• the_weez
    link
    fedilink
    English
    919 months ago

    I read the books as a youngin’ I was so pissed that they left my favorite character out of the movies. So I kinda had the opposite experience from you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I watched the movies first then read the books and was subsequently pissed when I realized what they left out lol.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        389 months ago

        I read the books first, and while there are plenty of omissions and outright changes from the source material that I disagree with, cutting Tom Bombadil is not one of them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          509 months ago

          Bombadil was one of the most important pieces of world building in LOTR, and that’s not a joke. He’s clearly a being of great power. He holds absolute sovereignty over his domain, such that even the trees and the undead bend to his will. And there is absolutely no cogent information or backstory on him, whatsoever. At all. Bombadil is printed proof that Middle Earth has a lot more going on than is touched on in the story. If Bombadil is an unexplained Great Being then it stands to reason that there would be more, beyond Sauron and Sauruman and the characters we meet directly. Bombadil is a signpost pointing off-screen and saying “Hey, there’s more stuff over this way”.

          He may be crazy, and silly, and poorly explained, but that’s all for a reason. Tom represents the “etc.” at the end of the list of beings in Middle Earth. He is an open end implying the existence of more like him.

          • @CitizenKong
            link
            English
            479 months ago

            Nice interpretation but he really was just a character from unrelated stories by Tolkien he liked so much he reused him in LOTR. He’s just a remnant of the initial version of the book which had a lot of elements later editions revised like Strider being a hobbit.

            • @Sylver
              link
              English
              209 months ago

              I think that’s what makes Tolkien such a talented writer. Sure, he just wanted a nice character reference, but he managed to make it fit in such a way that truly did expand the horizons of Mordor to near infinity.

              • @CitizenKong
                link
                English
                39 months ago

                Well, objectively he’s not a very good writer. He’s a great storyteller though, maybe the best of the entire 20th century.

            • @Telodzrum
              link
              English
              99 months ago

              It doesn’t really matter what Tolkien said or where Tom came from, mechanically in the work. Once it’s on the page, that’s the story.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          229 months ago

          Tom bombadil and the scouring of the shire were just, logical omissions.

          What they did to my boy Gimli though… :'(

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            27
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I disagree, I think the scouring of the shire is important and adheres to the themes established like home being worth fighting for even if you’re small and weak.

            I just really like Bombadil, so I accept that I’m biased.

            Gimli definitely got shafted.

            Boromir… I have never seen such a crime committed against a character before.

              • the_weez
                link
                fedilink
                English
                179 months ago

                And honestly I think that’s ok, and an acceptable reason to leave him out. Tom really would be difficult to do justice on the big screen, and might confuse the majority of people that didn’t read the books first.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              129 months ago

              A whole second sturggle after the climax if the movie is unbearable and would just make it drag on. They were right to ommit it from the movies.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            79 months ago

            How different was Gimli in the books? I must admit I didn’t read them, but in my defense I don’t read any books.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              199 months ago

              Book gimli is an intelligent, articulate warrior poet.
              Film gimli is a bumbling comedic relief.

              For example when they enter Moria, in the film, most of the exposition in the film is given to Gandalf, with Gimli being reduced to gasping and awing.

              “These are not holes,” said Gimli. “This is the great realm and city of the Dwarrowdelf. And of old it was not darksome, but full of light and splendour, as is still remembered in our songs.”

              He rose and standing in the dark he began to chant in a deep voice, while the echoes ran away into the roof.

              Followed by Gimli singing a song about its former splendour

              At the tomb of Balin, instead of crying and moaning the whole scene:

              “He is dead then,” said Frodo. “I feared it was so.” Gimli cast his hood over his face.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        26
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I firmly believe the movies would be unwatchable if they left in one punch man and half the singing.

        Different mediums.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
        link
        English
        129 months ago

        Treebeard gets one of Tom’s scenes in the extended version of the movie.