Poll of the Day > Why do people stan Tom Bombadil again? (LotR book spoilers)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Im telling this dude that hes a slog on the narrative and the movie did us all a service by cutting him out entirely and just relegating whatever importance he had to the elves.

But this dude is coming at me with a Well SIR, Ive made an 87 page lecture about how Sauron wouldve won if Bombadil didnt exist!!! So AXSHULLY he shouldve been in the movie.

bro, he was in, like, 1 chapter and then mentioned one more time as a joke because he wouldve gotten them all killed had they given him The Ring. Im not saying hes not powerful, Im saying he wouldnt be good in a visual format.

---

soon as I heard there was a movie I figured he wouldn't be in it. he's an interesting side experimental story, not a part of the main plot.

I also knew they'd not have the barrow downs, which I was a lot more disappointed about.
---

That's the dude who's like, the most powerful person in middle earth but he's like a goof or something right? I never read the books, just heard of him.
---

Hes dumb and weird and a slog is what he is.

i actually have a copy of the Silmarilion under my bed, so maybe theres more shit about him in there, but I cant be arsed to actually read it right now.

---

darcandkharg31 posted...

That's the dude who's like, the most powerful person in middle earth but he's like a goof or something right? I never read the books, just heard of him.

he is probably God just hanging out, the stakes aren't high enough for him to care beyond toying with some things.

There's nothing to really explicitly suggest that he's "God", Elrond even says he'd get fucked too if Sauron won. He's more of an extremely powerful nature spirit who does not interact with, understand or care about civilization. Tolkien was really big on industrialization as an evil and nature as a force of good, and Bombadil is part of that. He's nature that can't directly interact with civilization, in contrast to shit like the Ents.
---

^ yeah that
---

Wtf does stan mean in the topic title?
---

I feel like a lot of the parts of The Hobbit were a lot more of a traditionally lighthearted bedtime story sort of fantasy and Bombadil is the biggest example. Everything about him felt disjointed like it was cut out of a different fairy tale. Easily my least favorite part of the book. I definitely don't miss him.
---

Moonjay posted...

I feel like a lot of the parts of The Hobbit were a lot more of a traditionally lighthearted bedtime story sort of fantasy and Bombadil is the biggest example. Everything about him felt disjointed like it was cut out of a different fairy tale. Easily my least favorite part of the book. I definitely don't miss him.

He's not in the Hobbit though.
---

every time i've tried to read fellowship, i get to his part

and immediately stop reading, it just sucks.
---

Moonjay posted...

I feel like a lot of the parts of The Hobbit were a lot more of a traditionally lighthearted bedtime story sort of fantasy and Bombadil is the biggest example. Everything about him felt disjointed like it was cut out of a different fairy tale. Easily my least favorite part of the book. I definitely don't miss him.

Bruh
---

Moonjay posted...

I feel like a lot of the parts of The Hobbit were a lot more of a traditionally lighthearted bedtime story sort of fantasy and Bombadil is the biggest example. Everything about him felt disjointed like it was cut out of a different fairy tale. Easily my least favorite part of the book. I definitely don't miss him.

...
---

It's not about "stanning" (whatever tf that means) Bombadil, it's about wanting Tolkien's masterpiece to be the same in the movies as they were in the books
---

Movie adaptations usually change some things from the books and I'm sure if they really wanted him in, they probably would've given him a completely different purpose in order to make it work.

But ultimately, I don't think he would've fit the tone of the movie.
---

Muscles posted...

it's about wanting Tolkien's masterpiece to be the same in the movies as they were in the books

there are parts where I'd agree, like for me one of my most anticipated scenes (I suppose this is technically spoilerific) was (all of this is from the 2nd book) Gandalf demoting Saruman, which was left out of the regular version and had a smaller scene in the extended version that seemed to miss the point.

I also wanted to see the Huorns devour the orc army and the Ents tear into Isengard and flood it by diverting the river into it and through it.

those are all very plot relevant details.

Bombadil though is like injecting another story into the middle of this one. (indeed reading about it, much of that stuff that happened in the Shire (Barrow Downs, Barrow Wights, Bombadil, Old Man Willow) was apparently borrowed from some other source and included only to have a place to continue those ideas of his. So they are literally injected out of nowhere. (Though I personally really liked the Barrow Downs and Barrow Wights).)
---

Sahuagin posted...

the Ents tear into Isengard and flood it by diverting the river into it and through it.

...

i remember this happening though
---

Bulbasaur posted...

i remember this happening though

k some of it is my mistake and some if it is real differences. (note that I read this 22+ years ago).

I forgot the tower is named Orthanc not Isengard. Isengard is the name of the walled area surrounding the tower.

nevertheless, I thought they flooded Orthanc (like filled up the tower with water), but checking, no they flooded Isengard and were not able to penetrate Orthanc, similar to the movie.

rest of the differences:

movie:
the Ents appear to basically walk right into Isengard. they release (apparently) Saruman's own dam and all of the flooding that ensues is basically Saruman's own fault for building his tower in a dammed-up riverbed.

book:
the Ents have the ability to carve through solid rock with ease, and tear up the front gate and begin demolishing the outer walls. they demolish almost everything in the Isengard area, but are thwarted by Orthanc's walls which seem to be built of magical rock. after discussing it amongst themselves they spend the night building a canal that diverts the river Isen directly into Isengard, flooding it.
---

yeah that does sound cooler, but cinematically it sounds boring until the end payoff
---

What does "stan" means?
---

rexcrk posted...

...

I think Moonjay means that Bombadil is more reminiscent of the episodic writing from the Hobbit, and theyre absolutely right.

As a stand-alone episode, sure, fine. Bombadil is great. As part of a streamlined narrative? Hard no.
Zacek posted...

What does "stan" means?

Stanning- Being a huge fan of something to the point of obsession. It comes from an Eminem song.

---

The part of LOTR with him was absurdly boring

As a teenager I almost stopped reading the books because everything about it seemed so lame
---

Lol a bad writer complaining about a good one.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Lol a bad writer complaining about a good one.

Seriously, itd be like you working as a food critic
---

Actually I totally did think it was in the Hobbit because it's been way too long since I read the books. But yeaaaah, I'll take the out that it's more similar in style to The Hobbit. LOL. :P
---

Mead posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

Lol a bad writer complaining about a good one.

Seriously, itd be like you working as a food critic

Except no because people literally come to the diner because I'm cooking, so yeah, suck it.
---

PK_Spam posted...

rexcrk posted...

...

I think Moonjay means that Bombadil is more reminiscent of the episodic writing from the Hobbit, and theyre absolutely right.

As a stand-alone episode, sure, fine. Bombadil is great. As part of a streamlined narrative? Hard no.
Zacek posted...

What does "stan" means?

Stanning- Being a huge fan of something to the point of obsession. It comes from an Eminem song.

Thats... interesting.
---

The needed to freaking foreshadow the stupid deus ex machina bullshit way the heroes won magically. It was a total asspull