2007-02-10 15:10:12 · 8 answers · asked by Spillsthewax 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Originally Bombadil was going to be in the movie, but had to be cut out. Peter Jackson actually explained this on a televised interview not long after the release of the Fellowship of the Ring. I can't for the life of me find a transcript, but I can summarize.
Interviewer: Were there many scenes from the books that fans were looking forward to in the movie that were cut from the cinematic version?
Jackson: Yes. Unfortunately due to time constraints and budget limitations we had to take out a lot of great material written by Tolkien. Some of these scenes we are actually planning to release in Extended volumes, with the bonus footage we shot but couldn't use in the theatrical releases.
Interviewer: One of the things a lot of fans missed was a character named Tom Bombadil. Is it because of time constraints that you had to remove him?
Jackson: Actually, in our original drafts of the script we had included Tom. Our major concern though, that wouldn't seem to go away, was how to bring him in. In the book he saves the hobbits from a tree that tries to eat them...
Interviewer: [Chuckles] Really?
Jackson: Yeah, he got them out of a couple of situations actually... But at the time we knew we couldn't include this scene. It would completely take away from the momentum we'd been building during the whole first block of the movie. We just couldn't find a quick and convenient way to bring him into the story, so at the last moment the studio asked us to scrap the idea.
Interviewer: Too bad.
Jackson: Yeah. But, who knows. Maybe we'll put him in a special edition some day.
---------------------
Unfortunately, now that Jackson and New Line are no longer on good terms, the likelihood of ever seeing Bombadil seems bleak if not impossible.
Hope this answers your question.
2007-02-10 15:46:58 · answer #1 · answered by Keegarosan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This Site Might Help You.
RE:
Why was Tom Bombadil excluded from Peter Jackson's adaptation of "The Lord Of The Rings"?
2015-08-13 12:53:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lots of people have theories why that segment of the novel was left out of the film, but let's hear it directly from the source.
According the the director of the film, Peter Jackson, "The main reason is not just time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus ... the Bombadil sequence has so little to do with Sauron or the Ring, it is difficult to justify the screen time. It simply doesn't give us any vital new information. A very simplest rule of thumb that I use in movie storytelling is to try and further the story with each new scene."
So, while many people would say the answer is "to save time," it's not that simple. Had Jackson thought the Bombadil section was essential to the story line, he would have included it.
I hope this helps and hope you find it to be the Best Answer!
2007-02-10 15:46:44 · answer #3 · answered by Scotty Boy 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Tom Bombadil Movie
2016-12-14 16:59:54 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I just got through reading those!! I noticed a lot of things were left out, including the huge hobbit war at the end. My best guess is that he got rid of everything that didn't change the main plot in order to keep his already 3 hour movies from being even longer. That was a cool part though and I would love someone to make a version with EVERYTHING in it! Even if they have to make 10 movies hehe.
2007-02-10 15:14:19 · answer #5 · answered by Cavalia 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
There's only so much they can squeeze into 3 3-hour movies and 25 hours of "extras". Some of his lines are in there though. I forget what character gets them (Treebeard maybe).
2007-02-10 17:31:07 · answer #6 · answered by haxemon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Peter Jackson is saving him for his three-movie adaptation of "Bombadil Goes Boating."
2013-12-09 02:31:07 · answer #7 · answered by Christopher L 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
length cutting,and pacing,primarily-plus it gives Aragorn more reason for the Hobbits to trust him,when he gives them the weapons,instead of them finding them themselves in the Barrow tomb before Bombadil rescues them from the Willow.....somebody's put up a nitpickers list online of the changes Jackson made compared with the books...it's quite lengthy itself...
2007-02-10 15:30:53 · answer #8 · answered by Devmeister 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Length primarily... for those of us who read the book, it seemed like a whole lengthy section of the hobbits' trek was cut. In the end I guess they felt his story wasn't pertinent to telling the story.
2007-02-10 15:14:48 · answer #9 · answered by Scott B 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
very interesting question
2016-08-23 17:42:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋