Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

km-515.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 349 posts

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#101

Post by Trasmatta »

eric_cc wrote: post #83
Trasmatta wrote: post #29

> Possibly the least liked character in The Lord of the Rings. A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story. I've been a fan of Tolkien for decades, and this doesn't match up with my experience at all...Tolkien fans seem to generally love Tom, and many were deeply disappointed that he wasn't in the movies (even though his exclusion makes perfect se…

100% agree with you. Tom was my favorite character and an essential one in my opinion. I was one of those people that was deeply disappointed by his absence. Tom is entirely beyond caring about "good" or "evil". His peace is such a vital contrast to every other character and has stuck with me over time.

> Tom is entirely beyond caring about "good" or "evil". His peace is such a vital contrast to every other character and has stuck with me over time.

Yeah, exactly this. To me, Tom is a part of nature, even moreso than the elves or the ents, which isn't really good or evil. That's another reason I didn't like this post at all. Tom isn't some malicious force, biding his time until Sauron leaves when he can dance upon the corpses of the Hobbits. He's a mystery, a hint at the depth of the world, and a curious aspect of nature.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#102

Post by wchar_t »

Barrow-wights are Bombadil's servants? Ridiculous. Tolkien made it clear that they were the spawn of the Witch King, sent out to ensure that no men could settle in that particular area. This is reinforced by the fact that Bombadil himself destroys one of the wights while rescuing the hobbits.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#103

Post by danparsonson »

shaftoe444 wrote: post #22
samrocksc wrote: post #15

this is the best thing ever posted on HN..... going to restart the lord of the rings podcast now.

What podcast is that? I'm just reading the books for the first time.

Tangentially related, the BBC published a pretty solid radio adaptation of LOTR in the 80's:

https://archive.org/details/the-lord-of-the-rings-bbc-radio-...

(no sign of Tom Bombadil here either though, IIRC)

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#104

Post by wchar_t »

jeabo wrote: post #87

In the Silmarillion, the universe was created by the music of the Ainur. At first it was in line with the mind of Iluvatar (God) but Melkor sang louder and then in discord. Some fans theorize that this discord created Tom Bombadil, along with barrow wrights, Shelob, the watcher of the water, and the ancient creatures that Gandalf saw while chasing the Balrog under Moria.

Shelob is not a primordial being. She is one of the children of Ungoliant, who is herself a fallen Ainur.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#105

Post by nindalf »

Trasmatta wrote: post #29

> Possibly the least liked character in The Lord of the Rings. A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story. I've been a fan of Tolkien for decades, and this doesn't match up with my experience at all...Tolkien fans seem to generally love Tom, and many were deeply disappointed that he wasn't in the movies (even though his exclusion makes perfect se…

> Did I just run in different Tolkien circles than the author?

Almost certainly. Tolkien fans aren't a monolith, there's plenty of diversity of opinion. I remember seeing these screenshots of a Tolkien forum from 2000 and 2001 of people berating Peter Jackson in the most scathing terms. They were talking about how he's completely ruined Tolkien's legacy.

That said, if you're looking for a Tolkien fan who dislikes Tom - hi, I'm one. Fuck Tom Bombadil. He contributed exactly nothing to the story.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#106

Post by micromacrofoot »

Trasmatta wrote: post #29

> Possibly the least liked character in The Lord of the Rings. A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story. I've been a fan of Tolkien for decades, and this doesn't match up with my experience at all...Tolkien fans seem to generally love Tom, and many were deeply disappointed that he wasn't in the movies (even though his exclusion makes perfect se…

I agree! an impish godlike figure that doesn't care all that much about the outside world and wants to sing and dance around in the woods? what's not to love.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#107

Post by teddyh »

Trasmatta wrote: post #41
lordfoom wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is even an active sub-reddit of fans: https://old.reddit.com/r/GloriousTomBombadil/ And his absence from the films was remarked upon, negatively in my circles.

> And his absence from the films was remarked upon, negatively in my circles. Yeah, same. On Tolkien forums in the early to mid 2000's, I think these were the most commented on complaints about the movies: * No Tom Bombadil * No Scouring of the Shire * Movie Faramir vs book Faramir * The Ents deciding to not help Merry and Pippin at first (tbh, this is the one that still gets me the most. It sort of ruined a key attr…

Don’t forget the how the entire character of Gimli the dwarf was replaced with some sort of clown.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#108

Post by narag »

boringg wrote: post #26

A random thought just occurred - and I welcome speculation. Do you/we think Lord of the Rings will have staying power in human history 1000 years from now or only last one century or so? Inherent assumptions: humans will survive 1000 years and so will books.

I bought the book a few years before the movies and couln't stand it the first time. Then someone advised me to read The Hobbit first. Good advice: not only I enjoyed The Hobbit immensely, but I was able to read The Lord later... but not comfortably.

I found some parts boring and repetitive and read them diagonally. Anyway, I did finish the book and was moved by some parts, characters and themes.

FWIW, it was a translation, so changes in the language along 1000 years could be a similar factor. I also agree with simonh in the influence factor: I chose the book because I was told that it was a centerpiece of geek culture.

But I suspect that it's more a question of which books were read by kids at a certain time. Will it be a popular book in this category in a thousand years?

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#109

Post by SkyMarshal »

illuminerdy wrote: post #91
Trasmatta wrote: post #29

> Possibly the least liked character in The Lord of the Rings. A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story. I've been a fan of Tolkien for decades, and this doesn't match up with my experience at all...Tolkien fans seem to generally love Tom, and many were deeply disappointed that he wasn't in the movies (even though his exclusion makes perfect se…

Yeah, I've never felt the way about Tom Bombadil that the author implies. I find his character fascinating. But I also understand why Jackson didn't include him in the movies. There's only so much you can do before a movie becomes unwieldy.

Yeah Jackson even explained that in one of his interviews. Bombadil doesn’t really contribute anything to the main plot of the books or the character development of the hobbits. He’s a mysterious interlude that never appears again or has any effect on the plot development or outcome. It just wasn’t possible to justify giving him precious minutes in an already long movie, and would likely have confused audience who hadn’t read the book yet.

But I’m also not aware of anyone who actually dislikes him, as the article asserts.

Re: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil (2011)

#110

Post by nindalf »

nonameiguess wrote: post #69
jfengel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. But I know a lot of people who find Tom irrelevant to the plot. It looks more like a silly digression just at the time the book had shifted from "Hobbit sequel" to serious epic. He talks in poetry that can feel singsong and childish. Tolkien fans seem to focus on the bit with the Ring, which is an engaging enigma without a resolution. It makes him seem very important and powerful, but the story doesn't expl…

It provides some pretty key context to where Merry got his blade from and why it is able to break the spell and make the Witch King killable. Bit of a better explanation than Eowyn's "I am no man."

Merry's sword was Númenorean, but there was no need of that entire digression to get Merry a Númenorean sword. The movie has Aragorn tell them "here are some weapons, help yourselves", which is just as good.
Post reply on HN