|
Re: The Hobbit
I haven't read the books. But the Tom Bombadil outline seems like it would write itself and be an amazing addition.
But I remember that Jackson kept saying, 'we have to stay focused on the journey to destroy the ring'. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by troystiffler
(Post 11333151)
I haven't read the books. But the Tom Bombadil outline seems like it would write itself and be an amazing addition.
But I remember that Jackson kept saying, 'we have to stay focused on the journey to destroy the ring'. |
Re: The Hobbit
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tom is also thought to be one of, if not the oldest being in Middle Earth. If I remember correctly, who's oldest is kind of a toss up between Treebeard and Tom.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Tom Bombadil not being affected by the ring seems to open up a can of worms that Tolkien then goes on to ignore. I'm torn between wanting to see as much of the books onscreen as can be done and having to explain why he's not affected by the ring.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by milo bloom
(Post 11333634)
Tom Bombadil not being affected by the ring seems to open up a can of worms that Tolkien then goes on to ignore. I'm torn between wanting to see as much of the books onscreen as can be done and having to explain why he's not affected by the ring.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by whoopdido
(Post 11333279)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tom is also thought to be one of, if not the oldest being in Middle Earth. If I remember correctly, who's oldest is kind of a toss up between Treebeard and Tom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bom...mes_and_titles
Originally Posted by milo bloom
(Post 11333634)
Tom Bombadil not being affected by the ring seems to open up a can of worms that Tolkien then goes on to ignore. I'm torn between wanting to see as much of the books onscreen as can be done and having to explain why he's not affected by the ring.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11333648)
Both Tom and Treebeard claim to be the oldest. However, Gandalf says Tom is the oldest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bom...mes_and_titles Are you talking about Tom Bombadil being inserted into the Hobbit, or just your feelings about his exclusion from LOTR? Just talking about his exclusion from LOTR. I know, armchair quarterbacking 10 years later, but that's why we have the internet, isn't it? :) |
Re: The Hobbit
interesting...it seems if you put that guy in...you've a lot to answer for his inclusion just based on his being and his reaction of. In other words..there's a lot more shit going on w/ this guy that grabs your interest and you may not want to answer as to why.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Did Sauron know who Tom was? There have been many debates about just having the eagles take the ring in Lord of the Rings, but the simplest answer to that is that Sauron would have expected that and even though the eagles were tough as nails, they never would have made it if Sauron's entire army was shooting at them plus all 9 Nazgul flying after them.
But if Sauron didn't know anything about Tom, then wouldn't Tom be a much better choice to carry the ring than Frodo? The whole idea of Frodo taking the ring was that Sauron never thought twice about a little Hobbit, but if he didn't know anything about Tom, he wouldn't have expected him in any way either. Or at the very least, why didn't Tom go with the rest of them to protect the group? |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by whoopdido
(Post 11334073)
Did Sauron know who Tom was? There have been many debates about just having the eagles take the ring in Lord of the Rings, but the simplest answer to that is that Sauron would have expected that and even though the eagles were tough as nails, they never would have made it if Sauron's entire army was shooting at them plus all 9 Nazgul flying after them.
But if Sauron didn't know anything about Tom, then wouldn't Tom be a much better choice to carry the ring than Frodo? The whole idea of Frodo taking the ring was that Sauron never thought twice about a little Hobbit, but if he didn't know anything about Tom, he wouldn't have expected him in any way either. Or at the very least, why didn't Tom go with the rest of them to protect the group? While this seems to demonstrate that he has unique and mysterious power over the Ring, the idea of giving him the Ring for safekeeping is rejected within Book Two's second chapter, "The Council of Elrond." Gandalf says, rather, that "the Ring has no power over him", and believes that Tom would not find the Ring to be very important and so might simply misplace it. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by whoopdido
(Post 11334073)
Did Sauron know who Tom was?
There have been many debates about just having the eagles take the ring in Lord of the Rings, but the simplest answer to that is that Sauron would have expected that and even though the eagles were tough as nails, they never would have made it if Sauron's entire army was shooting at them plus all 9 Nazgul flying after them. But if Sauron didn't know anything about Tom, then wouldn't Tom be a much better choice to carry the ring than Frodo? The whole idea of Frodo taking the ring was that Sauron never thought twice about a little Hobbit, but if he didn't know anything about Tom, he wouldn't have expected him in any way either. Or at the very least, why didn't Tom go with the rest of them to protect the group? |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by WeylandYutani
(Post 11334098)
Perhaps. Tom is far older than Sauron by milleniums. Whether Sauron ever knew of "hey Ho! Hey Ho! Tom Bombadill-o!", though, is completely irrelevant and not important in the least.
This ridiculous debate exists mostly amongst those who have either never read Tolkien's book or have simply forgotten the details. The chapter 'The Council of Elrond' specifically mentions the idea of just having one of the Eagles taking the Ring and dropping it far out into the ocean. Read the book, people. Not the Cliff Notes. The book. The answers are all there from Tolkien himself. He has given this question and supposed 'plot hole' far more thought than most of you have, it seems. Because Tom wouldn't have wanted to. The End. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by WeylandYutani
(Post 11334098)
Because Tom wouldn't have wanted to. The End.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Pizza
(Post 11333070)
Thanks for the apology and owning up to your mistake. ;)
And congratulations on your 10,000th post. I KID I KID! |
Re: The Hobbit
The idea with Tom Bombadil is that he is ancient and exists mostly apart from the outside world. So much so that something as trivial as the current age's good vs. evil battle is completely meaningless to him. The hobbits' brief stay with him is a respite after the first round of danger and before heading back out to face all the other dangers to come.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Well, shit....
WB PLANS LIMITED RELEASE OF HIGH-FRAME-RATE 'HOBBIT'; MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL MAJOR CITIES EXCLUSIVE: Warner Bros. is convinced that high-frame-rate movies are the next big thing — but they’re keeping the first HFR release fairly small, Variety's David Cohen reports. According to source familiar with Warner’s release plans for Peter Jackson’s first HOBBIT, the HFR version will go out to only select locations, perhaps not even into all major cities. People who have seen much of the film in 48 frames-per-second 3D tell Variety the picture now looks vastly better than the test footage shown this April at CinemaCon, which had not yet undergone post-production polishing and got a mixed reception from exhibitors. But the studio still wants to protect the format by going into a limited release for the HFR version, hoping to test the marketplace and expand the HFR release for the second and third installments — provided auds are enthusiastic. As of now, there are still no theaters ready for HFR projection, though some require only a software upgrade that will be ready in September. Showblitz |
Re: The Hobbit
That's a good thing
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Josh-da-man
(Post 11334234)
My theory on Tom Bombadil is that he is a manifestation of the Green Man.
|
Re: The Hobbit
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11333167)
The thing with Tom Bombadil is that he doesn't add anything to the overall storyline of LOTR, which is why he's so easily and often excised out of the adaptations. He's an amusing/annoying side story (depending on one's view of the character) with possible implications for the overall world of Middle Earth, but not that particular story.
Also, if they are making 3 films they better all be 3 hours or I would have to think it is just repackaging the 6 hours of the two films that was already filmed. |
Re: The Hobbit
I will make sure I see the film in 24fps. Much like 3D, I can't imagine any film being made better from a narrative standpoint by visual gimmicks.
|
Re: The Hobbit
I'm definitely seeing it in 24fps, but that probably has more to do with the fact that I live in Oklahoma and even our nicest theaters aren't usually top-of-the-line.
I will still like to see it in 48fps for myself, even if I walk out. I just don't understand knocking something before trying it, like 3D. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by johnnysd
(Post 11339402)
I always thought he was important because the quest to destroy the ring mainly concerned men, but nature itself embodied in Tom and Goldberry would ultmately survive regardless of the outcome of the war in middle earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil In response to a letter from one of his readers, Tolkien described Tom's role in The Lord of the Rings: "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 analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function." Tolkien did go on to analyse the character's role further: "I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless … "It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war … the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron." Tolkien even seems to justify Tom Bombadil's presence: "And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."
Originally Posted by johnnysd
(Post 11339402)
Also, if they are making 3 films they better all be 3 hours or I would have to think it is just repackaging the 6 hours of the two films that was already filmed.
I doubt Peter Jackson would've extended into a 3rd film unless there was a significant amount of extra footage that would've pushed 2 films well over 3 hours each.
Originally Posted by bunkaroo
(Post 11339468)
I will make sure I see the film in 24fps. Much like 3D, I can't imagine any film being made better from a narrative standpoint by visual gimmicks.
I'll be attempting to watch the film in 3D and 48fps to see the full extent of Peter Jackson's vision. I do see the technical reasons why a faster framerate can help provide a better, more immersive experience, along with improving the 3D effect, and I'm eager to try it out. Like pinata242, I may not like it, but I'm certainly going to at least try it before knocking it. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 11339547)
You mean "visual gimmicks" like color and widescreen?
I'll be attempting to watch the film in 3D and 48fps to see the full extent of Peter Jackson's vision. I do see the technical reasons why a faster framerate can help provide a better, more immersive experience, along with improving the 3D effect, and I'm eager to try it out. Like pinata242, I may not like it, but I'm certainly going to at least try it before knocking it. |
Re: The Hobbit
I'll jump on the "I'll see it in 48fps and 3D" bandwagon too. I appreciate any attempt to make the filmgoing experience unique and I like director's trying out new things. Sometimes attempts may fall flat, but when they work (like adding sound to moving pictures) they work well.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.