top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 112 points 2 years ago (22 children)

I saw the movies first. When I tell you I was shocked by tom bombadill I thought I had lost my mind or had a wrong version of the book. Maybe this was a prank. I had to google it to find out it was in fact reality

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 90 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago* (20 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (7 children)

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

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I like bombadil too! I just have hard time imagining the scene working in the film.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 91 points 2 years ago

    Tom Bombadil was supposed to be in the movie but he forgot to actually appear and went a galavanting elsewhere during filming

  • source
  • [–] 90 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Do not badmouth my husbando

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I mean doesn't gandalf say if they gave him the ring he'd just lose it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    This comment should be deleted soon

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 72 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 49 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I love the Tom Bombadil part of the books, I don't care what y'all haters say Tom is GOAT

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Facts, Tommy B is the best part of LotR. I'm also glad they left him out of the movie, cause he's the one thing that wouldn't have translated well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    People complain about the movies but if they included everything the movies would be several weeks long.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago*

    People complain about the movies but if they included everything the movies would be several weeks long.

    LOTR fans: print it on 70mm IMAX film, grind it up into powder. And inject that shit right into my veins.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    TLDR?

    Sorry yes I only watched the movies, I read the Hobbit and gave up at LOTR 1 page 80 or so, when it was still random stuff not in the movies.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

    Lol. This might not be popular BUT there's a reason he doesn't make the cut in the movies or extended cut releases. Tom Bambodil is basically middle earth's "MyStErIoUs WaYs." This is a hot take but I would almost go so far as to say his existence in the world ruins the book, his songs/poetry are terrible and he's just kind of there. He is meant to be a mysterious figure that lends to the overarching mystery of the world, one who has always been around and is so powerful he is basically a god, but doesn't actually give a shit about the world outside of himself or the suffering of others. I see him as a vestige of JRRT's catholicism seeping through, this ultimate force that could end the war but didn't because reasons.

    Edit: grammar is hard after wine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    Tom couldn't save the world. They talk about giving the ring to him at the council. He can't leave his lands so the most he could do is to keep it and hide the ring. But tom is literally incapable of being tempted by power, that sounds like it would make him the perfect person to keep the ring but actually it would mean he would just forget about it almost immediately. Giving him the ring would be more dangerous than yeeting it into the ocean which they also discussed and deemed not a good solution because it would only delay things. The ring is magical after all and WANTS to be found, trying to hide it away in those sorts of ways will never work.

    Tom is meant to represent untamed nature of middle earth. He isn't meant to be mysterious or even particularly powerful. He is just Tom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I can appreciate this take, I know he's a popular character and I read somewhere that Jack Black would be the only actor capable of pulling off the role which absolutely makes sense to me (and honestly does make re-reading more entertaining.) I get it, I just don't like him. The world around him is falling to darkness and he just doesn't care. No one really knows what he's capable of outside of his realm because he likes his life with Goldberry and again just doesn't care about anything else. I always saw him as representative of those apolitical people who didn't care enough to stop fascist regimes take over their own country because they only cared about their own day to day life and couldn't be bothered to vote or fight for anything. I'm glad they took him out of the movies, it flows better and fits the tone of everyone coming together in a fellowship to defeat evil. 🤷‍♀️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    his songs/poetry are terrible

    To be fair, Tolkien's songs/poetry are terrible. He was a great writer, an amazing storyteller, and an unparalleled world-builder. But he was not a lyricist or poet by a long shot.

    The songs and poems do convey a lot of information and help build the world. But that doesn't mean they're good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This is a really fucky take, and I love it!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Which begs the question: is it fucky or fact-y? Hahaha

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    You might be right I just personally kinda had the hard opposite reaction to TB. Just thought it was such a neat and mystifying little side story. Just enriched the universe for me. But I love hearing different takes because it's all just fun

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    The question of giving the ring to Bombadil to take it out of the equation is asked and answered at the council of Elrond - at no point he could or would end the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Tom Bombadil is a weird character that appears early in the Hobbit's journey in the first book.

    He lives alone in the forest with his wife and lives very carefree, despite potentially being the most powerful entity in all of Middle Earth or Arda in general. The ring has no effect over him, and he didn't turn invisible when he wore it.

    Tom Bombadil is just sort of... A thing that happens. It has no real bearing on the story and contributes to almost nothing. He does save the Hobbits, twice; once from some grumpy tree and once more from some restless dead, but cutting him out entirely doesn't change the story of The Lord of the Rings in any way, which is why he's not in the movies.

    The only other mention of Tom Bombadil in all three books is Elrond hoping he would've accepted his invitation to his Council.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    Tom is in there so Tolkien could call dips on the overpowered isekai genre

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    I know some consider this basically heresy, but I think the books would have been better off without Tom as well. I love the trilogy to bits, but the first book suffers from pacing issues and the amount of space the Tom Bombadil section takes up is a major contributing factor to that.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Merry Derry dee!

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›