The Lord of the Rings books released in the 1950s, and over the years, they've become super popular. Diehard fans have read the trilogy (even though LOTR isn't actually a trilogy) over and over, and many know their contents front to back. That's led to a few different movie adaptations, but Peter Jackson's version is easily the best. His practical sets, excellent casting and Tolkien-eque tone were a few of the many reasons why the trilogy is considered one of the best of all time.

While almost everyone loved the LOTR movies, they did leave out a number of things. Among other cuts, Tom Bombadil was a sticking point for a lot of people. The fan-favorite, odd-ball character appeared in the first half of The Fellowship of the Ring book, which Jackson decided to streamline. Here's why he decided to cut Tom Bombadil, despite the character's importance to the franchise.

RELATED: Why Gandalf Healed Theoden But Not Denethor in The Lord of the Rings

Peter Jackson Saw Tom Bombadil as Unnecessary

Peter Jackson directs Ian McKellen (Gandalf) on the Lord of the Rings set.

In the books, Tom Bombadil functioned as a proto-Gandalf. For the sake of the story, the Hobbits needed to encounter some resistance on the road to the lawless town of Bree, but they were not equipped to handle anything. So, Tolkien created Bombadil to get them out of trouble on more than one occasion. One of the reasons was to contrast just how much the Hobbits had grown by the end of the story. However, that wasn't enough to keep Bombadil relevant in Jackson's mind. Here's what the director said in the DVD's appendices to FOTR, (as reported by SlashFilm).

"In the plot of The Lord of the Rings, in our movie, in its most simple form, is Frodo carrying the Ring. Eventually, he has to go to Mordor and destroy the Ring. So, you know, what does Old Man Willow contribute to the story of Frodo carrying the Ring? What does Tom Bombadil ultimately really have to do with the Ring? I know there's Ring stuff in the Bombadil episode, but it's not really advancing our story. It's not really telling us things we need to know."

Ultimately, Peter Jackson was right. As fun as Tom Bombadil was, the character wasn't essential to Frodo's story. In fact, the whole first half of FOTR was a lot of worldbuilding that a film could accomplish in a much more streamlined way. Yet Jackson did understand that fans really liked Tom Bombadil. According to the December 2001 issue of Cinefantastique magazine (via TheOneRing.net), Jackson explained that he had planned for a brief Tom Bombadil Easter Egg, but he simply didn't have time to film it.

RELATED: Lord of the Rings' Biggest Omission Proves the Nazgûl Were Totally Overrated

Tom Bombadil Is an Important Symbol in Lord of the Rings

Tom Bombadil by Ted Nasmith in LOTR CCG The Wizards.

Tolkien had a clear purpose for Tom Bombadil in FOTR: he got the Hobbits through their first major trials. However, Tolkien didn't define what Bombadil was. Most fans believe that he was an Ainur (a Vala or a Maia), while others believe that he was an embodied spirit of the world or an idealized version of Eru Ilúvatar's creation music. Some fans have even proposed an outlandish theory that proposes Tom Bombadil is really the With-king of Angmar in disguise.

Fans have debated Bombadil's identity for years, and it doesn't seem like there will ever be a definitive answer. However, fans can agree that he was an important symbol in LOTR. On multiple occasions, he was described as "older than the old," which means that he was probably the first being in Middle-earth. As such, he existed before the world was evil, and that's why he was important. Somehow, he remained unadulterated by the invasion of Morgoth. And because of that, he represented hope -- a hope that humanity could return to the joy and purity that existed before the fall of mankind. In the end, it would have been fun for Tom Bombadil to appear in the LOTR movies, but his absence only adds to his mystery and symbolism.