A BIG problem with leaving out Bombadil...

Okay, I hope this isn't something somebody's already mentioned - I'll bet one of you has noticed this already.

Now, Bombadil was the one who first armed the hobbits at the Barrow-downs... cut Bombadil, and you've effectively cut the Barrow-downs, unless you find some extraordinarily clever way around this technicality that would probably piss off us devoted fans anyway who want to see as little change from the original as possible.

But then what of this passage from V.6 "The Battle of the Pelennor Fields" (p.141 in the Unwin paperback of RotK)?

"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will."

So logically, if you cut Bombadil, then doesn't that nullify Merry's role in assisting Eowyn with the slaying of the Witch-King?

Of course, in the current 3-min teaser, in the shot at Weathertop, you see all the hobbits armed... but where do you get the blades from? How will they be armed, if Bombadil isn't around?

Yes, I thought of this as well when I last re-read LotR. But of course, this is part of the text, and unless there's some narrator we don't know about, the text not in dialogue will be left out. So even if there was a Barrow-downs sword, it wouldn't necessarily be made clear that it was the reason that the Witch-kingl died. I guess either Aragorn arms them at Bree or maybe even Gildor gives them weapons, if he isn't taken out too.

And if Merry doesn't come by his sword from Aragron or Gildor, he could very well pick one up in Rivendell.

That's true, but the Weathertop scene where the hobbits are apparently armed comes before Rivendell.

Oops, I skimmed over that part of IP's post... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT="">
But Merry could have any sword at Weathertop, especially for all he accomplishes with it. He only needs a "magic" sword at the Pelennor.

But then he would have to gain that one somewhere. And also lose it, and get it replaced by the sword of the Barrow-downs. Losing it probably isn't a problem... I mean, if you're dragged around by Orcs for so long... but getting another sword is a problem.

Are swords such a rarity in that world?
"Hey!", Frodo says to Gandalf, "we'll need swords you know, to protect ourselved on our journey."
"Right on!", Gandalf says, "Was askin' myself when you halflings where going to ask me! Here, enjoy yourselves!", and he trows thems very ordinary swords, except for size.
End of problem.

Spectators won't budge a thing.

Only LotR fans *might* question that scene when they see it, but even then not most of them.

Beauty is in the details.
But that many details on screen would cost too much (would need 5 or 6 or more hours for each "book" (as published)).

In the end, we have to be content of what will be offered us.
After all, no movie can replace the magic that some writings can bring.

i mean, besides the obvious coolness factor -

the scene where he puts on the Ring & it has no power over him - i've always thought that was an important scene because it proved that there's some people in Middle-Earth who are in a way separated from the rest of the world. almost everyone else in LotR is allied on one side or the other, either "good" (fellowship) or "evil" (sauron), & Bombadil in his separateness (?) shows that not everyone is involved, or affected, or even cares. in a world as strictly divided into opposite factions as middle-earth is in LotR, there's still some people who can't even be said to be in the middle, because for them there is no conflict.

i think it's important to the story to see that, as important as the whole Ring mess is, there are some people who just aren't involved - it adds another dimension to the story.

of course this is the movie we're talking about, & people don't read as much into movies as i/we do into books.

aryne *
forgive the awful grammar, i wrote this in a hurry.

PS - i am aware of teh quote at Rivendell where Gandalf says that if the Enemy gets the Ring, then Tom too would fall - but that never seemed to even cross Tom's mind, that was Gandalf's theory. Tom lives in his own little world, & the Ring isn't part of it.

I think that the thing about the Ring not affecting Tom in anyway is a very important and yet a really cool factor in the book. What if they replace Tom with another character, and have him/her trying the Ring and yet not showing any symptons of disappearing.

Hmmm... I couldn't it stand if they'd leave Gildor out of the movie...

Leaving Gildor out would create a huge problem all on its own, because that's how Frodo is introduced to the Lay of Elbereth, which is what drives the Nazgul away at Weathertop, if I remember correctly...

Good point.

YOU CAN'T REWRITE BOMBADIL! HOW THE HECK CAN YOU GET SOMEONE ELSE TO TAKE OVER BOMBADIL'S VERY UNIQUE PART? AND BESIDES, WHO ELSE IN MIDDLE-EARTH'S IMMUNE TO THE RING?

<snarl>

<hiss>

<growl>

as for Gildor - he's Sam's first encounter with the Elves! and yes, he did tell Frodo the Lay of Elbereth. they could get around that (Frodo did know some of the Elven language), but i don't think they should cut Gildor.

aryne *

Though I agree that Tom is an important character in Middle-Earth, his immunity to the Ring had no impact on the entire Lord of the Rings saga besides getting Frodo to wear the Ring for the first time.

Though the Ring incident may have spoken volumes about the nature of the Rings of Power and the beings of power that roamed Arda, it failed to redirect the story in any way. And as far as the movies go, it is the least important omission yet. Having Tom show that the Ring had no effect on him would only serve to confuse moviegoers.

I certainly will miss him. But everything Tom does can be circumvented, replaced or cut out and still leave us with the basic storyline intact.

Now what upsets me is that there probably won't be any Barrow-Wights in the movie

RKittle ... aka`

Hehe, clueless fans of the movie who haven't read the book are going to stumble upon your site and demand to know: "What's the Barrow Downs??"

Good thing The Barrow-Downs is focused on the book instead of the movies, huh?

Well, I hate to say it, but if the movie execs are cutting characters such as Bombadil, Goldberry & Glorfindel, then they probably won't be including Gildor either.

Actually, because they seem to be making a beeline from Hobbiton to Crickhollow to Bree, Gildor might be the vessel they use to avoid the Black Riders and get the Swords of Westernesse. He's on the way an thus won't take much screentime (and that's what it's all about .... how to fit a 475 page book into a 120 minute movie).

Stiegl - no Glorfindel? WHAT? Where did you hear that from?

Yeah, Arwen is replacing him.

I've heard that, while Arwen is replacing Glorfindel during the fight to the ford, Glorfindel will be present at the Council of Elrond.