<!--QuoteBegin-Buggy+Sep 14 2004, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Buggy @ Sep 14 2004, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold-NiTe+Sep 13 2004, 09:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold-NiTe @ Sep 13 2004, 09:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Renegade+Sep 13 2004, 09:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade @ Sep 13 2004, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Infinitum+Sep 13 2004, 06:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Infinitum @ Sep 13 2004, 06:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Needs more Tom Bombadil <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted for emphasis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Affirmative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Negative x50, I honestly cannot see the charm in such a character, and given the movie wasn't THAT fantasy as to include such a ... rather unusual character in it, i'm glad they left him out alltogether. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So hobbits, dwarves, elves, ents, orcs, fighting uruk'hai , wizards, giant floating flaming eyes, and vast mythologcial cities aren't THAT 'fantasy'?
The thing with Tom Bombadil is that he is completely outside of the storyline.
In the overall storyline he could have been removed (which he was) and it did not affect the characters or the plot. Like him or not, Tom Bombadil was a redundant character and provided no drive to the plot.
His appearance in the novels was to provide a greater depth for the backstory that evolved in The Hobbit and later appeared in the Silmarillion. However, the movie was The Lord of the Rings and therefore had no need to add depth to these other novels.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "At its head there rode a tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse, if horse it was; for it was huge and hideous, and its face was a frightful mask, more like a skull than a living head, and in the sockets of its eyes and in its nostrils there burned a flame. The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' " <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Necrosis+Sep 14 2004, 01:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Necrosis @ Sep 14 2004, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "At its head there rode a tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse, if horse it was; for it was huge and hideous, and its face was a frightful mask, more like a skull than a living head, and in the sockets of its eyes and in its nostrils there burned a flame. The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' " <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yup. Badass
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Sep 14 2004, 01:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Sep 14 2004, 01:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Necrosis+Sep 14 2004, 01:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Necrosis @ Sep 14 2004, 01:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "At its head there rode a tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse, if horse it was; for it was huge and hideous, and its face was a frightful mask, more like a skull than a living head, and in the sockets of its eyes and in its nostrils there burned a flame. The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' " <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yup. Badass <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oooh must see Extended Edition for this. I think they might very well have me, hook line and sinker, as a customer.
If you're interested in seeing what the mouth of sauron will MOST LIKELY look like, do a google image search for it. I purchased the art books for the trilogy, and they go over a lot of the design process for the movies. Included in there are sketches and concepts for the mouth of sauron and his horse, I'm sure it'll turn up on google images.
Kinda sad that the extended edition of ROTK is almost out cos it sorta gives me nothing to look forward to in the way of cinema/DVD releases <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Musta been how me older bruv felt after he had seen Return of the Jedi.
There's always the Hobbit I suppose; if the Tolkin estate stops being queer an let's PJ make it <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well I knew nothing about this, and reading through that list nearly made me jump. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
...I thought the films couldn't get any better...I can't wait to see the cut out scenes with Saruman.
the thing about tom bombadil is that putting him in would totally break up the tension/suspense/mood that jackson was going for in that whole first 'pursuit' section of TFotR, so it's a good thing that he stays out. It would also be pretty hard to convey the weirdness of Tom Bombadil without adding scenes in later (like when Gandalf is discussing why frodo couldn't keep the ring in Tom Bombadil's woods) and tbh it's unnecessary.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thing with Tom Bombadil is that he is completely outside of the storyline.
In the overall storyline he could have been removed (which he was) and it did not affect the characters or the plot. Like him or not, Tom Bombadil was a redundant character and provided no drive to the plot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst I agree that Bombadil isn't a crucial part of the story and really didn't fit into the whole feel and theme of the movies, there is one important aspect of the hobbits meeting him. When the hobbits are fleeing through the Barrow-Downs and are attacked by wights, Bombadil shows up and rescues them. At this point Merry takes a dagger from one of the old barrow mounds. Now it just so happened that the Witch King originated from a kingdom that fought against the kings buried in the Barrow-Downs. The weapons contained within were woven with enchantments designed specifically to hurt the Witch King. That's why in Return of the King when Merry stabs the Witch King in the back he actually can hurt it; a normal blade wouldn't have done anything.
There is an explaination of sorts in Fellowship Extended: the daggers Merry and Pippin weild were given to them my Galadrial, so they're somewhat magical. t's possible in RoTK: EE they'll refer to this to explain why Merry could hurt the Witch King.
All that aside, the movies work wonderfully without Bombadil.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Sep 14 2004, 10:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 14 2004, 10:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thing with Tom Bombadil is that he is completely outside of the storyline.
In the overall storyline he could have been removed (which he was) and it did not affect the characters or the plot. Like him or not, Tom Bombadil was a redundant character and provided no drive to the plot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst I agree that Bombadil isn't a crucial part of the story and really didn't fit into the whole feel and theme of the movies, there is one important aspect of the hobbits meeting him. When the hobbits are fleeing through the Barrow-Downs and are attacked by wights, Bombadil shows up and rescues them. At this point Merry takes a dagger from one of the old barrow mounds. Now it just so happened that the Witch King originated from a kingdom that fought against the kings buried in the Barrow-Downs. The weapons contained within were woven with enchantments designed specifically to hurt the Witch King. That's why in Return of the King when Merry stabs the Witch King in the back he actually can hurt it; a normal blade wouldn't have done anything.
There is an explaination of sorts in Fellowship Extended: the daggers Merry and Pippin weild were given to them my Galadrial, so they're somewhat magical. t's possible in RoTK: EE they'll refer to this to explain why Merry could hurt the Witch King.
All that aside, the movies work wonderfully without Bombadil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I was just thinking about that. It <i>was</i> those weapons from the Barrow-Downs that helped take down the Witch-King.
I also wanted to see more of the aftermath of when the Treants <b>raped</b> Isengaurd. It was awesome because I had this mental image of this place that before seemed so foreboding and scary suddenly turning into a flooded broken down ruins (with a very Chrono Trigger-ish / Secret of Mana-ish feeling to it) that was not threatening at all but maybe even welcoming. But in the movies it seemed to me like they only gave that like 2 seconds notice, despite how cool the contrast was imo.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Sep 15 2004, 02:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 15 2004, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thing with Tom Bombadil is that he is completely outside of the storyline.
In the overall storyline he could have been removed (which he was) and it did not affect the characters or the plot. Like him or not, Tom Bombadil was a redundant character and provided no drive to the plot. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst I agree that Bombadil isn't a crucial part of the story and really didn't fit into the whole feel and theme of the movies, there is one important aspect of the hobbits meeting him. When the hobbits are fleeing through the Barrow-Downs and are attacked by wights, Bombadil shows up and rescues them. At this point Merry takes a dagger from one of the old barrow mounds. Now it just so happened that the Witch King originated from a kingdom that fought against the kings buried in the Barrow-Downs. The weapons contained within were woven with enchantments designed specifically to hurt the Witch King. That's why in Return of the King when Merry stabs the Witch King in the back he actually can hurt it; a normal blade wouldn't have done anything.
There is an explaination of sorts in Fellowship Extended: the daggers Merry and Pippin weild were given to them my Galadrial, so they're somewhat magical. t's possible in RoTK: EE they'll refer to this to explain why Merry could hurt the Witch King.
All that aside, the movies work wonderfully without Bombadil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ho ho ho
Comments
Quoted for emphasis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Affirmative. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Frodo and Co. did meet up with Tom, the movie just never showed it. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Quoted for emphasis. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Affirmative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Negative x50, I honestly cannot see the charm in such a character, and given the movie wasn't THAT fantasy as to include such a ... rather unusual character in it, i'm glad they left him out alltogether. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So hobbits, dwarves, elves, ents, orcs, fighting uruk'hai , wizards, giant floating flaming eyes, and vast mythologcial cities aren't THAT 'fantasy'?
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In the overall storyline he could have been removed (which he was) and it did not affect the characters or the plot. Like him or not, Tom Bombadil was a redundant character and provided no drive to the plot.
His appearance in the novels was to provide a greater depth for the backstory that evolved in The Hobbit and later appeared in the Silmarillion. However, the movie was The Lord of the Rings and therefore had no need to add depth to these other novels.
"At its head there rode a tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse, if horse it was; for it was huge and hideous, and its face was a frightful mask, more like a skull than a living head, and in the sockets of its eyes and in its nostrils there burned a flame. The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' "
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"At its head there rode a tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse, if horse it was; for it was huge and hideous, and its face was a frightful mask, more like a skull than a living head, and in the sockets of its eyes and in its nostrils there burned a flame. The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' "
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. Badass
"At its head there rode a tall and evil shape, mounted upon a black horse, if horse it was; for it was huge and hideous, and its face was a frightful mask, more like a skull than a living head, and in the sockets of its eyes and in its nostrils there burned a flame. The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale; for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: 'I am the Mouth of Sauron.' "
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yup. Badass <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oooh must see Extended Edition for this. I think they might very well have me, hook line and sinker, as a customer.
I purchased the art books for the trilogy, and they go over a lot of the design process for the movies. Included in there are sketches and concepts for the mouth of sauron and his horse, I'm sure it'll turn up on google images.
There's always the Hobbit I suppose; if the Tolkin estate stops being queer an let's PJ make it <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
...I thought the films couldn't get any better...I can't wait to see the cut out scenes with Saruman.
In the overall storyline he could have been removed (which he was) and it did not affect the characters or the plot. Like him or not, Tom Bombadil was a redundant character and provided no drive to the plot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst I agree that Bombadil isn't a crucial part of the story and really didn't fit into the whole feel and theme of the movies, there is one important aspect of the hobbits meeting him. When the hobbits are fleeing through the Barrow-Downs and are attacked by wights, Bombadil shows up and rescues them. At this point Merry takes a dagger from one of the old barrow mounds. Now it just so happened that the Witch King originated from a kingdom that fought against the kings buried in the Barrow-Downs. The weapons contained within were woven with enchantments designed specifically to hurt the Witch King. That's why in Return of the King when Merry stabs the Witch King in the back he actually can hurt it; a normal blade wouldn't have done anything.
There is an explaination of sorts in Fellowship Extended: the daggers Merry and Pippin weild were given to them my Galadrial, so they're somewhat magical. t's possible in RoTK: EE they'll refer to this to explain why Merry could hurt the Witch King.
All that aside, the movies work wonderfully without Bombadil.
In the overall storyline he could have been removed (which he was) and it did not affect the characters or the plot. Like him or not, Tom Bombadil was a redundant character and provided no drive to the plot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst I agree that Bombadil isn't a crucial part of the story and really didn't fit into the whole feel and theme of the movies, there is one important aspect of the hobbits meeting him. When the hobbits are fleeing through the Barrow-Downs and are attacked by wights, Bombadil shows up and rescues them. At this point Merry takes a dagger from one of the old barrow mounds. Now it just so happened that the Witch King originated from a kingdom that fought against the kings buried in the Barrow-Downs. The weapons contained within were woven with enchantments designed specifically to hurt the Witch King. That's why in Return of the King when Merry stabs the Witch King in the back he actually can hurt it; a normal blade wouldn't have done anything.
There is an explaination of sorts in Fellowship Extended: the daggers Merry and Pippin weild were given to them my Galadrial, so they're somewhat magical. t's possible in RoTK: EE they'll refer to this to explain why Merry could hurt the Witch King.
All that aside, the movies work wonderfully without Bombadil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was just thinking about that. It <i>was</i> those weapons from the Barrow-Downs that helped take down the Witch-King.
I also wanted to see more of the aftermath of when the Treants <b>raped</b> Isengaurd. It was awesome because I had this mental image of this place that before seemed so foreboding and scary suddenly turning into a flooded broken down ruins (with a very Chrono Trigger-ish / Secret of Mana-ish feeling to it) that was not threatening at all but maybe even welcoming. But in the movies it seemed to me like they only gave that like 2 seconds notice, despite how cool the contrast was imo.
In the overall storyline he could have been removed (which he was) and it did not affect the characters or the plot. Like him or not, Tom Bombadil was a redundant character and provided no drive to the plot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whilst I agree that Bombadil isn't a crucial part of the story and really didn't fit into the whole feel and theme of the movies, there is one important aspect of the hobbits meeting him. When the hobbits are fleeing through the Barrow-Downs and are attacked by wights, Bombadil shows up and rescues them. At this point Merry takes a dagger from one of the old barrow mounds. Now it just so happened that the Witch King originated from a kingdom that fought against the kings buried in the Barrow-Downs. The weapons contained within were woven with enchantments designed specifically to hurt the Witch King. That's why in Return of the King when Merry stabs the Witch King in the back he actually can hurt it; a normal blade wouldn't have done anything.
There is an explaination of sorts in Fellowship Extended: the daggers Merry and Pippin weild were given to them my Galadrial, so they're somewhat magical. t's possible in RoTK: EE they'll refer to this to explain why Merry could hurt the Witch King.
All that aside, the movies work wonderfully without Bombadil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ho ho ho
Moral win for continuity