: : I am not opposed to the cutting of Tom Bombadil. I would like to see him in the movie, but there are a LOT of things that I would like to see in the movie that just aren't going to be there. IMO, exchanging Tom Bombadil for some more-important scenes would be better than having TB in there and having the rest of it seem rushed. If they cut TB just to make room for a gratuitous sex scene between Arwen and Aragorn, now that's another story.

: : I actually think that the Numenorean blades will not be a problem. They are not used until Moria, so if they acquire them in Rivendell, nothing *else* will have to be changed. Plus, Aragorn can explain to them (and the audience) that the blades are enchanted works of Westernesse. In the book, you don't even find that out until the last minute.

: : My $.02

: : Olorin

: Although I am disappointed that Tom will not be in the film, I can understand a reason for doing so. Aside from the blades, Bombadil does not advance the story line, and does raise
: questions that remain unanswered. The matter of the blades could be explained by the hobbits briefly telling Gandalf about their encounter with Bombadil, how he rescued them and how they aquired the blades. Less than a minute of film, tops.~Aelmer

I think Tom Bombadil would be the toughest character to translate to film in the entire trilogy and I would rather see Jackson drop him from the film than make a hash of it. There are some things only Tolkien's writing could portray and the whole Tom Bombadil-Goldberry thing is one of them. This whole Arwen as Elven Warrior Princess thing is really worrying me and I hope it doesn't ruin the movie. I'm keeping my expectations low so I won't be too disappointed. Tolkien's books will always be there regardless.