| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Copper Elven Vampire |
Posted - 10 Dec 2011 : 07:33:21
I think of myself as a Tolkien master! I always have wondered about Tom and Berry... Both are Miar... Like Gandalf, but older and stronger. Obviously... if you've read the Silmarillion you know. Been around since before the First age of Arda. Before the Ents. And Jackson deems this unworthy to place in the movie?? It's Pivitol even! A part of the book that makes the First age encounter the Third age!
Firstly... What is your take on ol' Tom and Goldberry?
Secondly... Why was it that the whole Old Forest scene, along with the Barrow Downs scene left out of the movie? Being that the Daggers from the Barrow that the Hobbits carry through the story is essential in the bigger play. ????? I ask... someone answer me please!!
Mod edit: found floating in the ethers and relocated. |
| 14 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 15 Dec 2011 : 17:54:24
While I enjoyed the scenes with Tom Bombadill in the book, I can absolutely see why they were left out of the movie (it's not exactly a short without it, and adding it in would probably have added another 15-30 minutes). I do think it's a pity they weren't able to include the barrow wight, though, probably one of the creepier parts of the book. |
| Eladrinstar |
Posted - 15 Dec 2011 : 17:31:45
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This is probably why so many folks hate NDAs (as do I) - there is a good chance NONE of that info will ever surface at this point. A good chunk of the Forgotten Realms will truly be forgotten. All those untold stories and juicy bits - gone forever. {sigh}
Don't the NDAs end for Ed if the Forgotten Realms ever goes out of print? I'm not saying I necessarily want that to happen, but maybe in a couple decades Ed (or someone in his family or one of the players in his campaign) can compile all his notes...
|
| Marc |
Posted - 15 Dec 2011 : 08:37:48
I read the books long time ago, wish there were more works like Silmarillion, it is epic. The movies were somewhat disappointing cause they looked too ''realistic''. The scene with Tom would improve that. The journey to Rivendell should have been one film. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Dec 2011 : 14:54:48
I think most folks read them that way - I can't even imagine reading the Silmarillion first.
And, of course, the Silmarillion didn't even exist when I read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. 
I found it very interesting that the Tom didn't disappear when he put on the ring, but it wasn't pertinent to the story. If there was more to it I may have liked it, but as it stands, its like an undeveloped plothook that we will never be privy to.
On the other hand, Ed's style (storyteller) is very similar to Tolkiens - they are both sublime world-builders. I think it works better for an RPG or on-going series (like Mithgar) to drop those sort of 'Red Slippers', but Tolkien never had the chance to develop characters any further then the primary four books. Learning about that sort of 'neat stuff' isn't as much fun when you know you will never find out more.
This is probably why so many folks hate NDAs (as do I) - there is a good chance NONE of that info will ever surface at this point. A good chunk of the Forgotten Realms will truly be forgotten. All those untold stories and juicy bits - gone forever. {sigh} |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 12 Dec 2011 : 06:10:34
I read the books after watching the movies, sadly it was primarily to keep up with internet debates that used the books as the source as the movies didn't really define a few things. So, I don't miss Tom at all. The scene in the book really doesn't mesh with anything else and the only important thing that was left out that had to do with Tom was seeing where the hobbits got their swords (which plays into how the Witch King was killed).
For anyone trying to read them, I recommend just jumping to where they all meet up with Elrond. The movie is reasonably close up to that point (aside from making it seem like a brief time passes after Bilbo departs instead of years as in the book).
Edit: Also, I read the Simarillion after I read LotR and the Hobbit, so I started at the end and worked my way back. I was surprised that I blew right through the Simarillion. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 11 Dec 2011 : 22:58:01
I was able to get through the Silmarillion, but it was an audio book. I actually have listened to all of the LotR books via audio book. My attempts at reading the Fellowship always fell short. So when I had access to the audio books I gave them a try and I loved it. I went through the whole series from the Silmarillion to the Hobbit, then to the LotR. Was a great experience IMO. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 11 Dec 2011 : 16:01:48
The problem with the Silmarillion is that it's twenty different books stripped down to the bare bones and crammed into one.
I agree that the scene with Tom wouldn't have translated well into film. It was in the books to show a third point of view on the conflict; the point of view of neutrality(and how it was the wrong point of view, at that), and to show that there are some mysteries and unknowns in the world(no one knowing what Tom is), but it comes off as being an unrelated sidequest in the overall narrative. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Dec 2011 : 19:26:48
I always felt the scene with Tom was kinda.... unimportant. If I was the film-maker, I would have left it out as well. In fact, it contributes almost nothing to the written story.
I was never able to make it through the Silmarillion - I tried twice and found it boring as hell. The Hobbit and tLotR were excellent, but I was never very interested in his other stories (not that they were bad, just not very interesting).
Which makes me wonder if someone took Ed's notes and turned them into a book postmortem, would I find that work equally boring? Then again, I think they've been doing just that fort awhile.  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 10 Dec 2011 : 15:02:05
Discussion on the cut of Tom & Goldberry |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 10 Dec 2011 : 14:15:12
Afaik it was never made clear what Tom really is |
| Diffan |
Posted - 10 Dec 2011 : 13:40:36
It was Tom Bombadil's scene in the book that made me drop the series all together. Seriously, couldn't stand Tolkien's writing in the first place and the entire part with Tom, yea by that point I'd have enough. So from that perspective, I didn't miss him in the movies at all. |
| Thelonius |
Posted - 10 Dec 2011 : 13:34:57
I have to say that the first half of The Fellowship of the Rings is one of the most tedious reads I have ever done. The fun starts at the Many meetings chapter. I remember reading some discussion about Tom somewhere and it was not defined who or what he was, some of the ideas said he was meant to represent the reader. I know though, that the character was put as a homeage to Tolkien's daughter who had a doll they called Tom Bombadil. |
| dwarvenranger |
Posted - 10 Dec 2011 : 13:28:03
I admit to being disappointed that he was left out of the movie, as he was one of my favorite characters. But Peter Jackson changed plenty in his version of the story. Like Wooly said I don't see it as a big deal. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Dec 2011 : 12:39:45
I like the scene in the books, but it's hardly pivotal. And with as much as in each book, something had to be left out. I don't see that it's a big deal. |
