Meh, I read both books before they were cool, so allow me to say:
Why the hell shouldn't Legolas be there?
Yes, it is not mentioned in the book that he is there.
But it is resonable to assume that he hangs around in that forest with his folks. Where else is he going to be? Wall-Mart?
This is simply a matter of difference between the medium book and the medium film. When you discribe a scene in a book, like Bilbo walking past a crowd of elves, you don't need to mention that one of the annonymous crowd is actually Legolas, the prince-guy, even though it very well might be.
However, in a film, where everyone needs to have a face, it only makes sense to include Legolas, especially when you can bring another talented actor in on the gig.
Let me phrase it this way: Why exactly is it a bad thing to include him in the movie? Because it is not in the book? Why is that even an argument? Peter Jackson is not going to rewrite the book, the book is fine and will not change. He is not debating the book.
He is making a movie, his movie, and as with the Lord of the Rings Movies he is going to take some liberty in it. And as with the former movies, he will deliver a great movie, not just a screenplay of something you can read.
Seriously. I don't get why these selfproclaimed knights of literacy always are so determinate on the film being word for word like the book. If I want to get these words, I will read the book. If I watch a film, I want an enjoyable film. And frankly, stuff like Tom Bombadill just doesn't work the big screen.
