobbits didn't die. And he is the reason that the Lord of the Nazgul was killed and Eowyn was not. It seems he is as wise and strong as the Valar.. But I've only read the beginning pages of The Sillmarillion so I dont really know if that is true. <p>"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p>