Viewing Thread:
"Poor Tom Bombadil"

Having just read the first lord of the rings book(after watching the film of course, dont want to spoil the films by reading the books first), I cant help but feel sorry for Tom Bombadil. JRR Tolkien must have liked the character a lot to have a spin off Tom Bombadil book, so his ommission from the film must have been a painful cut for Peter Jackson to make. Anyway, has anyone else read the books (no spoilers for any post fellowship events please), and how do they compare to the films? The first film was pretty similar with the exceptions of the hobbit conspiracy, the farmer, the Tom Bombadil and fog on the moors chapters, and of course Bomomir isnt killed at the end of the first book. But then again when reading the book I was using my imagination, but it was tainted by the film....still good film, good book....hopefully the next installments will be equally riveting.

Tom Bombadil is the oldest being in Middle Earth isn't he? When he put the ring on his finger (in the book) it had no effect. He's Tolkien's Adam - a perfect human - the first man. It's a shame he wasn't in the film, but I can understand why not. They had to cram so much stuff into just 3 hours.

For me, the film lacked the quaint humour of the book.

As I said in my earlier post, there was a spin off Tom Bombadil book, I haven't read it, but Im sure that It would more than likely fill in details of him. The books called something like "the adventures of Tom Bombadil". It is listed at the beginning of the edition of the book I have as one of the other books JRR Tolkien wrote.

P@st@ wrote:
> Because he is a mystery to all except JRR Tolkien. In the book, he
> puts on the ring and It doesn't affect him. Every defined species in
> middle earth wazss affected, and in earlier books there was never any
> mention of Tom.

Hes not that much of a mystery, the clues are all theres (I seem to remeber theres a conversation several of the the characters have about him that pretty much fills in all the details?)

I tghink TOm Bombadil was left out deliberatly.

Why?

Because he is a mystery to all except JRR Tolkien. In the book, he puts on the ring and It doesn't affect him. Every defined species in middle earth wazss affected, and in earlier books there was never any mention of Tom.

Hence any representation of him would be difficult and would annoy the fans of the book I believe. It was best to leave him out as he has no further significance to the story really.

They also missed out the part where they are attacked by wolves before entering Moria. Among the other things i noticed included, Haldír did not meet them in the forests of Lothlorien, and it was Boromir that was throwing stones into the water outside Moria not Pippin. Other than that the film is pretty close to the books. And is really well done.

Having just read the first lord of the rings book(after watching the film of course, dont want to spoil the films by reading the books first), I cant help but feel sorry for Tom Bombadil. JRR Tolkien must have liked the character a lot to have a spin off Tom Bombadil book, so his ommission from the film must have been a painful cut for Peter Jackson to make. Anyway, has anyone else read the books (no spoilers for any post fellowship events please), and how do they compare to the films? The first film was pretty similar with the exceptions of the hobbit conspiracy, the farmer, the Tom Bombadil and fog on the moors chapters, and of course Bomomir isnt killed at the end of the first book. But then again when reading the book I was using my imagination, but it was tainted by the film....still good film, good book....hopefully the next installments will be equally riveting.