• slazer2au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I see why he was cut from the films. He honesty doesn’t contribute much once the barrows were cut.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 days ago

      If he had been included, people would have complained about how he was depicted, how it killed the pacing, and what was cut instead (that we ended up getting in one of the versions).

      Tom is a side quest and footnote lore. I know some won’t be happy with that opinion, but he wasn’t crucial to the story outside of a few references that could be left out of the films.

      • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 days ago

        I get a kick out of watching deep dives into Tom Bombadil lore. Folks go nuts trying to explain his and Goodberry’s roles in the LotR universe.

        Tolkien himself said Tom was based on a Dutch doll that his kids threw in the toilet. He wrote a poem for his kids about Tom in 1934 and it also includes Goodberry and Old Man Willow.

        They ended up in Lord of the Rings as a kind of gift to his kids.

      • TropicalDingdong
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 days ago

        Tom is also a lighthearted transition from the more young adult writing in The Hobbit towards the darker, more consequence driven aspects of Lord of The Rings. There is a wild untamed darkness to Tom.

        Ive always seen it as more than a simple side quest, but something that served a narrative role to show, “hey, we’re leaving the fun safe place”…

    • egrets
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      The extended versions do give Treebeard some of the qualities of Bombadil, plus a pastiche of the Old Man Willow scene. No barrow-downs, though, and no Goldberry.