Tom Bombadil being missing is pretty much the last thing I'd ever complain about Peter Jackson doing with the movies. He was thoroughly irrelevant. Tolkien just stuck one of his kid's toys into the story. He trivializes the Ring and the threat of Sauron. The Barrow-Downs deus ex machina was pretty blah, too.
He's like a story dead-end.
Yea, I definitely got the impression that when he started writing LOTR, he was still thinking more of children's stories like with the Hobbit, where Bombadil types fit in just fine. Then he got more serious but didn't bother going back and rewriting.
I don't think even Tolkein ever figured out where Bombadil fit in with Middle Earth's history, where everything else like wizards and elves and giant spiders has an origin and is accounted for. Bombadil just popped out of nowhere.
That's the part I never got. Lord of the Rings was painstakingly revised before publication. I think he mentioned in one of his letters that he'd actually gone and made sure every description of the moon was consistent with the story's chronology. I almost suspect he left him in just for the hell of it.
Yeah, that's the idea I think. Almost every aspect of LOTR is described to the nth detail, like you said, but Tom is an enigma. Tolkien left him in there to leave you to wonder. We don't know what kind of being he is, where he's from, what happens to him... basically anything about the character.
'And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).'
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144
I'm not so much disappointed that Jackson likely won't be doing the Hobbit, but I am bummed that the weta workshop won't be doing the movie. They did great work.
Which company did the Narnia effects? That wasn't WETA was it?
I'm not so much disappointed that Jackson likely won't be doing the Hobbit, but I am bummed that the weta workshop won't be doing the movie. They did great work.
Which company did the Narnia effects? That wasn't WETA was it?
I'm pretty sure it was.
Yea, one of the big reasons I went to see that movie is because I heard WETA was doing it.
Tolkien specifically said that Bombadil isn't God or Eru.
Speculative ideas about his true nature range from simply a wise Elven hermit to an angelic being (a Maia or Vala), to the creator, who is called Eru Ilúvatar in J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. Tolkien explicitly denied this last possibility. He is the reprise of a character from an earlier, unrelated Tolkien poem.
The evidence tends to suggest that Bombadil was simply an anomaly; a character inserted by Tolkien into the Lord of the Rings for reasons ultimately known only to himself, and who genuinely had no causal relationship with Arda or the beings that created it beyond the specific incidents where Bombadil is described. Given that Tolkien was fastidious in explaining the origin and relation of every other element of his legendarium, it is possible that Bombadil represented his one indulgence outside that discipline, in the sense that Bombadil was simply there, and there was no real explanation for his presence.
I don't care at all that Peter Jackson isn't directing the prequels. I don't see what the big deal is, I've never seen any evidence of great directing from him.
The deal is that without Jackson we mostlikely won't get the original special effeckts crews nor the original actors.
You don't need the same actors. This isn't like replacing the actors in a T.V. show or in the middle of the trilogy, this is another movie by a different director. It doesn't necessarily have to connect to Peter Jackson's trilogy - I don't know about you, but my image of Bilbo is not forever fixed as Ian Holm. As long as the actors are good, it's fine. Of course, we don't know whether new actors would be any good at all, so there is that risk.
Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment.' I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in The Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function.
...
And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I am pretty sure that Bombadil was Tolkien's subconscious reassurance that he could break his own rules and not have a written, fully fleshed-out reason for a character's existence.
SithDrummer on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
Yeah, well good luck with this New Line, because without Jackson you are seriously going to fucking need it.
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
I wonder how many millions it would take to get Ian McKellen and Ian Holm to do a complete unabridged reading of "The Hobbit" as their characters from the trilogy on audio CD?
Ian as Gandalf/Narrator, with Ian Holm as Bilbo.
The dwarves and other misc characters? Hmm...
If only I was wealthy and eccentric enough to pull it off.
Or maybe I could just field the movie myself and hire PJ & Co.!? Yeah, that's it! Now to get past all the legal crap.
I am pretty sure that Bombadil was Tolkien's subconscious reassurance that he could break his own rules and not have a written, fully fleshed-out reason for a character's existence.
Eh, whatever his reasons, I still like him. I still chuckle that he puts on the Ring and doesn't even seem to care. It had no lure to him.
The prequel movie thing is probably going to suck horribly. I doubt they are doing the Similarion, because they would have just said it. that only leaves something written by hollywood or maybe the unfinished J.R.R. Tolkien book Christoper Tolkien is working on and unless most of it was already written, the book is just going to be like a history book. Whatever story it is, the movie will probably absolutly kill Tolkien's lore.
The hobbit has some potential, but like others said, its a much less epic event. Sure they have that final fight scene, but I doubt it was as large as Mina Tirith or something like that. The Hobbit can't be potrayed in the same way as the LoTR or it will look weak in comparison.
This could be a good thing as it may give us something totally unexpected. If it was directed by Jackson you pretty much know how The Hobbit will look & sound. Who knows what it may be like with a new director?
I wonder how many millions it would take to get Ian McKellen and Ian Holm to do a complete unabridged reading of "The Hobbit" as their characters from the trilogy on audio CD?
McKellen has read for audiobooks before.
Andrew_Jay on
0
Options
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
Wow. That almost, almost made me want to wade through all that Silmarillion stuff that he wrote. Almost.
Approach it less like a novel and more like a collection of myths about Middle Earth's creation and early history. I like it more than the trilogy, actually.
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
Wow. That almost, almost made me want to wade through all that Silmarillion stuff that he wrote. Almost.
Approach it less like a novel and more like a collection of myths about Middle Earth's creation and early history. I like it more than the trilogy, actually.
Wait, people actually read the Silmarillon? I was under the impression that it was like a history textbook without the interestng bits about communism. I tried to read it once - got about 30 pages in before thinking "What the hell am I doing?" and disposing of the book posthaste.
I think the neat thing about the Simarillon (which I've just started rereading actually) is that it managed to make the LOTR look like, I dunno, a minor aftershock of the real epic. Sauron was just a lackey of the major badguy, the elves used to be strong, Man's civilization used to be more than a couple ruined cities, Shelob's just a kid of the big spider, gods were walking the earth, etc.
Tolkein's desire to list off three or four names for everything when he introduces it is a bit annoying/confusing through, I've just reread that part and I still can't remember what all the Valar are actually called.
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
Wow. That almost, almost made me want to wade through all that Silmarillion stuff that he wrote. Almost.
Approach it less like a novel and more like a collection of myths about Middle Earth's creation and early history. I like it more than the trilogy, actually.
Wait, people actually read the Silmarillon? I was under the impression that it was like a history textbook without the interestng bits about communism. I tried to read it once - got about 30 pages in before thinking "What the hell am I doing?" and disposing of the book posthaste.
The first couple... I don't have it here ... but the first couple hundred pages are the most difficult/metaphorical. It gets more interesting later when he gets into the parts with actual people.
It is confusing for a while, there are a shitton of names and places to remember.
I think the neat thing about the Simarillon (which I've just started rereading actually) is that it managed to make the LOTR look like, I dunno, a minor aftershock of the real epic. Sauron was just a lackey of the major badguy, the elves used to be strong, Man's civilization used to be more than a couple ruined cities, Shelob's just a kid of the big spider, gods were walking the earth, etc.
Tolkein's desire to list off three or four names for everything when he introduces it is a bit annoying/confusing through, I've just reread that part and I still can't remember what all the Valar are actually called.
On a whim, during my first attempt at reading through the Silmarillion (failed on that one but later restarted and made it all they way), I wrote down the names (all of them) of the Valar and Maiar, their relationships, and what domains they were associated with. It ended up being very, very helpful, far more so than I would have expected.
Did the same thing with the Greek Gods back in jr. high when we were reading up on them.
SithDrummer on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
And I still maintain that Tom represents a bit of Tolkien in the narrative.. Indeed, saying Tom is Aule only reinforces this concept, as Aule was the shaper of the world.. Exactly as Tolkien was.
But yeah. Gah.. if that's the kind of thesis one can write about Tolkien's works, I have a long way to go. I -really- need to get ahold of the Unfinished Tales, history, and letters. =/
Edit: I was able to make it through The Silmarillion entirely thanks to this book:
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
All the godlike beings in Simarillion have at least three names, I thought Bombadill was either the Hobbit name for him, or at least he was a Gandalf/Balrog type angel/servant of Ulmu?
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
Except for the bit where Sauron could, without the Ring, eventually conquer him. That is extremely difficult to believe.
Well, there -is- evidence that the Valar cannot directly interfere with the course of events. Sauron was well on his way to subjugate and control Aule's creations, and the Istari cannot, under normal circumstances, directly interfere against other holy beings. If Sauron were to hold dominion over nature itself, and in doing so defeat the humans and elves that got the valar to help with Meklor...
Eh. You are right. It's a bit contrived, but at the same time I doubt the elves knew of Tom's true nature. Gandalf might've, though.
Eh, Melkor, with the help of a few Maia, apparently was almost a match for the 14 other Valar and even more Maia. It's not a stretch to believe that at least a few of the Valar are cosmic pussies (from what I've reread it sounds like the tide didn't turn til Tulkas showed up to kick Melkor's ass).
Yeah, it's the most convincing argument I've seen, but it still doesn't seem to add up. Simply because Bombadil, while oddly strong, is not quite that strong. His power is clearly limited to his little domain and is only capable of holding out for a while (not that he'd fight or anything). Sauron, while easily the strong being in existence in the Third Age, is quite weak in the grand scheme of things, having died twice previously (and having to will himslef back into an incarnate form) and having using a good deal of his power to craft the Ring.
As I said, I find it far more likely that Bombadil was actually intended not to fit any of the "categories" and is both representative of an idea (mentioned earlier in the thread) and a holdover from the Lord of the Rings' less serious beginnings.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I believe that quote refers to what'd happen if Bombadil was given the Ring. Or not. Either way, I don't think it makes a huge difference.
Elendil on
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
See that's the thing -- we're discussing on vague recollections and half-truths.
We see no evidence, WHATSOEVER, of Bombadil's power, his limits, and so on. We only have second-hand accounts and his own words, and a bit of control over a forest.
Also, while Sauron was weak comparatively.. so was the world. Part of the Lord of the Rings was showing how the world was weakening.. fading from the high days of the first and second ages. The valar had seperated themselves from the world, thus removing their power directly. The elves were leaving, thus removing their power. Sauron, from there, worked to DIRECTLY MANIPULATE the humans (and attempted with the elves) into being weaker. He wasn't building up his own power -- he saw Meklor attempt that, and fail. Rather, he was bringing the world down to his level, subjugating it that way.
The ring of power is not really that powerful of an artifact... It goes against traditional thinking, but it isn't. Rather, the power of the ring works through its control of the lesser rings.. And the lesser rings do the work, fading the world and bringing them under their sway. The Fellowship is not fighting against some ultra-powerful being, like those in the first age were. Rather, they are fighting against the weakening of themselves, to rise up and claim the glories of the past. Many, like Boromir, Frodo, and Gollum, don't make it. But some, like Aragorn and Samwise, do.. and by refusing to fall into that decay, they stop the one who manipulates it. They don't stop the decay itself -- it's far, FAR too late for that. But they stop the principal manipulator of that decay.
I would go on a spheil about how that reflects the middle 20th century that Tolkien lived in, but I live by Tolkien's words that the works aren't topical or allegorical... Besides, it fits better if you look at it as an examination of the entire history of humanity. ;-)
Q. Have you seen Peter Jackson's announcement that he is withdrawing from "The Hobbit" movie? And what is your reaction, please?
A. Here is Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh's announcement in full, which they mailed to me and theonering.net. As you can tell it's not so much a "withdrawal", but rather what he feels to be an impossible situation imposed on him.
[Letter snipped because we don't need to repeat it. -Ed.]
The LOTR fans are already expressing a sense of betrayal. On my own account, I am very sad as I should have relished re-visiting Middle Earth with Peter again as team-leader. It's hard to imagine any other director matching his achievement in Tolkien country. We will have to await developments but being an optimist I am hoping that New Line, MGM and Wingnut can settle outstanding problems so that the long expected "Hobbit" is filmed sooner rather than later.
Sounds to me like he still wants to work with PJ. Good sign.
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
... And, again, TORn is on top of things again.
They've got someone saying Sam Raimi has been approached to direct it. Not that I'm surprised... But I can't see him doing it right. Nothing against him..
Posts
'And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).'
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144
I'm pretty sure it was.
Check out my art! Buy some prints!
Yea, one of the big reasons I went to see that movie is because I heard WETA was doing it.
You don't need the same actors. This isn't like replacing the actors in a T.V. show or in the middle of the trilogy, this is another movie by a different director. It doesn't necessarily have to connect to Peter Jackson's trilogy - I don't know about you, but my image of Bilbo is not forever fixed as Ian Holm. As long as the actors are good, it's fine. Of course, we don't know whether new actors would be any good at all, so there is that risk.
Regarding Bombadil:
They all start with U.
Sure there is at least a dubiously implied connection between Bombadil and one of the Gods/Demigods who goes missing
Ian as Gandalf/Narrator, with Ian Holm as Bilbo.
The dwarves and other misc characters? Hmm...
If only I was wealthy and eccentric enough to pull it off.
Or maybe I could just field the movie myself and hire PJ & Co.!? Yeah, that's it! Now to get past all the legal crap.
Eh, whatever his reasons, I still like him. I still chuckle that he puts on the Ring and doesn't even seem to care. It had no lure to him.
D=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv4Potdpjhw
Oh, I cannot stop laughing.
Thank you New Line and goodnight.
The hobbit has some potential, but like others said, its a much less epic event. Sure they have that final fight scene, but I doubt it was as large as Mina Tirith or something like that. The Hobbit can't be potrayed in the same way as the LoTR or it will look weak in comparison.
Don't make me post the Lenoard Nimoy song
Thanks Andy!
I refer you to a well-argued essay on the subject. The theory is that Bombadil is actually Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna.
Link.
Wow. That almost, almost made me want to wade through all that Silmarillion stuff that he wrote. Almost.
Tom sings, doesn't he? I wonder if there was any influence.
Wait, people actually read the Silmarillon? I was under the impression that it was like a history textbook without the interestng bits about communism. I tried to read it once - got about 30 pages in before thinking "What the hell am I doing?" and disposing of the book posthaste.
Tolkein's desire to list off three or four names for everything when he introduces it is a bit annoying/confusing through, I've just reread that part and I still can't remember what all the Valar are actually called.
The first couple... I don't have it here ... but the first couple hundred pages are the most difficult/metaphorical. It gets more interesting later when he gets into the parts with actual people.
It is confusing for a while, there are a shitton of names and places to remember.
Did the same thing with the Greek Gods back in jr. high when we were reading up on them.
Wow... That... fits.
And I still maintain that Tom represents a bit of Tolkien in the narrative.. Indeed, saying Tom is Aule only reinforces this concept, as Aule was the shaper of the world.. Exactly as Tolkien was.
But yeah. Gah.. if that's the kind of thesis one can write about Tolkien's works, I have a long way to go. I -really- need to get ahold of the Unfinished Tales, history, and letters. =/
Edit: I was able to make it through The Silmarillion entirely thanks to this book:
The Atlas of Middle Earth.
Written before the movies, but painstakingly accurate, the section on the Silmarillion REALLY helps to let you know just what the hell's going on. =p
Well, there -is- evidence that the Valar cannot directly interfere with the course of events. Sauron was well on his way to subjugate and control Aule's creations, and the Istari cannot, under normal circumstances, directly interfere against other holy beings. If Sauron were to hold dominion over nature itself, and in doing so defeat the humans and elves that got the valar to help with Meklor...
Eh. You are right. It's a bit contrived, but at the same time I doubt the elves knew of Tom's true nature. Gandalf might've, though.
Edit: What do you mean by without the ring?
As I said, I find it far more likely that Bombadil was actually intended not to fit any of the "categories" and is both representative of an idea (mentioned earlier in the thread) and a holdover from the Lord of the Rings' less serious beginnings.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I believe that quote refers to what'd happen if Bombadil was given the Ring. Or not. Either way, I don't think it makes a huge difference.
We see no evidence, WHATSOEVER, of Bombadil's power, his limits, and so on. We only have second-hand accounts and his own words, and a bit of control over a forest.
Also, while Sauron was weak comparatively.. so was the world. Part of the Lord of the Rings was showing how the world was weakening.. fading from the high days of the first and second ages. The valar had seperated themselves from the world, thus removing their power directly. The elves were leaving, thus removing their power. Sauron, from there, worked to DIRECTLY MANIPULATE the humans (and attempted with the elves) into being weaker. He wasn't building up his own power -- he saw Meklor attempt that, and fail. Rather, he was bringing the world down to his level, subjugating it that way.
The ring of power is not really that powerful of an artifact... It goes against traditional thinking, but it isn't. Rather, the power of the ring works through its control of the lesser rings.. And the lesser rings do the work, fading the world and bringing them under their sway. The Fellowship is not fighting against some ultra-powerful being, like those in the first age were. Rather, they are fighting against the weakening of themselves, to rise up and claim the glories of the past. Many, like Boromir, Frodo, and Gollum, don't make it. But some, like Aragorn and Samwise, do.. and by refusing to fall into that decay, they stop the one who manipulates it. They don't stop the decay itself -- it's far, FAR too late for that. But they stop the principal manipulator of that decay.
I would go on a spheil about how that reflects the middle 20th century that Tolkien lived in, but I live by Tolkien's words that the works aren't topical or allegorical... Besides, it fits better if you look at it as an examination of the entire history of humanity. ;-)
http://www.mckellen.com/epost/lotr/061122.htm
Sounds to me like he still wants to work with PJ. Good sign.
They've got someone saying Sam Raimi has been approached to direct it. Not that I'm surprised... But I can't see him doing it right. Nothing against him..