I've been thinking about this a lot over the past few minutes, and I'm wondering if there are other examples where movie adaptations are argued to be better by their complete exclusion of a character from the source material.
I read The Lord of the Rings for the first time this year, also having never watched the movies. Aside from enjoying myself a great deal by the end of it all, I actively reflected upon how I enjoyed the part of Fellowship where they encountered Tom Bombadil. It was a bit silly, a bit fun, a bit weird, and I generally enjoyed the vibe of that particularly slice of the adventure.
Not long thereafter, I watched the extended cut version of Fellowship for the first time, and I was disappointed to discover that Bombadil was nowhere to be found! It wasn't long after that when I learned that most seem to think this was a good choice! Turns out, few people share my affection for Bombadil, and instead think that his character's exclusion from the movie was the correct choice.
I can confidently say that my personal movie-watching experience was lessened (not by much, but still) by a lack of Bombadil. I was greatly looking forward to seeing the way at least SOME of that piece of Fellowship's story was portrayed in a visual manner.
Now if I'm being completely honest, the extended edition is already long enough as it is. Adding Bombadil to the mix probably would have been asking too much for the movie's runtime even on an extended cut. But that didn't stop me from being disappointed nonetheless!
To those who were glad that Bombadil was cut from the movies, did you read the books first or did you watch the movies first? Because I do wonder if I may have felt differently about Bombadil as a character in the book if I had watched the movies first instead. Maybe that would have made him feel way outta left field and entirely superfluous.
by PsyferRL
7 Comments
I quite liked the Lucy Mancini subplot in *The Godfather*, but her >!canonically loose vagina!< would have made for a difficult addition to the movie.
I read Fellowship and Two Towers after watching the movies, and Return of the King before that movie.
I didn’t care for Tom Bombadil because it didn’t really advsnce the story and there were too many songs.
Since you like Tom Bombadil, you can watch his on-screen adaptation in Rings of Power (a made-up plot, though).
I think I’d put it more like, what are you willing to trade for bombadil? It would’ve been nice to have him sure but removing something else to have him it’s hard to say what could be cut without harming the story.
In terms of Bombadil himself I liked his inclusion in the books and didn’t mind his exclusion from the movies. They are different formats and therefore have different needs – a movie needs to maintain runtime and flow, and Bombadil would have impeded both. I certainly don’t think the movies were better than the books for it – it was just a sensible loss due to the change in format.
Should also make sure to note that Bombadil was certainly not the only character cut from the books, although he seems to get the most controversy. They cut (Ghan-Buri-Ghan, Beregond, Fatty Bolger), reassigned (Glorfindel to Arwen) or repurposed (Farmer Maggot) a whole number of side characters in favor of simplification.
I think you have to cast your mind back to 2001. The Fellowship Of The Ring is an extremely ambitious fantasy epic, a genre that’s been out of style in Hollywood since the ’80s. It’s an adaptation of extremely complex source material with numerous different characters, locations, important stakes to keep track of. Geek culture is far from the level of mainstream acceptance it enjoys today. The second and third parts are being shot at the same time but the studio is withholding the budget to complete their post-production until they’re assured the first movie is a commercial hit.
With all that in mind, do you think it’s a safe decision 30 minutes into the story to introduce the audience to a cheery fairytale character who walks around throwing his hat in the air and singing nonsense, and can teleport around at will to serenade the bad guys into submission?
No shade on Tom Bombadil, but if he’d been filmed as he was depicted in the book, he would probably have lost casual audiences and deep-sixed the trilogy single-handedly.
I watched the movies first before I read fellowship and if I’m being honest, he doesn’t add nor subtract anything from either mediums imo.
To me, he is mostly an “Easter egg” character in the books, a sort of way for Tolkien to let us know there are “Other” species/creatures? outside of the ones we see mentioned in his books.
I read the books first and was fine with the Bombadil cut. He is a great character and interesting world building, but also not necessary for moving the story forward. I feel the same way about Mentats in the new Dune movies. One of my favorite parts of the books, but inclusion would bog down an already heavy story.