Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Tom Bombadil is probably the most memorable character of The Lord of the Rings. I never heard of anyone “not really caring for Tom Bombadil” until I started hearing of people “not really caring for The Hobbit”. I know for a fact that there are people who can’t read a book unless they have already seen it visualized for them on a screen, so that must be what’s going on here.

That said, I’m very glad P.J. didn’t try to portray Tom Bombadil, because he would have screwed it up ROYALLY. I wish he would leave The Hobbit alone, too.

But, what’s the point of this? Many people here dislike the P.J. movies and some don’t. I’m sure there are people who consider themselves “real Tolkien fans” on both sides. It’s a polarizing issue and it’s impossible to “convince” the other side that they are wrong.

Well, if he's the most memorable, then why doesn't anyone ever talk about him? and no you can't say it's from people didn't read the books are not true fans . I know guys who've read the trilogy a dozen times and can't stand the character and make it a point to skip those chapters.

Do I think the character has a purpose? Sure I do and I think he could of even been an even better character if Tolkein had written one scene with him in being affected by what was happening. Cause in war and times of crises, everyone is effected even the people who put there heads into the ground and pretend noting is happening. If the good Professor had just given one tiny instance of him begin affected by the world going up in flames, his character would of had much more importance and purpose. Surely he must of shed atleast one little tear seeing the horrors upon the land--and if not--well, he's one lousy fucking SOB.

But hey. Everyone has there own views. Just like some people don't like Knights in fantasy liteature . Well, some of us don't like ol' Tom --or at least wish he was better written.

I was fine with the stuff that PJ left out of the movie from the books. Would I have liked to see Tom Bombadil included? Sure. But I understand the need to cut down the material. The films were already incredibly long.

My displeasure about PJ's work has much more to do with places where elements from the books were included but drastically altered, or where new story elements were inserted wholesale. If the excuse for leaving out Tom, the meal at Farmer Cotton's, the scourging of the shire, etc. is that there wasn't enough time to fit it all in, it makes no sense to be adding in a bunch of crap about Arwen and Aragorn that really does the movies no favors.

An interesting adjunct is that, when I've asked people who have never read the books what their favorite parts of the movies were, they invariably choose portions of the movies that were altered the least from the original material. Conversely, their least favorite parts are invariably the parts written and inserted by the filmmakers that have nothing to do with the original material (Aragorn falling off the ledge and "dying" seems to be a particularly unpopular bit). To me, that's pretty telling.

That said, I'm excited to see The Hobbit. I enjoyed the LOTR movies enough to go back for more, even if it may not live up to the source material in every respect.

Mrk wrote:Well, if he's the most memorable, then why doesn't anyone ever talk about him? and no you can't say it's from people didn't read the books are not true fans . I know guys who've read the trilogy a dozen times and can't stand the character and make it a point to skip those chapters.

Do I think the character has a purpose? Sure I do and I think he could of even been an even better character if Tolkein had written one scene with him in being affected by what was happening. Cause in war and times of crises, everyone is effected even the people who put there heads into the ground and pretend noting is happening. If the good Professor had just given one tiny instance of him begin affected by the world going up in flames, his character would of had much more importance and purpose. Surely he must of shed atleast one little tear seeing the horrors upon the land--and if not--well, he's one lousy fucking SOB.

But hey. Everyone has there own views. Just like some people don't like Knights in fantasy liteature . Well, some of us don't like ol' Tom --or at least wish he was better written.

If you think Tom should have demonstrated emotion, you have completely misunderstood the character and his role in Middle Earth.

De gustibus and all that.

But none of that gives you any privilege to be a rude ass when sharing your opinions.

Flambeaux wrote:
If you think Tom should have demonstrated emotion, you have completely misunderstood the character and his role in Middle Earth

[Deleted by admin --Mythmere] I understand the fucking character perfectly. I just don't like what he repersented and the bullshit Pollyanna ideology. And if you knew how to read between the lines of what Tolkein said you can tell he had some issues with the character as well.

Flambeaux wrote: none of that gives you any privilege to be a rude ass when sharing your opinions.

[Deleted by admin --Mythmere]

[User has been banned for acting like a Jrk. --Mythmere]

I'm so pleased to note that the civil, mature tone of discussion characteristic of the Alehouse is being maintained in this thread.

[Insult regarding cognition and hat has been removed - Mythmere] You want to start with the insults be ready to take i'm.

[Admin reminder: it's not who starts first, it's who crosses the line first]

Flambeaux wrote:I'm so pleased to note that the civil, mature tone of discussion characteristic of the Alehouse is being maintained in this thread.

Sorry about that. Steps are being taken...

I'm all for an artistic license or a fresh perspective, but just how many times can a single piece of work be revisioned and redistributed before it becomes commercial piggy-backing? Kill the franchise already, before Tolkien comes back to haunt us all with a vengeance.

T. Foster wrote:

Flambeaux wrote:I'm so pleased to note that the civil, mature tone of discussion characteristic of the Alehouse is being maintained in this thread.

Sorry about that. Steps are being taken...

Thank you.

Wow, I didn't think a happy, proto-hippie like Tom Bombadil could generate such angst!

Meanwhile, back to the topic....

Personally, I think LOTR: The Movie is the best made fantasy movie ever (Conan remains my favorite, but I digress). That said, I do NOT consider it to really be LOTR. The book is the "true" story. I have huge issues with changes made for the movie...Boyen/Jackson/et al apparently took some high school or college writing class and tried to apply all the crap they learned to make a "proper" story. One instance: to explain their character assassination of Faramir (one of their more egregious faults, IMO), Jackson explained somewhere that all the characters needed to "grow" and "develop" during the process of the story - what a load of crap. They did not need to turn him into a simpering jackass to do that! If PJ could've matached his brilliant film making to a better treatment of the story he would've had an unmatched masterpiece.

I am pleased to hear that the 2-movie Hobbit will only cover Tolkien's work and not try to come up with some lame bridge between movies. Tolkien tells us in the appendices what happened between the stories...Bilbo got fat, Frodo got born, and lots of things happened on the fringe that are interesting but not really worth a blockbuster movie! If they want to cash in even more, go make some Silmarillion stories into movies!

Mrk has been banned for excessive ad hominem attacks, and I've removed the offending language. We now return you to the original topic of the thread. Thank you.

The worldwide film, stage, and merchandise (including games) rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are owned by a fellow named Saul Zaentz, who bought them from J.R.R. Tolkien in 1976.

Christopher Tolkien (executor of the J.R.R. Tolkien Estate) has not and will not allow anyone to do any movie or game based on The Silmarillion, The History of Middle-earth, etc.

I can’t say I blame him, however it would be awesome to see a board war game of The Silmarillion. I also wouldn’t mind seeing it as a BBC TV series. I’m sure after good old Christopher passes away, the Estate will succumb to temptation, for better or for worse. Regards.

Falconer wrote:The worldwide film, stage, and merchandise (including games) rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are owned by a fellow named Saul Zaentz, who bought them from J.R.R. Tolkien in 1976.

Christopher Tolkien (executor of the J.R.R. Tolkien Estate) has not and will not allow anyone to do any movie or game based on The Silmarillion, The History of Middle-earth, etc.

I can’t say I blame him, however it would be awesome to see a board war game of The Silmarillion. I also wouldn’t mind seeing it as a BBC TV series. I’m sure after good old Christopher passes away, the Estate will succumb to temptation, for better or for worse. Regards.

Last I heard Christopher Tolkien was attempting to wrest back control of the IP. Apparently, it is not about money, but he is not pleased with the direction Tolkien Enterprises is taking things.

The gamer in me certainly agrees. For me, TE taking MERP away from ICE ranks up there with Gary's ouster from TSR. Well, nearly.

I never ran a game in ME, but the ideas in those MERP publications were so good, that I mined the heck out them for characters and mini-adventures in my games. I still do.