I've heard so many people talk about how glad they are that Jackson left Tom Bombadil out of the movies and there is no mention of Beorn who was present ( like the eagles) at both battles in LOTR and The Hobbit. Also, there was more depth with the Ents, but that's different. I loved Tom and Beorn and wish they were recognized in the movies. Your thoughts?
I liked Tom Bombadil in the book, but he's a huge digression. Tolkien didn't do anything with him, so it's appropriate that he be removed. Tolkien, as I recall, published a separate book called The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, but it wasn't part of LOTR. Tom was part of Middle-Earth, but he was not really part of the LOTR story. He has his own stories in the same world, and that's fine, but I'm glad Jackson left him out of the movies. As for Beorn, I barely remember him from the book (I think I read The Hobbit when I was about ten, and I haven't reread it since). I don't really care if he's there in the movies or not.
I think this is an interesting lesson for writers. Just the fact that somebody 'exists' in the world you've created doesn't necessarily mean they should exist in your STORY about that world. I enjoyed reading the Tom Bombadil bit in LOTR, the first time I read it—but that was mostly because I assumed it would have some bearing on the rest of the story. It didn't really. It was a nice interlude, that's all. In my many instances of re-reading LOTR, I usually skip over the Bombadil bit now. Funny how so few people ever complain about the Scouring of the Shire being left out of the movie. I would say that was the most controversial omission ...especially as the dramatic death of Saruman and Wormtongue was left out of the movie version of the story as well. (Thankfully it exists in the uncut DVD version, which is the only version I've watched.) Thematically, the Scouring was important. While I can understand why Jackson left it out, and his scene of Saruman's death at Orthanc was extremely well-done, it does bother me a little bit. The idea that even little places don't always excape big events was thematically important to the story. It was only hinted at in the movie, with the disgruntled looks the returning hobbits got from the neighbours. Neighbours who had no idea what these particular hobbits had just done for them. Like @minstrel, I've rather forgotten Beorn. The name is familiar, but I don't really remember him. But then, I only read The Hobbit a couple of times, and that was Way Back When.
I loved Tom Bombadil. He was hilarious. And he also shows that Lord of the Rings, and the Wars of the Ring, are merely details in a much larger story. Tom Bombodil is a character so old and so powerful (he just never shows it in those books) that the Ring of Power, that men are dying for, he would forget about, likely throw it away with his rubbish. And he seems to command nature just by singing to it.
im a tad confused, beorn is in the hobbit film but im not sure if he'll be in the battle. Apparently he'll might be in the Gandalf/Dol Guldur storyline.
I read an article about this somewhere. Jackson said that while putting Bombadil would be a great nod to Tolkien and the character, it slowed the film down drastically, and so was removed. I personally think it was a good idea.
The saga NEEDED to be trimmed. Even in three extended cuts, you can't do it justice in cinema. I think Bombadil and Goldberry, as interesting and unique as they were, didn't need to be included, for the reasons minstrel pointed out. I'm more bothered that the scouring of the Shire was omitted. That was a more important part of the story, in my opinion, pointing out as it did that war touches all corners of the land, and also adding closure to the four Hobbits. I also felt that Saruman was trivialized into a snarling evil creature, not the great wizard that he was, seduced by the lure of the ring.
I was surprised Beorn wasn't used to his potential in the hobbit movie, given that the scene where Gandalf introduces the dwarves is quite amusing.
I hope Beorn will be in the final battle, he has quite an important role if I remember correctly. As for Bombadil, he is a fun and interesting character and I think it's best for us that he remains in our minds as the character we imagined. I don't know, I have a feeling that he would not be represented in the right way... On the other hand, Jackson is a great director so it's possible Tom would be an awesome character, but as many of you have said - the movie would be too long and it would disrupt the flow. There's one scene I did miss in the movies. When Theoden and his horsemen ride to Minas Tirith they find out that the orcs are expecting them. That is why they make a little detour through a forest where a clan of some creatures live. I really wanted to see those creatures and Theoden's army riding through the forest. The scene is not important for the story, but it could have been interesting. Oh, and yeah... I miss the Scouring also,it's a shame it wasn't in the movies...
I agree with all three of your points. I also was especially disappointed that the Scouring of the Shire was omitted from the film. However, in retrospect, not as much as at first. In some ways, the Jackson closure was neatly conceived. The idea that the four hobbits had done great things and saved the world, but their little parochial community didn't have a clue? I think that's pretty good, too. And I suppose a 'scouring' ending would have extended the saga much further than was feasible. They had to cut quite a few important things from the movie as it was. I have only watched the extended version on DVD, but I understand they even cut the scene where Saruman dies from the cinema film, along with many other important scenes, just to get the movie to 'fit' into three cinema-length features. The scouring might have been filmed, but it would have had to be cut, so I guess I'm satisfied with the ending Jackson came up with. The one thing I still struggle to forgive Jackson for is the way he made both Aragorn AND Faramir into switherers. Aragon swithering about taking up his kingship was never part of the book. In the book he was patiently waiting for the time to be right. And Faramir definitely didn't swither about taking the ring from Frodo. That is what set him apart from Boromir, and made him a much stronger character than his brother ever was. Faramir held Frodo at arm's length and treated him with suspicion, until he was convinced Frodo was not an agent of Mordor. But he never swithered about taking the ring. I hated what Jackson did to his character in the film. (I wasn't happy with Jackson turning Gimli into a Scottish-flavoured figure of fun either, but nobody's perfect.)
Well, Billy Boyd (Pippin) is actually Scottish, so that was his real accent, and Jackson didn't turn his character into a music-hall Scot. But the guy who played Gimli (I forget his name- John Rhys?) is Welsh—so there was no excuse. It wasn't so much Gimli's so-called 'Scottish' accent—which WAS horrible and put-on—but the fact that he was definitely portrayed as a Scots cariacature. He even said 'laddie' a few times. Now you're NOT going to find that anywhere in Tolkien. I think the dwarf-tossing jokes were tasteless as well. If there were people who suffer from dwarfism in the cinema audiences, I wonder how they felt when that got mentioned. I think Gimli could have done with a complete re-vamp, actually. Keep his truculent character, but stop the small-minded ethnic jibes and other uncomfortable references.
