Now that I've realized Ian Anderson would have been a topnotch Tom Bombadil, I'm angrier at Jackson

[Rabrrrrrr]

for not including Bombadil in the movies.

I was reading the Bombadil section last night, and for some reason it finally hit me - Ian Anderson would have been absolutely perfect as Tom! He can sing, he has the weird Tom-like movements, the funky clothes...

No one could have done Bombadil better.

And so that makes me even angrier that Jackson didn't include that scene in the movies that he butchered. Good movies, but as I wrote a number of months ago, the longer I live with the movies the more disappointed I keep becoming due to the butchering that Jackson did. At first, it didn't bother me too much, knowing full well that even twelve hours of film isn't enough - but the major changes in plot that Jackson made are slowly pissing me off to the extent that I don't even want to watch them any more.

[IndianaJones]

1. Bombadil...the great mystery in a detailed universe....

I am not surprised Jackson left it out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. He's far too old

Bombadil should look youthful - like permanent spring. Anderson could only have played it 35 years ago.

I'm not too surprised Bombadil was left out - it's not vital for the overall plot, and has less potential for special effects than a lot of the books. What I thought was a travesty was leaving out the Scouring of the Shire - a vital part of the overall story. If chucking the ring down the hole had been the absolute climax of the film , with hardly anything after it, it might have been excusable , for reasons of pace - but he had plenty of the Grey Havens stuff after that. The 'evil on a smaller scale' was vital for the books. Hell, it was another opportunity to put in a female part, which was one of the major failings of the books.

[IndianaJones]

6. He appeared as an old man, at least in hobbit eyes, with a wrinkled and ruddy face....nt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Hmm, you're right, I apologise

I guess I remembered his behaviour rather than his appearance.

[Parche]

3. HUH?

OK Professor, can you say that in english :rofl: :hi:

[underpants]

4. I had to google it myself

It appears to have something to do with hating America

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. Ian Anderson - the genius behind Jethro Tull.

[Parche]

18. Ah Jethro

:hi:

[DS1]

5. Yes. But Ian Anderson is a known shitbag aluminum foil using, non-calligraphic

thank you letter writing, Wal-Mart shopping, intentionally illiterate, gum chewing, coffee shop talking fuckwit with absolutely no phone manners at all.

I'll take Jackson's interpretation over yours. Douchebag.

edit: for the sake of double-douchebag word score

[Tyler Durden]

8. Don't beat around the bush, say what you mean.

Personally, they did good to lose Bombadil and most of the "Hey-nonny-nonny" poetry and singing.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. I'm glad you edited it - without the douchebag, it was rather empty.

:rofl:

[EstimatedProphet]

7. I'm much less agrieved over that than the loss of the Scouring of the Shire

That IMO was a necessary portion of the story, and leaving it out was a bad decision.

[IndianaJones]

9. agreed...the death of Saruman and the scouring should have been included. nt.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. I totally agree with you on that one! I was very disappointed that was left out.

Especially since it was left out because Jackson doesn't like.

Well, too fucking bad, Peter - it doesn't matter whether you "like" it or not. It's in the fucking book.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. What gets me is, he shot the death of Saruman!

It's on the extended version, but he changed it entirely to where Saruman gets stabbed in the back by Grima on top of Isengard tower, while having an argument with post-White Gandalf! What the hell is the point in that? Scouring of the Shire is about in part how the hobbits can't live in their isolationist fantasy anymore. It's a large point of the story, and to just change it around to something with no point is...pointless.

[Rabrrrrrr]

14. That was also an abomination.

And the truth is, while most people would probably consider the destruction of the ring to be the climax of the whole story, it really isn't - the story is about Hobbits and the destruction of a worldview that doesn't include the world. The Scouring is also where we get to see how Pippin and Merry had truly matured and found their own authority, and that they were young enough to enjoy the new world that was created.

The ring is, in all truth, rather incidental, though it has a formative function in the life journeys of the hobbits.

And so, as you say, the scouring of the shire is a higher climax than the destruction of the ring. And Frodo's journey to the Undying Lands is an even higher climax - the story of never really being able to go home again after one has been out and enlightened, and how one needs to be around people with similar life experiences and wisdom to be truly happy.

Jackson might not like it, but as I read the story, the destruction of the ring was just another step in what is a story about Frodo and hobbits. A big step, sure - but not the point of the story.

[NewJeffCT]

19. I know, that was disappointing

especially since the ending to the trilogy dragged on forever! They could have easily re-worked it to include the Scouring and not really changed the length of the already long movie.

[EstimatedProphet]

20. And made it not drag, for that matter.

[Squatch]

15. WTF was the purpose of the Bombadil section?

It seemed completely superfluous when considered with the rest of the trilogy.

[IndianaJones]

17. He is. nt.

[Elidor]

21. I bet you wish he'd left in all the musical numbers, too

:eyes: