The Hobbit Movie Forum

[Odo Banks]

Oh Eldorion, I'm getting really confused. What's this about you not being all that concerned about Tom Bombadil being excised? You're not as Pure as I thought you were!

Actually - you seemed far more Pure when (I thought) you were a girl. You definitely seemed to be wiser and truer then!

Odo

NB Oh my gosh! Didn't you even like Tom? Please say it's not true...

[Gandalfs Beard]

Goodness, by your definition Eldorion I can claim to be a Purist too . I just think Jackson kept the essential structure, imagery, and characters relatively intact (if I had to assign a value I'd estimate 70-80% intact, which is more than most adaptations). Which is why I am not overly concerned about The Hobbit expansion.

And Odo was just joking about the Heathen thing , I don't take it seriously at all.

As far as revisionism, I feel that is something more along the lines of what the show Merlin does with the Arthurian Romances. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel, is the closest Jackson's films come to "re-visioning" I think (but I digress and shall leave that to perhaps pick up later on another thread).

GB

[Eldorion]

Oh Eldorion, I'm getting really confused. What's this about you not being all that concerned about Tom Bombadil being excised? You're not as Pure as I thought you were!

All in all, I don't think that Bombadil was a terribly important part of the story. I hate to classify parts of the story as more or less important than others, but given that not every could be included (it is a rather long book, after all) some things have to go. Of course, by that token, it makes little sense to start adding things (just so no one thinks I'm defending PJ ). Also, I did like Tom, though he wasn't my favorite by a long shot.

Actually - you seemed far more Pure when (I thought) you were a girl. You definitely seemed to be wiser and truer then!.

Not quite sure I follow you there.

[Eldorion]

Goodness, by your definition Eldorion I can claim to be a Purist too . I just think Jackson kept the essential structure, imagery, and characters relatively intact (if I had to assign a value I'd estimate 70-80% intact, which is more than most adaptations). Which is why I am not overly concerned about The Hobbit expansion.

That's a good point, I suppose I should examine my definition more closely. Obviously, just saying "fundamental" doesn't really explain much, though in my defense I also mentioned "including characters and plot ". I don't think that the personalities or roles in the story of any characters should be changed (though of course some cutting of characters or certain storylines will be necessary) unless absolutely necessitated for some reason (for instance, because the plot was condensed and a character has to have a slightly different role). Under this criteria however, characters such as movie-Aragorn who is self-doubting and does not want to become King are not acceptable since Aragorn did not have to be made into a self-doubting willful exile.

And Odo was just joking about the Heathen thing , I don't take it seriously at all.

I know, I just thought it was funny.

As far as revisionism, I feel that is something more along the lines of what the show Merlin does with the Arthurian Romances. Substituting Arwen for Glorfindel, is the closest Jackson's films come to "re-visioning" I think (but I digress and shall leave that to perhaps pick up later on another thread).]

I use the term revisionism simply because it has gained some usage in past debates and has even been referenced in the little news reporting that has been done on the debate. I don't try to read too much into the word itself. but I think that there is more re-visioning than just Arwen/Glorfindel. I've mentioned this before, but changing the roles of characters like Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Frodo, etc. would count as re-(en)visioning those characters to me. The same thing happened in the plot, such as the re-envisioning of the Battle of the Hornburg as a massive conflict and the climax of The Two Towers.

I think that both sides of the debate recognize that faithfulness of some degree to Tolkien is good, but it seems (to me) that the purist side wants more faithfulness.

[Odo Banks]

Eldorion, I have the answer. Put Tom in but take out Bree - that was poorly done. Have the hobbits meet Aragorn in a ditch or something.

The other matter... I think we might leave that out too...

Hey! What's this LOTR talk doing on a TH thread? People will start thinking TH is a Prequel or something if we're not careful! DT and PJ have had enough encouragement without you and I helping them Eldorion, even indirectly! Come on, we know how those Heathens think! (Yes, GB, I know you're lurking!)

Odo

[Odo Banks]

It seems that while I've been off cavorting with the Heathens, old Eldorion has not been guarding the walls of Purendom quite as much as I thought. It seems, someone must step into the breach! I now name myself, Tolkien Fundamentalist.

I give you credit, Eldorion, you had me fooled for awhile (in more ways than one, in fact!) It just goes to show that being a Heathen doesn't mean one isn't cunning - very very cunning...

Odo

[Eldorion]

I have no idea what you mean. Is this in furtherance of your Heathenism/Fundamentalism joke?

[Eldorion]

Eldorion, I have the answer. Put Tom in but take out Bree - that was poorly done. Have the hobbits meet Aragorn in a ditch or something.

Personally, and this may just be me, I would rather see Aragorn get his proper introduction and Tom not included than see Tom included and Aragorn be denied his introduction. I say this because, unfortunately, some sort of prioritization must occur due to time constraints and I see Aragorn as rather more important than old Tom, meaning no offence to him of course.

Hey! What's this LOTR talk doing on a TH thread?

Our discussions here do seem to wander a lot .

[Odo Banks]

Quite possibly - but I can't admit it too openly. I mean, won't take away the humor... Maybe I've said too much already...

Odo

NB I'm a Monty Python Fan. This may explain some of my Odo behavior.

[Eldorion]

Monty Python, eh? I think this explains a lot about tonight.