Question About Bombur

[original wombat]

I've seen Film One 5 times (extended cut once) and Film Two once (I missed a couple of bits due to bathroom breaks) and I have yet to hear Bombur utter a single word. Anyone else noticed this?

[Denethor]

Yes, Bombur has had no lines so far. I remember reading somewhere that he gets to speak in the third movie.

[siddharth]

I wish he was given some lines.
Not that it is necessary, but I feel bad for the actor.

[jotnar]

To defend PJ on this, thirteen dwarves is a director's nightmare, and Bombur's character is easily defined visually. Better to give dialogue to "flesh out" the other dwarves who are not so, ahem, physically noticeable. The last thing Bombur needs is more fleshing out...

[original wombat]

I wonder if it's going to be a big deal. Like right at the very end of film 3 he suddenly delivers a great monologue

Also, if the EE of DoS has the forest river scene (they certainly filmed it, I've seen several photos of them in water and carrying Bombur on a stretcher through Mirkwood) he may speak then.

[Wildwood]

How awesome would it have been to see him fall into the black water and an enchanted sleep? And to hear him awaken and enumerate all the wonderful things to eat at the feast?

No way was there time for that, especially with all the made up stuff they had to deal with, but it would have been awesome. I can cut slack for them not being able to give lines to every single dwarf, I guess. It just seems to me that all these truncations, and lifts, and so forth create as many problems as they are meant to solve!

[andurilwest]

To defend PJ on this, thirteen dwarves is a director's nightmare

Bible movie directors seem to do fine with twelve apostles...

[jotnar]

Ah, but do they all have speaking parts? Peter, Judas, Matthew, Thomas at the end... the rest, to my memory, are close to mute.

[siddharth]

PJ never wanted to flesh out all the 13 dwarves from the start, and rightfully so.
His focus was 7-8 dwarves which imo he has done quite neatly.

[original wombat]

Understand that, but oddly enough Bumbur is one of the few in the book that's given stuff to do. I remember the last time I read it I noticed that one dwarf has no lines in the book (think it was either Bofur or Ori)

[Denethor]

Understand that, but oddly enough Bumbur is one of the few in the book that's given stuff to do. I remember the last time I read it I noticed that one dwarf has no lines in the book (think it was either Bofur or Ori)

Bifur, Bofur, and Nori get one line apiece in the entire book. Ori and Oin don't get any (perhaps Tolkien sent those two on the Moria mission to compensate).

[SaturnR]

Bible movie directors seem to do fine with twelve apostles...

Source material is more rich. 2 millennia of embellishments as compared with less than 1 century.

[original wombat]

Bumping this thread as poor old Bombur FINALLY gets a line in the extended cut of TBOTFA, but I won't tell you what he says

[Denethor]

I'd also suggest that if thirteen dwarves really was a director's nightmare, Jackson should have cut the surplus dwarves - have Thorin, Balin, Bombur, Fili, Kili, and a couple of extras (perhaps Dori and Gloin). Going with the full contingent was a conscious choice.

[lotrjw]

I'd also suggest that if thirteen dwarves really was a director's nightmare, Jackson should have cut the surplus dwarves - have Thorin, Balin, Bombur, Fili, Kili, and a couple of extras (perhaps Dori and Gloin). Going with the full contingent was a conscious choice.

Im sorry I have to profoundly disagree about cutting Dwarves that would ruin the story! Yes its hard to do but if your going to do it you have to have all 13 Dwarves! I welcome more streamlined fan edits that cut stuff that wasnt in the books, but on the whole they did a reasonable job in keeping the 13 Dwarves!

[Denethor]

I'd also suggest that if thirteen dwarves really was a director's nightmare, Jackson should have cut the surplus dwarves - have Thorin, Balin, Bombur, Fili, Kili, and a couple of extras (perhaps Dori and Gloin). Going with the full contingent was a conscious choice.

Im sorry I have to profoundly disagree about cutting Dwarves that would ruin the story! Yes its hard to do but if your going to do it you have to have all 13 Dwarves! I welcome more streamlined fan edits that cut stuff that wasnt in the books, but on the whole they did a reasonable job in keeping the 13 Dwarves!

Tolkien himself only focuses on Thorin (pompous), Balin (nice), Bombur (fat), Fili and Kili (young), and Dori (the one who carries Bilbo everywhere). Ori and Oin don't even get lines, whereas Nori, Bifur, and Bofur only get one line apiece. You don't need thirteen dwarves to tell this story

[lotrjw]

I'd also suggest that if thirteen dwarves really was a director's nightmare, Jackson should have cut the surplus dwarves - have Thorin, Balin, Bombur, Fili, Kili, and a couple of extras (perhaps Dori and Gloin). Going with the full contingent was a conscious choice.

Im sorry I have to profoundly disagree about cutting Dwarves that would ruin the story! Yes its hard to do but if your going to do it you have to have all 13 Dwarves! I welcome more streamlined fan edits that cut stuff that wasnt in the books, but on the whole they did a reasonable job in keeping the 13 Dwarves!

Tolkien himself only focuses on Thorin (pompous), Balin (nice), Bombur (fat), Fili and Kili (young), and Dori (the one who carries Bilbo everywhere). Ori and Oin don't even get lines, whereas Nori, Bifur, and Bofur only get one line apiece. You don't need thirteen dwarves to tell this story

Well I agree you dont need them all to have lines, but they are there Tolkien had a reason for them being there, so they should be there even if they arent given lines!

[Denethor]

Tolkien had a reason, yes. In his case it was to retrospectively explain the list of dwarves from the Voluspa (where he gets all his dwarf names, apart from Balin), and to make thirteen is unlucky jokes. That sort of thing is OK in a book (though I wonder if Tolkien had ever finished his rewrite of The Hobbit, whether he'd have kept them all). Point is though, Jackson's making a fresh piece of art in a different medium - whether he has six, thirteen, or a hundred dwarves is entirely his choice.

I dislike The Hobbit films, but not because they stray from the book, but because they fail as films.

[wilko185]

My personal theory is that the number of dwarves being 13 was a specific reference by Tolkien to an Icelandic Christmas folk tradition.

Anyway, there's no need to stick to that sort of thing in the film, I feel. I've seen a stage play version of the Hobbit with much fewer dwarves, and didn't think it suffered at all. Bombur should be in there, but several other dwarves are perfectly dispensable in a dramatic version.

[Denethor]

My personal theory is that the number of dwarves being 13 was a specific reference by Tolkien to an Icelandic Christmas folk tradition.

That was really interesting!

[wilko185]

Thanks! I was quite excited when I first read the account of the 13 Icelandic Christmas dwarves. (It's probably the only original idea I've ever posted on TORC )

[Voronwe_the_Faithful]

(It's probably the only original idea I've ever posted on TORC )

That is certainly not true! (Though the 13 Icelandic Christmas dwarves IS interesting.)

[Hasan006]

He had a line in the Extended Edition on BotFA and has also said something in AUJ shortly before the troll scene, but the camera wasn't on him.