[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 161 KB, 776x1030, 190F8780-418F-4327-8DF6-6A03743C4D19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21833438 No.21833438 [Reply] [Original]

I fully support Peter Jackson’s removal of Tom Bombadil … however, the consequent absence of the Barrow-wight from the movie is tragic … why did Tom have to take everything good down with him?

>> No.21833441

For discussion, please post your age, occupation, and favorite Barrow-wight moment.

>> No.21833446

Didn’t further the plot and the film was already so long he had to cut a lot out

>> No.21833509

According to the Tales of Tom Bombadil, the Barrow Wight fucked with and attacked him first. He was just finishing what he started by stomping a mud hole in his candy ass. I didn't like how the Hobbits didn't have the Barrow blades in the movie with a backstory. Bombadil is for book enjoyers only bc movie fags need an origin story to handle literally anything.

>> No.21833579

None of the challenges in the movies/books furthers the plot. It’s all an exploration of Middle Earth. And the thing in Middle Earth most worth exploring is the Barrow-wight.

>> No.21833685

Because Bombadil and Barrow-wights both feel like episodic adventures that would fit better into a story like the Hobbit. It just doesn't feel connected to anything, and the while the barrow knifes do come back in ROTK it feels like the mention of them come out of nowhere. It was cut the same reason them meeting the wood elves was cut, they needed to get to Rivendell as fast as possible on screen

>> No.21833711

Because you can't have the Barrow-wights without Tom, and you can't have Tom without his lyrical way of speaking which only Tolkien himself was able to pull off.

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.