The only disappointment I had with the Jackson LOTR treatment was the disinclusion of Tom Bombadil. That and the scouring of the Shire.
The exclusion of Tom was understandable. If you had to exclude any one character, it would have to be Tom.
Regards,
“The only disappointment I had with the Jackson LOTR treatment was the disinclusion of Tom Bombadil. That and the scouring of the Shire.”
I left the theater missing Tom as well.
Never the less I doubt I’ll see this or any other of these films.
The first three were enough for me.
Bombadil’s inclusion in the books was only done by Tolkien at the behest of his kids, or grandkids, because they loved the character so much from previous bedtime stories. Bombadil’s character would have been a bit incongruent with the flow of the movie’s storyline, added a great deal of expense and, more importantly, added a great deal of time, to an already long, long movie for a tangent that really led nowhere.
Tom is an interesting fellow, for sure, but a smart move by Peter Jackson.
I always suspected that Tolkin’s Tom Bombadil represented God’s granting us with “free will”. Tom rescued Frodo, Merry, Sam, and Pippin in the old forest from the Old Man Willow, then guided them to his home which was “bathed in golden light”. They were fed and given a nice place to sleep, but had nightmares as they slept, but Tom taught them a song that would summon his protection. Next morning Tom gave them good advice but said he could not go with them on their journey. To me, this seemed like God’s protection, shelter, refuge, security, armor …. Yet giving of free will to use all that He grants us in our journey through life, while allowing us to take a different path (to our detriment) if we want.
A woke movie would not want to include any reference to this idea.