The LOTR Movie Site
January 20, 2001

Alas, Poor Bombadil
Mark W.G.R.

This long-term Tolkien fan is definitely pro Bombadil for this movie, on the flip side many will not rue his absence. But, as others have pointed out, his presence is a plot requirement, not just an irrelevant, trivial sidetrack from the early chapters. He saves our hobbit friends from the Barrow Wights, how now are they to flea this peril alone? And if the Wights are not to be portrayed either, how then do they procure the weapons and other articles which they originally took from the Wights's den? One such weapon played a big part in the final battle, slaying the Nazgul.

Many may see Bombadil as a tripped out hippy living in the woods. But, I personally believe that if a LOTR movie is to be made, then it is made TOTALLY as per Tolkien's vision, there can be no room for omissions, or heavy artistic license to please movie goers. But perhaps in this case Bombadil could have been altered slightly to cut down on the character's cringe factor. He has a pertinent role as stated - saving the hobbits firstly from Old Man Willow in the Old Forest and providing much needed food and rest to the travellers, and then goes on the rescue them from the Wights. Maybe Tom could've been played down for the movie, instead of this singing, hopping weirdo, he could've been a calm, world-wise mystic, a kind of hermit naturalist.

LOTR is amongst the world's greatest peices of literature, and belongs to the whole world, and I know not all fans who love this work will be satisfied with the film. They'll say, 'Hobbiton doesn't look like that', or, 'that's not how I envisioned Lothlorien', or, 'Sam's voice is all wrong', etc.

The true epic lives in our imaginations, and the screen will only provide a dulled representation of what it means to us. But kudos to Jackson for attempting to make what is surely the most challenging of all screen adaptations. I just personally hope I'm not too disappointed....