||The LOTR Movie Site
November 16, 2000
Skeptic No More
I have participated in many debates about the upcoming LOTR
films over the last year, and from what I have seen so far and read, I am confident that
Peter Jackson was the person for this undertaking.
I would consider myself one of the "Tolkien Purists", I do not want to see too
many changes, like Arwen becoming a warrior and the removal of Bombadil and so forth. But
I really take comfort in some of the statements that has come from Jackson and the some of
the cast lately. Such as Mckellan stating that Arwen will probably indeed not wield a
sword, and especially Peter Jackson in this VERY reassuring statement:
"Way back at the beginning we thought there is quite a bit of this we are going to
have to alter or change, do things to turn the book into a film but the more we got into
it and the more we really started to know the books in great detail, it would be fair to
say we've gone further and further back to the books again.
So a lot of our so called clever ideas at the beginning we've long since abandoned and
Tolkien hopefully has a fairly clear voice in the film."
Music to the ears, no? Especially now seeing more and more of the set pictures as well,
Jackson and his crew look to be getting the job done big time. Just take a look at the
Bywater Mill photo in the gallery, that IS Hobbiton!
It is indeed to soon to say that the story will be wonderfully captured and represent
Tolkien's trilogy very very well, but I am convinced that Peter Jackson was the guy to do
these films and not as skeptical as I used to be about changes to the story.
One last thing too, in regards to Bombadil, Tolkien himself stated in a recent book of his
letters, that Bombadil was not the incredibly powerful spirit people think him to be, and
shot down the idea of him being likened to Illuvatar himself.
He basically said that Bombadil served merely an example of the peace and pacifism that
would be ultimately lost if the One Ring was reclaimed by Sauron. The One Ring it seems
has a power to especially corrupt "The Wise" (Maiars, Elves, people of power and
influence)and those who seek some kind of control, whether it be over good or evil. For
instance, Hobbits are simple country folk for the most part, and we see that the Ring
takes much longer to corrupt them. Hobbits seem have more of a resistance to the Ring,
because they are generally care free when it comes to matters outside the Shire and do not
seek to have power over anything, just leading their non conflicting and simple farm
In turn Bombadil doesn't really have power over the Ring, it has no power over him, as
Gandalf also states at Rivendell. Bombadil has no real cares about much of what goes on
outside his country, and Tolkien even points out that Bombadil doesn't even try to
"save" or tame Old Man Willow. It seems to really just be Bombadil's completely
care free attitude and total lack of want for any power or mastery over any thing except
his "country" that makes him resist any and all temptations and effects of the
One Ring upon him.
Not that I would say Bombadil is totally unimportant, however. But he is truly not meant
to be such a "powerful" figure as we think jim to be it seems. Tolkien also said
that Bombadil was written in because his daughter had a doll named Tom Bombadil, and to
give the Hobbits a little adventure on their way to Rivendell.
I do also hope Jackson makes a little compromise for the fans in regards to Bombadil
though. Maybe they will mention him at Rivendell without the actual film showing the
Bombadil sequence to create some controversy/mystery. Then add the Bombadil sequence in a
special VHS or DVD release, I think I'd buy that :)