Talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Image

Image:Lord of the rings the fellowship of the ring ver2.jpg is available if you want to use it :) - cohesion★talk 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Error of fact?

This page boldly proclaims that no props were "not made from scratch". I seriously doubt this. Richard Taylor says during the Production commentary of the Two Towers that some of the orc/Uruk eye lens (the red ones) were bought of the shelf. This was for the scene were they discuss eating Merry and Pippin. Taylor deeply lamented having to buy them; he thinks they look very fake and that they are basically the weakest part of the Trilogy from a make-up perspective. But the fact remains that the eye covers were bought off the shelf and NOT made from scratch, so this article is definitely wrong. I have no idea what the correct number is, though. --DreamsReign 00:06,10 March 2006 (UTC)

48,000 refers to Weta forging the pieces of armour, as quoted in Sibley's book. Props from scratch refers to, well, the Art Department, not Weta. Wiki-newbie 11:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the extended DVD extras states this exact fact 'no props were "not made from scratch"'. However, I think the lens would count as special makeup, would they not? When they say props I suppose they mean physical items, things that you could hold etc. 193.60.133.205 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

I've read the "all props made from scratch" thing in many magazines, but it's possible it's just a publicity thing and not truly accurate. The contact lenses were certainly imported (though some were then painted by people working on the films.) Are contact lenses props? I imagine some of the food, such as apples, were not specifically grown for the films. Are these props? I'd say so. I wouldn't be against changing the "zero props not made from scratch" thing... although it's possible we're over analyzing things.

I'd have to agree, simply because it's nearly impossible to make "everything" from scratch. However, if it's not entirely factual, it's in essence true. It should be phrased to express the fact that virtually every prop was created for this version of Middle-Earth, and not, say, borrowed from a medieval setting, etc. I'm not sure how it's generally done in films.MRig 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

For a moment I thought Bormir (the human who dies at the end of the first film) touched the ring, but I guess technically he only touched the necklace holding it. But wasn't it true that one of the hobbits seriously injured their foot during filming? I thought Sam or Frodo stepped on a nail or a wooden spike or something.

There are two instances where this happened. One was in the scene where Frodo is running from the Ringwraiths and jumps onto the ferry. I don't remember which Hobbit hurt his foot, but it turned out to be smaller than they thought. The other was when Sam runs after Frodo at Amon Hen in the end of Fellowship and tries to swim after him. In this case, Sean Astin's foot was virtually impaled by some sort of debris. Of the two, the latter is more noteworthy, but they're easily confused.MRig 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Gandalf also touch the One Ring briefly before Frodo picked it up? It happens in FotR in the scene where Bilbo departs the Shire and the ring gives Gandalf a vision of the Eye of Sauron.

No, Gandalf reaches to pick it up but then that eye thing happen and he refused to touch it (btw, I don't think he actually saw the eye, he just felt its presence which visually was represented by the eye). --Ted87 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Also how does one break 'several' toes on a single foot? Is Viggo a freak of nature? Sincerely, Koncorde.

"Several" just means more then 2 or 3 (although I doubt he'd brake more then 3). Ted87 01:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

exactly, so perhaps it should be "broke a couple of toes". I mean he either broke "4", or "all" his toes on one foot. If he'd broken 2 or 3, it should be 'Couple', if he broke all 5 then it's "All" and if he broke 4...well then just say he broke a "few"! Just find it amusing to see 'several' used when referring to toesies. Made me laugh quite loudly at 4 in the morning. Sincerely, Koncorde

I was the one who changed "some" to "several." It's just as vague, but sounds less so. "A couple" fairly certainly means two. Does it specify how many were broken on the DVD? I don't remember, I should check. Also, I made it specific to the Two Towers. However, if that's the case, should it be moved to the specific Two Towers movie page? Just some things that occured to me, please forgive any newbie mistakes. MRig 02:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

YES, DVD states 2 toes were broken. Watched it last week, hope that helps. 193.60.133.205 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Just curious, does anyone know (or can anyone find out) how many One Ring props had to be made? I know of at least three different sizes that were made (Hobbit-sized, man-sized, and a giant one for the scene where it is lifted out of camera in the mountans....-sized) but I think it'd be funny to add that to the facts and figures section: Number of One Rings made: 7. -Houdin654jeff 01:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

" * After the scene where Samwise kisses Rosie, Viggo Mortensen made out with Billy

Boyd just behind the cameras." I deleted that part. I hope that's ok. --Iloveorangejuice 01:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Someone neglected to note that Gandalf also touched the Ring, after pulling it from the fireplace at Bag End right at the start of the story.

No he didn't. He used fire tongs to take it from the fire and dropped it in Frodo's hand. Frodo grabbed it when they heard Sam outside the window. Ted87 04:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did. But not as mentioned above. Gandalf touched the ring after Bilbo had dropped it. That's when he had a vision of the Eye. It gave me a great scare. After that he got Frodo to put the Ring in an envelop. As Gandalf is the one handling the envelop here he should be mentioned. Mausy5043 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the trivia part removed by Wikinewbie? I thought it was rather an interesting piece. Mausy5043

Wiki-newbie's earlier removal of trivia had edit summary "I do feel for an article like this, I cannot have trivia" [1]. I reverted with summary "Trivia section reinserted. Such sections are common and probably amuse many. Discuss on talk before removing" [2]. Wiki-newbie's next removal said "Trivia - Purged" [3], with no mention on talk. I liked the trivia but the article is long and I don't feel enough for it to go into a revert war. PrimeHunter 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Thematically Necessary"?

The article suggests that the deletion of "Scourging of the Shire" from the movies was a bad idea, since the episode is "thematically necessary". Is it? Sure, the vision of the Shire in flames via Galadriel's water trick is not exactly what the books suggest, but it's a good replacement. Besides, it's more satisfying that Sauron and his forces are destroyed when the Ring is destroyed, and that there is nothing to worry about after the Hobbits return to the Shire. But I digress. The point is that there is commentary imbedded in this phrase and that it probably has no place in a WP article.Azlib77 10:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is thematically necessary, since Tolkien, unlike Jackson, wrote the story with an ultimately hobbit-centric POV. Also, the hobbits face Saruman's ruffians (he wasn't killed at Orthanc), not Sauron's forces, and saying that "it's more satisfying" the way Jackson did it is obviously (your) POV. Look at this link: [4] Uthanc 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Both are POV. It is very subjuctive to say "The Scourging of the Shire was/wasn't neccessary". As long as both views are presented, there shouldn't be any problems. --Ted87 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am going to rewrite to say Tolkien thought it was necessary. The very fact Jackson omitted it, and that some people did not like the omission, communicates their POV on this. Baccyak4H 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

In the commentary on the third DVD, Jackson says he originally intended to include 'Scouring of the Shire', and even started work on the props (a two-metre model of the ruined watermill is part of the official exhibition of Lord of the Rings memorabilia). However, it was dropped because the movie was getting over-long, and a new 'plot twist' after the main story had ended would disturb the flow of the film. Jeendan 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall an interview that said it was never in any script draft. But leave it. Wiki-newbie 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mm, I've seen the props at the exhibition, and Jackson talks about it on the DVD track. I don't know if a script was drafted but you' think so if they went to the trouble of building props. It's not a big deal either way - I wish they had included it but I can see why they didn't. Jeendan 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the stuff for Scouring was done specifically for Galadriel's mirror, featuring the mill miniature. Now let's not get too forum-esque. Wiki-newbie 09:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not bad at all

The article is optimal in its information, instead of just adding loads of info that in the end is really nothing but trivia or personal research. Is not big in fandom either, unlike articles from Star Wars or Warcraft or Matrix. Congratulations on this.

Thanks, I've worked hard on this article, though I feel it is difficult to get references as most of my information comes from the DVD. Wiki-newbie 11:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you on about? The Star Wars Trilogy and The Matrix Trilogy were merely used to disambiguation their respective articles. The article also suffers from POV, lack any negatives or criticism.

In defense of readers who don't like the films

I restored Wayne Hammond's negative remarks. While others obviously don't agree with him, I think it's important to note negative reactions coming from non-film fans who've also read the book. He's also a big-name fan, having published a number of publications, some co-published with his wife, also a fan. http://bcn.net/~whammond/biblios.html

In response to User:DerekDD, who removed the quote, saying that it wasn't consistent with a 95% positive Rotten Tomatoes rating - well, Hammond and others like him are different and probably should be considered separately from many of those critics, since they've read the book! Which in fact the article does. It clearly differentiates two types of "judges": those who've read the book, and those who haven't (in other words, general audiences). Obviously, the latter far outweigh the former, and these viewers are more predisposed to like the films, since:

• they have no preconceived notions about how they imagined it to be, and, more importantly,
• they don't know what has been changed. Would a non-reader care (at least as much as a reader) about the changes made to Arwen, Faramir and Denethor, for example? They wouldn't be able to say, "They got it just right!" or "That's so wrong!" — only "Cool!" and "Wow"!, etc.

A 95% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a high rating on imdb are both, as I suspect, largely based on non-reader opinion. imdb's online voting can't be used to show that people who don't like the films are wrong. Similarly, box office results are only signs of the films' popularity and money-earning strength, not reader and critic approval. Attack of the Clones did very well at the box office, but were its dramatic elements (as opposed to special effects) generally liked by general audiences and critics? No...

Adding negative reactions from readers only serves to add balance. Of course, not all readers disliked the films (all in all I prefer the book, though the films do have their moments), so adding positive reviews from readers also would help. Uthanc 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think in all fairness we got a sense of a 60/40 sense of approval from readers. Often negatives tend to be a loud minority. However, I will maybe start putting down quotes from Chris Lee and other film approving fans. Wiki-newbie 15:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"60/40"? What does that mean, 60% positive and 40% negative (good, but flawed in spots)? "Often negatives tend to be a loud minority" - yes, the readers who don't like the films (as opposed to just preferring the book) do tend to get angry (can't blame them; they feel that strongly about it). So what should we say, "It was generally liked by readers and non-readers alike, but some of the former have decried various changes", blah blah? Uthanc 04:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Well, anyway, we've got the WP fundamental of neutrality down. Wiki-newbie 18:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Three movies about walking (Clerks 2)

In the movie [Clerks 2], Randal equates the Lord of The Rings movies as being 3 movies about walking. The first movie is demonstrated by Randal taking an exagerated step while blank-faced. The second by tripping and looking back and down mid-walk. The third consisting of the same walk culminating in a gesture to remove the ring from the finger and toss it downward. I found this analogy to be quite apt , witty, reflective of my attitudes on Lord of The Rings (or at least the movie). I leave this here for others to decide on it's merit for inclusion in this article (mainly as I am unsure where in the article this would best be placed). Trivia or Criticism? AnarchyElmo 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about popular culture: satire and parody section? Wiki-newbie 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I put it, slightly rewritten, in the movies section. Uthanc 20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I loved the Clerks films, (both of them), I feel that line was intended only as a baseless joke, in context with Randal's character. And indeed, it is a joke. The line was intentionally ridiculous from the point of view of a fictional character, and it's amazing that anyone could take humorous and clearly satirical dialog to heart. - Anon

I think LotR is quoted as many different thigns in amny different movies/tv shows. In The OC it's quoted twice: "Gay guys walking on a mountain" and something like "That movie where as the guy gets closer to the volcano he gets weider" (or something like dat). I've never really considere that the quotes could be refering to movie 1/2 and movie 3, but woteva. I don't see why you'd need to put all of the pop culture related jokes on the article--JG ROX58.173.9.186 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Boromir

Is this necessary?

Sean Bean (Rhian Sanville's lover) as Boromir, an extremely good looking Gondorian warrior with a sheffield accent, son of its steward, who accompanies the Fellowship but is also tempted by the Ring. He sees no need for the return of the King though he comes to respect Aragorn. He dies at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, yet returns in flashbacks.

...someone has a crush, apparently. His description is twice as long as most of the other characters listed and he died in the first movie. I edited it to remove most of the random stuff (Rhian Sanville's lover ... what does that have to do with anything?) but it's been a while since I saw the movie so I wasn't sure if all the information in the above paragraph was accurate. So for now it's just a condensed version of above until someonewho knows what they're talking about comes along. Skin Crawl 06:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeesh. Thanks for reverting it: I myself put quite a bit of detail into Boromir myself considering he is a highly complex figure. Wiki-newbie 10:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Evenstar jewel

This could use a bit of expanding, including an image: Evenstar (jewel) (Made Evenstar, previously a redirect to Arwen, a disambig page) Uthanc 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Passing

While this article is not without it's flaws, it's easy to read, NPOV and very well referenced (70!). If in the future you consider doing an FAC, make sure that you get it peer reviewed first because for an article such as this people may have a differnt opion from me, but it passes as I said above.

†he Bread 09:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Details not specified in the films

We should only limit ourselves to what the films say, and omit details appearing only in the book. For example:

• Orlando Bloom as Legolas, an Elven prince who accompanies the Fellowship. He is an accomplished fighter and archer.

Is Legolas identified as a prince in the films? If not, we should only use archer and fighter. It should be rephrased as:

• Orlando Bloom as Legolas, an Elven archer who accompanies the Fellowship. He is an accomplished fighter.

Similarly, with

• Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins, Frodo's (much older) cousin.

If Bilbo was only called Frodo's uncle, we should use uncle.

Is the term "Rangers of Ithilien" used in the films? The merchandise uses "Gondor Rangers" or "Gondorian Rangers". If "... of Ithilien" wasn't used, we should use the merchandising terms.

Sorry, I've never seen the extended versions (unavailable), so if these terms are actually in those versions, I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthanc (talk • contribs)

Ultimate Edition?

Can someone link me to the Ultimate edition mentioned in the article? According to the article it should be out by now. I should very much like to purchase it. -- AS Artimour 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Considered to be the biggest movie project ever undertaken"

I own the boxed-set of Extended Editions, so it's not for any lack of love for the films that I point out that this phrase is both unreferenced and demonstrably untrue. Bondarchuk's War and Peace cost more inflation-adjusted, took longer to complete [even without any digital effects to work on], and has more *real* soldiers in it than the Battle of Pelennor Fields has Massive agents. Just sayin'. Zaqwe 01:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"The The Lord of the Rings film trilogy"

It might look silly, but there's "The" in the official titles of the trilogy (and the book), isn't it? As I put in my edit summary, we should put "The" before "The Lord of the Rings trilogy" when appropriate; otherwise it would be like saying "George Lucas directed Star Wars trilogy". The title of the article itself has "The"; otherwise it would be titled "Lord of the Rings film trilogy". But I got my changes removed. I know the "The" is routinely dropped in casual conversation, but this isn't casual conversation. Uthanc 10:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As written on many other articles, it's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Wiki-newbie 11:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said, the "The" is part of the title. Uthanc 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted "the the" based on these Google hits: 24100 on "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" -wikipedia, 54 on "The The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" -wikipedia (none of them starting a sentence), 41200 on "The Lord of the Rings Symphony" -wikipedia, 10 on "The The Lord of the Rings Symphony" -wikipedia. It's clearly rare to use double "the". PrimeHunter 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't use the second "the", then the "The" you use shouldn't be considered part of the title. That is, it should be "The Lord of the Rings trilogy", not "The Lord of the Rings trilogy". - Nunh-huh 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use the correct version, not the version with most search-engine results. --Galadh 10:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This might seem overly pedantic (or lame), but "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" is the correct and official (isn't it?) form; going by that we should observe correct grammar by adding "the" when appropriate. Alternately, we just (and do) skirt the issue by using "New Line Cinema's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy", "Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings film trilogy", etc. The dropping of the "The" is understandable and widespread, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which should be more correct than its readers. Uthanc 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

English is not exactly defined and people often disagree about "correct". Common conventions about "the" may not apply to placing it before another "the". Wikipedia content is driven by sources. The official site doesn't say "The The Lord of the Rings" in any context but often without double "the", e.g. "The Lord of the Rings trilogy", "The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy", "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy". There are plenty of reliable sources which don't say "the" before titles starting with "the". Would you only refer to The The as "the The The"? PrimeHunter 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Technical reference

I truely do not see the point why:

M. Aitken, G. Butler, D. Lemmon, E. Saindon, D. Peters, G. Williams, "The Lord of the Rings: the Visual Effects that Brought Middle Earth to the Screen", ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 Course Notes, No. 11 (2004).</ref>.

is considered "not notable". It is one of the most detailed discussion of the digital effects used I have seen. And even more, the person removing this did not even suggest what else to cite. It appears he did not even read it to begin with. -- Ylai 14:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, I'm aware of the talk, but I don't think it's notable from any standpoint. Any explanation of the special effects in the films are there as referenced from the DVDs. Wiki-newbie 16:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is plainly not true, and further gives me the impression you did not read the document. Technical aspects like NURBS vs SubD Gollum are clearly not mentioned on the DVD, just to begin with. -- Ylai 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't click the pdf. Even then, I can't access it. I'm unsure however how much technical detail we should go into though: see WP:SS. Wiki-newbie 18:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the point, isn't it. Encyclopedia is about cross-referencing information. It is neither about placing an artificial limit on the what the reader is not supposed to know, nor does it say films are all entertainment and not science itself. How could e.g. the casting and motion capturing etc. stuff (which is pretty much everyone in the effects field does today) about Gollum supposed to important, but "details" for which 6 people received the Technical Achievement Oscar are suddently unimportant? -- Ylai 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No criticism?

The article seems to give the point that the LOTR Trilogy is the greatest and most perfect flims ever, and the only criticism coming from novel to film changes. The article also lacks critical reviews of the films themselves, and too much is focused on the Oscar wins. --PCPP 04:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the article is quite neutral. I just don't know where to begin with filmic critisisms. Wiki-newbie 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The article is teetering on lacking a NPOV. It's not the worst example of fandom running away with an article, but it certainly stretches the meaning of the word neutral. Luis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 04:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, go on, fix it! Don't just moan. WikiNew 15:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey i found this site http://oddlots.digitalspace.net/arthedain/broken_promises.html , its a Huge (and long) critism of the adaption. mabye that would help Thedudewithglasses 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. Alientraveller 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why, exactly isn't it. It's a review, so why not? It also expresses many book fans opinions Thedudewithglasses 23:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source is a major publisher, not a blog. Alientraveller 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Franchising criticisms

Some fans of the book were critical of the way New Line Cinema has "franchised" the series. In particular, Electronic Arts has produced videogames which stray from Tolkien's storylines in varying degrees.

Needs a source; also it doesn't fit in the "reactions to changes from the book" section since this is about the changes made for games rather than changes for the films themselves. When/if we restore this, can we change the header to "Reader reaction" or something? Uthanc 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Grumble. Accidentally removed this section when I added my Recent Edit Wars comment, below. FeralDruid 08:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edit Wars

There have been a number of changes recently, going back and forth on the wording "unadjusted for inflation" and "A few critics such as Robert Ebert did not receive the trilogy so warmly." I could have sworn there was a Wikipedia policy regarding repetitive edits. Why do these two items keep getting added and removed? FeralDruid 08:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, today, "unadjusted for inflation" and "A few critics" has been added back into the article. Why does these items keep getting added and removed? FeralDruid 06:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, someone seems to have a POV issue. Ebert is a notable critic and needs to stand out. For balance, I added Berardinelli's top 100. WikiNew 11:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit war here has got to stop. Please discuss the issues here on the talk page, and look for a compromise version that everyone can live with. I have semi-protected the page for a week; this is more of a warning than prevention of editing, since most of the participants in this have mature accounts. If the edit war continues, then the article will be locked down.-gadfium 08:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The user User:DerekDD Contributions have added large amounts of questionable statements into the article, including the addition of a LotR fansite amongst the critical reviews section [5][6][7], and the attempted removal of negative opinions [8], the the attempt to downplay such criticisms [9] His contributions on LOTR consists of nothing besides adding POV words into articles on Peter Jackson [10], Return of the King and LOTR film trilogy. I have attempted to modify some of his weasel words, such as "verified to be the most popular", "A vast majority of critics have also highly praised the trilogy" and restored his removal of the inflation note.

User:Granwishes88 Contributions is possibly his alt, as they share similar editing patterns.--PCPP 06:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PCPP, I see you have twice reverted the article since I asked for the edit war to stop. Your reverts have removed the sprotect notice, and reintroduced old errors such as the grammatical error "an video". By all means edit the article, but don't just wipe out the improvements of others. I suggest you try making a small change, and wait for a response.-gadfium 06:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DerekDD, please don't revert edits without discussing them on the talk page, and looking for compromises. Edit summaries are not sufficient to discuss this matter, and try to find a version that's acceptable to everyone.-gadfium 08:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast list

Seems to me that the cast list could be cut down some. I think there are at least a handful of characters/actors that can be taken off, as they had no major role in the films. Splamo 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

List of The Lord of the Rings film series cast members is very much like a category at the moment. I would suggest rather than trimming either list - leave a summary here of the key roles (the fellowship and a couple of others) and move the rest to the list of page. Everyone mentioned at the List of page has a link.Garrie 23:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Is It A Trilogy"

Considering that there are no sources to support this part of the article it in my opinion be removed.

24.71.228.245 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Gurinder

live action fantasy epic films

"The Lord of the Rings film trilogy comprises three live action fantasy epic films;"

I'm curious as of whether this is correct grammar, or if it would read better as

"The Lord of the Rings film trilogy comprises three live action epic fantasy films;"

Changing the position of "fantasy" and "epic" in the sentence.

I think it's fine. Alientraveller 11:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

German

These films are not just from New Zealand and the United States of America. There should have been written Germany there as well, at least in some of the movies.

See here for more:

[11]

[12]

[13]

Helpsloose 01:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. The second and third films list "Zweite Productions Deutschland Filmproduktion" as one of the production companies.

I know nothing about the movie business, but I did a quick Google search for "Zweite Productions Deutschland Filmproduktion" and found almost nothing beyond the references associated with LoTR films 2 and 3. It seems like it's some kind of shadowy financing company. A tax dodge, maybe? :-)

Interesting, and curious. --RenniePet 14:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No one has given a proof it is wrong, so I change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpsloose (talk • contribs)

Remember that IMDb isn't always reliable, and even if there was a bit of German funding, it may not even be notable. Alientraveller 10:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not being German I don't really have any fish to fry in this discussion. But a Google search seems to prove that a German company was backing films 2 and 3. (I'm at work and don't have the DVD boxes here to see what it says on them. Or what it says in the credits when you view the film.)

My understanding is that financial backing is enough to get a movie listed as, for example, a (partially) USA movie. Or is that incorrect? --RenniePet 10:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, IMDb isn't that reliable. Alientraveller 10:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not basing my statements on IMDB. I'm basing them on the results of a Google search for "Zweite Productions Deutschland Filmproduktion". --RenniePet 10:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well they only appeared to do a bit for TTT. Now I'm trying to figure if they contributed anything significant, because LOTR only ever went to Europe to score in Watford. Alientraveller 10:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We have enough proofs, I will change it again. Helpsloose 17:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No you don't. Alientraveller 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the available sources and personally Googled for search results of the phrase and similar alternatives. The verifiability of this information is uncertain, as the company has not been reported in very many places. The company has not been covered in relation to Lord of the Rings by independent, secondary sources at all. The company has no matches with LOTR on Google News Search, where there are multiple hits for Wingnut and LOTR. Even if this information was true, based on the unclear evidence, it clearly does not meet notability standards for categorizing Lord of the Rings as a German production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because you find little about them does not mean it is not true. I doubt someone would write they have had something to do with the films if they did not. Where would they get the idea to say they did something to the films? Did they lie? Made it up from thin aer?

Also; TV2 in Norway (the country I currently live in) says the films is partially german. TV-Guides says it too.

Helpsloose 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but their contribution is insignificant compared to New Line's funding of these three New Zealand films. Only London was significant in where the trilogy was scored. Alientraveller 20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

two of Helpsloose's citations go directly back to IMDb. The PDF admits to being sourced from IMDb, and the blog isinvalid on it's face as a fan blog, and doubly so when all links go right back to IMDb. That leaves new York's Time Out. While reliable, it's only noted in its' categories info listing, not in the article in any significant way, and IMDb may well be responsible there too. Not notable, not worth inclusion. ThuranX 21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I just stuck the second DVD from The Two Towers extended (4 disc) set in my DVD player.

At the very end of the credits it says this: (I'll try to format it roughly as it appears.)

COPYRIGHT © 2002 LORD ZWEITE PRODUCTIONS DEUTSCHLAND FILMPRODUKTION GmbH & CO. KR.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ^TMNEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

LORD ZWEITE PRODUCTIONS DEUTSCHLAND FILMPRODUKTION GmbH & CO. KR.

And that's all. No mention of Wingnut Productions or whatever Peter Jackson's company is called. The final text with "LORD ZWEITE etc. is very large, and it is (as far as I can see) the crediting text for ownership of the film.

As for what it means, I have no idea. A financial holding company set up as a partnership between Newline and Peter Jackson, maybe? But why in Germany?

And as for whether or not Wikipedia should include "Germany" on the country list for The Two Towers (and Return of the King, which I assume is the same but have not checked), I'll leave to others to argue about. --RenniePet 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's a bit of conjecture on the matter. It's lord Zweite. that's Lord, lord of the rings, Zweite, second. Second Lordof the rings production company. a holding co. in germany? There was probably some good fiscal benefit to doing it there; matching incentives from the german .gov, tax dodge for the corporation, favorable interest rates, easier transfers to NZ? No one's been able to establish the company exists outside T2T, and no one's got any credible evidence of anything beyond the IMDb, and the credit in the film. Without something to establish them as anythign other than the finacial management group eestablished for that film, a common part of the production process, therre's nothign to make it notable. ThuranX 02:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if they only made this film. It is irrelevant if their main reason was to avoid more tax etc. Helpsloose 07:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The credits are good enough evidence. Helpsloose 10:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No one disagree with that? OK, I bet they can make their own credits right.Helpsloose 13:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

(I am probably wrong about the following:) And is the films New Zealandic? The nationality of the director, some cast, some crew, and shooting location is not enough to say it is. Imagine what nationalities for example James Bond films would have. Helpsloose 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The films were written, designed, shot and had their editing, special effects (apart from one bit in FOTR) and sound done in New Zealand. Simply, they were made there. Alientraveller 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally got around to looking at the credits for The Return of the King. Here's what it says at the very end - again I'm trying to format it so it resembles what you see on the screen:

COPYRIGHT © 2003 LORD DRITTE PRODUCTIONS DEUTSCHLAND FILMPRODUKTION GmbH & CO. KR.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ^TMNEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

LORD DRITTE PRODUCTIONS DEUTSCHLAND FILMPRODUKTION GmbH & CO. KR.

I'm beginning to think it has something to do with copyright law.

Here you can see a court case in Toronto, Canada, where some alleged pirate is being sued by LORD DRITTE PRODUCTIONS DEUTSCHLAND FILMPRODUKTION GmbH (among others): http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_moreInfo_e.php?T-584-07

One of the other plaintifs is MERADIN ZWEITE PRODUCTIONS GMBH & CO KG. A Google search for that name leads to this IMDb web page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/business . In other words, Snakes on a Plane, another New Line film, also has a German company involved, presumably a company that is only involved with this one film in some mysterious way.

Aren't there any film industry insiders here who can explain the purpose of these strange German companies? --RenniePet 22:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

IMDb say it is German, so I am changing it again. Helpsloose 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And IMDb is reliable enough. It is used for so many sources in Wikipedia, you can't just say you don't trust it because it is a fact you don't like or belive or something. And Wikipedia can not use their own definition of nationality of movies. When both IMDb and the credits say it is true, you can not say it is not mentionable. If it is German, then it is! Helpsloose 02:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS. Only you are banging the drum. Alientraveller (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Jackson's lawsuit against New Line

I was wondering whether anyone had considered including the controversy and lawsuit over money Jackson claimed New Line never paid him. It is referenced in the Hobbit (2009 Film) article, but it seems like it might be worth noting at least the controversy in this article. I know that I, at least, came to this article wondering if anything had been resolved.Skafkas 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The info about the possible film was later merged into this article from The Hobbit. [14] --Mrwojo 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that deals have been settled [15], the project appears to be going forward for a 2011 release. Should a separate article be created again? Williamnilly (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! And no, the movie is not shooting, see WP:FUTFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This article should be renamed to The Lord of the Rings (film series) to bring it inline with the naming convention. Also in the comment above this one, it looks like The Hobbit is in the works, so this won't be a trilogy for much longer anyway. Let's discuss. - LA @ 10:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Please state whether or not you support the renaming of this article.

Consensus is not determined by polls mate. Secondly, there are no prequels, so it is still a trilogy. Thirdly, the trilogy remains unique in being shot back-to-back. So if we were to ever rename it, the article would have to be something like "Middle-earth on film" and completely lose focus. Alientraveller 11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think will happen when it becomes a tetralogy when The Hobbit is made? - LA @ 13:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And what is the big deal with them being made back to back? The first two Superman films and the last two Matrix films were made back to back, so the fact that these three were made back to back is not a big deal. Now, if the series were say more than ten films long and they were all made back to back, that would then be notable. - LA @ 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean a pentalogy, if both prequels get made? It's still technically not The Lord of the Rings. Alientraveller 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that there were two prequels. What's the other? Also, I have a box set of books called Lord of the Rings with The Hobbit included. It isn't called Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, just Lord of the Rings. All films in this series should be in one article, so when the two prequels are made, they should be included here. - LA @ 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See the prequels section. Technically however, this trilogy is an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings itself, and The Hobbit will be a unique film. So I'm wondering what the eventual article for all the Middle-earth films (including the cartoons) could be called. Alientraveller 14:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings has a film section, which includes those cartoons. Uthanc 05:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm delisting this request from Wikipedia:Requested moves, due to lack of consensus in the above discussion. If this consensus changes in the future, please feel free to relist the article for moving to whichever title is agreed upon. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers????

Uhm, should there not be a spoiler warning for this article? 193.60.133.205 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been debated a lot and Wikipedia has currently chosen to not use spoiler warnings. See Wikipedia:Spoiler. {{Spoiler}} was used earlier but has been deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please sort linking in my edit.

Hi there,

I have just added this:

"In an onterview with MTV, January 11, Elijah Wood seems to have confirmed the rumor that the second planned film would not be a Part II (of The Hobbit), but instead a narrative bridge.

"I haven't spoken to [Peter Jackson] directly about it [but] I've e-mailed him, and as far as I know the two films that they're doing, one will be 'The Hobbit' and another will take place between the 60 years that happened between 'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings,'"

http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/01/11/elijah-wood-confirms-dual-hobbit-movie-details/"

The interview link should be under ref, but I could not figure it out.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Take a look at my edit to see what I did - this is the simplest form of the {{cite web}} template, which needs a url and a title.-gadfium 08:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the information was most redundant. Alientraveller (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aragorn in The Hobbit

From section 8.6 - 'Prequels'...

"Orlando Bloom, Viggo Mortensen, Cate Blanchett and Elijah Wood have said they would reprise their roles as Legolas, Aragorn, Galadriel and Frodo Baggins respectively."

Wait a sec, why would Aragorn be around for The Hobbit, when he wasn't even born yet? Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I copyedited it to read if any of their services were required for either prequel. Alientraveller (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think with the announcement of The Hobbit as a film, a separate article should be created as soon as possible. Bobbyfletch85 (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It will not have its own article until it begins shooting. WP:FUTFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"...ties the record..." - with what?

Section 8, first sentence, contains the following:

"The film trilogy also tied a record for the total number of Academy Awards won."

I've been unable to verify this claim. LOTR won 17/30. The Godfather Trilogy won 9/26, and I didn't bother checking other trilogies such as Star Wars, although I know the first (Ep IV) won 6/10 and a special oscar. Can anyone justify it? Manning (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other trilogies box office comparison

This section is really rather redundant as it does not accurately depict TRUE box office success with regards to inflation and the extreme downturn of the dollar this decade. For example, The Phantom Menace came out in May 1999. Return Of The King came out almost five years later, by which time ticket prices would have hiked up noticeably and also the US dollar was well into its decline (which has the effect of making a film non-US grosses seem larger than they actually are once the foreign currency has been recalculated into US$). This kind of "contest" is never an exact science and is therefore a poor way to show the true popularity of a film or series of films. I think the article would be better without it.79.66.28.57 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Canonicity

Should have mention that the films are apocryphal and not part of the Tolkien canon. Yes, I know Jackson/Boyens/Walsh adapted the books and made changes - which is precisely why they are apocryphal.71.205.136.119 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this apply to any adaption? The very word implies it is not canon with the original material. 194.72.123.7 (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit film deserves a page

Now that The Hobbit has a director, producer, and the production dates have been announced, I think it should have a page. Anyone agree? Flamingtorch372 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes! It certainly does not belong here, buried below other filnms, now rather historical, FROM OTHER BOOKS! At least it should be under "The Hobbit" but with all the above, a budget and in pre-production, who was the muppet who put it back here, as it definitely had its own article once? And why, and why were they allowed do so? 217.213.130.251 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUTFILMS. The movie has not been made, and will not have an article until it begins filming. So learn the rules before you deem others "muppet"s. Alientraveller (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for name calling. But (a) FUTFILMS is not binding policy, (b) at least the first film (we are talking of two separate films here) is according to its own promoters an adaptation of "The Hobbit" and definitely is wrongly placed in this article, and (c) WP should have some relationship to the real world, and I think most of the public would expect to find a distinct article on such a major production, from say last December's announcement onwards. 83.241.234.2 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit: Sequel of a sequel?

it was announced that Jackson would be executive producer of The Hobbit and its sequel.

So the film will come out. And one year later another film will come out explaining the beginnings of the film in the previous year?

Oh... kay...

So no typo here?

-G

What? There will be two prequels to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Maybe they'll produce The Hobbit into two films, maybe one will be based off The Hobbit and the other will be completely original. Who knows? All we know is that there will be two prequels, and that at least one of them will be an adaptation of The Hobbit. — Enter Movie (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I read from of theonering.net, the first movie will cover the book while the second one is the gap bridge between the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. --Pboy2k5 (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One deleted scene not deleted

• An obscure shot from the trailers of two Elven girls playing about in Rivendell.

IIRC, this shot was in the original theatrical version of FOTR, during the initial narration. ("History became legend, legend became myth...") -- megA (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lord Zweite Productions Mystery

I just stumbled over an archived discussion about a German production company. Not sure if this helps but I went over to the Berlin Trade Register and found: (translated)

1 Sept 2000: NEL Germany Film Productions GmbH & Co KG founds a daughter called Lord Productions NEL Germany Film Productions GmbH & Co KG. Its purpose: "Development, production, co-production, exploitation, marketing and distribution/licencing of the film project "Lord of the Rings II and III" as well as other cinema and TV productions and other audio-visual products of any kind on their own or others' behalf as well as holding shares for this pupose."

This company was later split up into "Lord II Productions..." (for TTT) and "Lord III Productions..." (for ROTK), and its name changed later to Lord Zweite Productions Deutschland Filmproduktion GmbH & Co KG.

It seems further that such daughter companies are regularly founded by NEL for each film they produce etc.

I am not familiar with the legal implications, just thought this may shed light on the affair.

-- megA (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any plan for separating the Hobbit into its own entry

Considering that the announcement is now official that GDT will direct the Hobbit, will it be better to create a separate entry for the Hobbit movie? --Pboy2k5 (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not until filming begins. See WP:FUTFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I could agree that we could wait until everything settles down. Another problem that I see here is because the release dates for these two movies are still up in the air. Some news sources say that it will happen in 2010 and 2011 while others predict a bit later in 2011 and 2012. --Pboy2k5 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty darn silly to me. It is going to be made, the contracts are now indeed set in stone, and it deserves its own page now because there is enough information. If the current reasoning for denying it its own page is that it's not definite till it films, remember that even movies that start filming sometimes end up failing to shoot the entire movie, so the only truly definite way to make sure would be if filming was completed (as well as editing, release date, etc), and we all know that would be a waste of time to wait for that. Wikipedia is flexible enough so that even if we get a new page and the project somehow fails, we can get rid of it anyway. I just believe that this prequel page isn't sufficient in any manner. There's enough info for a complete, new page, and if its labeled as preproduction any intelligent human being is going to conclude that it hasn't been definitively made yet. Pages for things that do not exist yet only serve to give approximate details of what might be in store. BTW, we don't need to know release dates yet.--71.234.50.57 (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how we want to see the problem. There are multiple entries about the prequel on this Wikipedia such as The Hobbit (2009 film), The Hobbit (2010 film) and finally The Hobbit (2011 film). I already proposed the 2009 entry for deletion because there is basically no way the movie could make the deadline by the end of 2009. Things could get a bit confusing because producing movies is subject to delays if things fall behind schedule. In that case, even the 2010 entry will become invalid. I do agree with Alientraveller that we should just wait until more information comes to the surface. GDT himself said that he will concentrate the next four years on making both movies so an entry such as The Hobbit (2012 film) is also plausible. Anybody feels like starting a new article? --Pboy2k5 (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The development of the prequels is perfectly being summarised in this article. Secondly, we do not know what the second film will be about (The Lord of the Rings: The White Council? Aragorn: Year One?), so again one paragraph on a sketchy possibility does not merit a whole article. All the reader needs to know is here. Alientraveller (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That we don't know what the second film is about is not a reason not to have a page for "The Hobbit." I think a big problem is that The Hobbit (film) directs you to the animated 1977 version, and the page for the "The Hobbit" as a book has a link to the Lord of The Rings page for prequels in the Adaptations section. This information is not in the best location. So while what the reader needs to know may be here, it is not easily nor obviously accessible. As I've said before, I do not like the standard that filming must have started. It is rather arbitrary when dealing with a film franchise as high-profile as this. It is likely more time will go into pre and post production than filming.Whorchatasoto (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the Hobbit is not really a "prequel." A prequel is something along the lines of EP I-III of Star Wars, or the upcoming Star Trek film, which were not even written until well after the success of the first incarnations. The Hobbit novel was released well before LOTR and so it is a precursor to the Lord of the Rings. My point being that to have the film adaptation of the Hobbit in the article for the LOTR films in a prequel or sequel section is another reason I see this construction as confusing. Whorchatasoto (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Silmarlion

Any plans to make The Silmarlion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, is it even feasible? The book is technically a collection of short stories that happened in the realm of Middle-Earth. I don't think any director would try to make an adaptation from stories that are too short to be made into a full fledged movie (though it is not entirely impossible). --Pboy2k5 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Silmarillion collection of material could likely serve as a basis for the second prequel film. Dave Dubya 25 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Give the Hobbit its own Page

Come on folks, with the film not only confirmed but now the director, I believe it's that special time where The Hobbit film can bravely wander away from this mother page, and move into its own. With the director and production basically confirmed, it will be much, much easier to place pertinent update onto the new full page rather than continue debating about whether or not to move it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.50.57 (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUTFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Like Alientraveller indicated, it's not yet appropriate to do this. There is zero certainty that a planned film will start production. This was very evident with the recent writers' strike halting a number of projects. In the case of The Hobbit, the threshold is clear. Anything could happen between now and the start of actual production, but if it really does, we'll make the move. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ian McKellen has been casted as a reprisal of Gandalf and Andy Serkis is in the talks for returning as Gollum. I think we should put up a page for the time being and if they announce that the project is dead like the Halo movie, I think it would be appropriate to remove it. But I don't want to post a page that would be an immediate candidate for deletion because we need everyone's consent on the matter. Or, possibly, we could create the page when they say they have begun filming? • contrib) - 21:40, 28 April 2008 (AK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthBotto (talk • contribs)

Tintin for 2009 is not in production, it has a page and there are more examples. New Line has The Hobbit on its list of movies it will be releasing on its official webpage. Guillermo Del Toro is blogging on theonering.net about the pre-production. Actors are very publicly saying they are involved. It seems that this movie in particular has a very high standard it must meet compared to others to simply have a wikipedia page of its own. I really do not understand the rationale for the standard. I feel as if people using Imdb as a sole source is the cause for the strict liability, but nothing suggests this movie is not being made. To the contrary, everything and everyone indicates that it is. Not rumors, official announcements. I doubt very much anything will be done to the aforementioned pages. This page may not meet the standard, in which case, the standard is flawed. Whorchatasoto (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Give The Hobbit its own page, please. Morhange (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Hobbit

PJ and Guillermo did a live-chat divulging plenty of information about the film, casting, etc here. I honestly think it's time for a separate article, but it needs consensus. They're already talking about constructing sets and doing drawings with Alan Lee and John Howe. PJ mentions they're doing early conceptual art this year, to being pre-production in 2009. Still, however, I think with the wealth of information we have on this film, it deserves its own article. Morhange (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

                      Go for it. -Sector311 (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the prequels their own article

It occurred to me, despite my best efforts, that by the time filming begins on the prequels in 2010 there will be too much information on them to summarise in one article. Hence, I've created The Hobbit film duology. I hereby invoke WP:IAR over WP:FUTFILMS. Alientraveller (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fan fiction and slash fiction

I just added a subsection on the above which references two peer reviewed academic journal articles, both on The Lord of the Rings, and the only academic monograph to have been published on the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Alientraveller, please don't delete it again - the authors of these three works (and their editors) do not consider fan fiction and slash fiction to be irrelevant to The Lord of the Rings, and neither should Wikipedia. Ninj (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would do as I please considering "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" underneath the edit box. Come on, this is a case of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT as it's worst. Why write about porn? Honestly, write about something to encaspulate the entire cultural impact of the saga. Alientraveller (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can 'do as you please' - but I can then do as I please and undo what you've done. Then you can undo my undoing of your undo, and before we know it we're in an edit war.

If I'd put that subsection at the head of the article, or made it into a section rather than a subsection, then yes, this might be considered 'undue weight'. But I didn't do either of those things, and in any case this is an encyclopedia, and there's no need for every single subsection to 'encapsulate the entire cultural impact of the saga'. What we need is for every subsection to cover some particular aspect of the cultural impact.

And incidentally, I am not writing about porn, I am writing about three academic studies. One of these is a book brought out by a major publisher, the other two are in major journals. Of the latter, one appeared in a special issue devoted entirely to The Lord of the Rings and guest-edited one of the top Tolkien scholars. This fact alone shows that undue weight is not being given to the topic. Ninj (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And how much does Kristin Thompson devote to the topic? Of all things that could have written about, it's ridiculously minor. Fan fiction is nothing special, anyone can write about anything. Undue weight to a part of a major cultural impact from the trilogy. Alientraveller (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are perfectly within your rights to see the topic as 'ridiculously minor', but Kristin Thompson devotes an entire chapter to it, and her book is an academic monograph published by one of the top university presses in America and indeed the world. This alone means that it should be mentioned in Wikipedia. And again - it's not undue weight, it's only a subsection in this article. Ninj (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote it. And Thompson dedicates two pages as indicated in the cite, not a chapter. Seriously, it's minor, and two of these scholars don't require be named. Alientraveller (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I only quoted from two pages, but there is almost an entire chapter of the book devoted to fanfiction (including sections on slash and real person slash) - go check it out. And seriously, it isn't for you to decide that this is minor - if there's a whole chapter of a book published by the University of California Press which discusses this, then it isn't - and if one of the articles in a special issue devoted to TLOTR in a journal like Modern Fiction Studies discusses it, then that goes double. Also, your edit has made the attribution of the quote unclear. Moreover, though you state that two of the three scholars don't require to be named, your edit removes all of them. My latest edit is a compromise: only Thompson is named, and the paragraph stays within the 'Legacy' subsection. I still think it should have a subsection of its own, but I don't want this to become an edit war.Ninj (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I understand your point that it has been analyzed by serious academics and yes, "Sam and Frodo are gay" was a pretty popular trolling slogan when the films were out. But it's not really deserving of a major subsection because it is part of the trilogy's legacy, and not unique (as I've noted, fanfic/slashfic etc. is something to be expected with any franchise). Alientraveller (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's slashfic for almost every franchise. But Smol's article is really interesting because she looks at what it is in the movies that the slashers (and the "Sam and Frodo are gay" trolls, I guess) pick up on. She argues that the book describes a kind of non-sexual male-male relationship which was common in WWI but which can strike modern readers/viewers as "gay" - and that though this was toned down in the film, it's still quite surprisingly intense from a lot of people's point of view. So I think that there's much more of a case for mentioning slash in a LOTR article than for mentioning it in articles on a lot of other franchises.Ninj (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've just added an additional ref to Thompson's book at the end of the 'Development' section.Ninj (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fanfic and the "undue weight" question

These are the Wikipedia guidelines on undue weight:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject... Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight

So let's compare the current version this article to a comparable "reliable source": "Tolkien on Film", edited by Janet Brennan Croft and published by the Mythopoeic Press (which is an academic press devoted to the works of Tolkien and the other Inklings). In that book, 14.6% (or just over a seventh) of the page count is devoted to fanfic, which is the topic of 2 out of 14 chapters (again a seventh). Consider also the fact that Thompson's 2007 monograph contains a chapter devoted to two topics, one of which is fanfic (sorry, I haven't got it to hand any more and don't have a note of how many chapters there are), and that one out of the seven articles in the special Tolkien issue of Modern Fiction Studies is entirely devoted to a particular kind of fanfic (slash). In this Wikipedia article, however, 1.3% of the total word count is devoted to fanfic, which is the topic of 0 out of 11 sections.

This would seem fairly strong evidence that fanfic is being given unduly LITTLE weight in this article, in that it receives greater prevalence in academic sources than it does here. (I should note that the article as a whole contains remarkably little reference to academic sources, considering the relatively large amount of published academic writing on the film trilogy.) It would be silly to expect the proportion of total word count here to exactly match up to that in "reliable sources", but that's not my point. I simply propose that a short twelfth section be added to this article discussing the significance accorded to fanfic within academic writing on the LOTR films. In view of the above, this should in no sense be taken to constitute giving "undue weight" to the topic of fanfic, since "reliable sources" have given it proportionally greater weight.

Ninj (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

removal of copy-edit tag

I've just reviewed the entire article and apart from 2 minor changes, there is nothing grammatically wrong with the article, so I am removing the tag. Cheers JenLouise (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Deal with NZ Government

Is there any truth to the story that there were substantial deals cut with the NZ government to allow the filming to go ahead? Does anyone know the full extent of what the deals were? Obviously the Army were involved at some stage(s), but I'm interested if there is any more to the relationship. Manning (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Most successful non-Hollywood movie(s) ever?

Shouldn't that be added somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.106.114 (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But New Line Cinema is American so I think it's technically a Hollywood film. 91.105.99.163 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes from the book

In the section "Reactions to changes in the movies from the book", much of the prose seems to reference the site "oddlots.digitalspace.net". There are only a few other sources in this section arguing for the viewpoint that changes to the story negatively affected the movie. Perhaps there are more sources that have this viewpoint, like news articles and other more-professional sources? — OranL (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)