Talk:The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 7 October 2004 and 22 December 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted: "The film has also been used to counter criticisms made against Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy."

It would be necessary to explain this, I think. And I'm not sure a few fans saying "well, it was better than the Bakshi movie" is really relevant to the Bakshi movie. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I noticed on the IMDB user comments that someone claims the rotoscoped battle material is all just stolen from Alexander Nevsky. This would be pretty fascinating if true. Does anyone know more about this? Maybe I'll have to rent them :). --User:Chinasaur
Hmmmm, (slightly) more authoritative google sources say it was Bakshi's Wizards that used Nevsky... --User:Chinasaur
You are correct that the IMDB comment is in error (just try to get them to correct it though, I think that there corrections option feeds right into the ocean after you click on the submit button) it was Wizards that used those scenes.


Contents

"Critical disappointment"

I deleted the comment that "the film was considered to be a critical disappointment." It made $30 million at the box office -- who cares what the critics thought of it? (Ibaranoff24 19:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC))

Actually, that information is relevant to an encyclopedia entry. Wikiproject Films reccomends that a film article contain "whether critics liked the film or not (and why)" (see here and here). I haven't done any research on how Bakshi's Lord of the Rings was received, and I'm not pushing a POV here. I'm just saying that the critical view should be included in the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone added a comment to the "Trivia" section that it was "not a huge financial success." This is wrong -- the film made $30 million. I deleted the comment. It's a troll trying to con people into thinking that the film was a flop. (Ibaranoff24 01:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC))
I agree that the "not a huge financial success" bit is misleading, but the rest of that comment (about the BBC radio production, etc.) is relevant. I'll put it back in, without the false financial bit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots?

Are there any screenshots that should be on this page (I.E., example of rotoscoping during the film's finale; character designs)? And what about a detailed description of the film's plot? The pages on Peter Jackson's film adaptation each have one, so why shouldn't Bakshi's film have a plot overview? Post your thoughts and opinions on this matter here. I'd like to hear them. (Ibaranoff24 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

Yeah, there ought to be a section on the plot (per WikiProject Films). And some more information on the production (rotoscoping and animation techniques, etc.) would be good, too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The Films Box Office and Original Concept

The film was not a bomb at the box office in its initial release, but it was not a success either.

The original poster and ads for the film stated that this was part one, thus, the abrupt ending was not unexpected. I cannot remember the source (which is why I won't put this edit on the main page) but I did read that Christopher Tolkien was not happy with the film and was another, though not the only, reason that Bakshi was not allowed to film the second part. Maybe some other Wikipedia user will remember the source and add it to this talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 23:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

$30 million isn't a success? The reason a sequel wasn't made has something to do with United Artists...but I'm not exactly sure what (on Ralph Bakshi's message board, he claims that the UA executives didn't think anyone would care if a sequel was made), and, if it is true that Christopher Tolkien was not happy with the film adaptation, I'd hardly think that United Artists cared about what he thought of the film. I do know that Tolkien's daughter (whom Bakshi got the rights to LOTR from) loved Wizards. (Ibaranoff24 02:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC))



I agree the film wasnt a total bomb at the box office, they didnt loose money on the film. But I wouldnt call it "a huge hit" eighter. From a budget of $8 mill, it grossed $27 mill. This gave the studio a $14 mill revenue, and when they get back their $8 mill investment, they are left with a $6 mill profit...more or less.

When you look at other films from that same year, that I would call "huge hits", you se the difference, and why I dont agree with the term "huge hit" being used about Bakshi's LOTR...

Grease: opening weekend $9,8 mill - total box office gross $181 mill domestic, $380 mill worldwide

Jaws 2: opening weekend $8,9 mill - total box office gross $103 mill domestic, $209 mill worldwide

Superman: opening weekend $7,46 mill - total box office gross $134 mill domestic, $300 mill worldwide

Bakshi's Lord of the rings: opening weekend $626,ooo - total box office $27 mill......

Even the movie "Invasion of the body snatchers made $1,3 mill opening weekend...

Animal House made $141 mill domestic, Halloween made $47 mill (from a 355,000 budget!!!) and Star Wars made a stunning $798 mill from a $11 mill budget!

I know a lot of Bakshi fans would love to see this film as a "huge hit", but it wasnt. Sorry! --Bjorn M Bruun 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It made $30,471,420, NOT $27 million. No, it wasn't as big a hit as some of the other movies of the decade, but $30 million still makes it a huge hit, considering the fact that it's an animated film (animated films didn't make much during the '70s). (Ibaranoff24 05:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC))

Full title

The full title is actually "J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings Part 1." (Ibaranoff24 02:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

Crew section

I'm not sure whether the "Crew" section is necessary. WikiProject Films doesn't include it in their recommendations, and most other animated films don't have it (e.g. The Lion King, Bambi, The Nightmare Before Christmas). It's all at IMdB anyway, and I doubt that most of the people redlinked in that section will ever have Wikipedia articles about them — in fact, several of the links that are blue are to other people with the same name. I suggest we cut the whole section. (Tim Burton's contribution can be mentioned in a note.) What do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Plot summary

I don't really like the plot summary section. As far as I can tell, it is almost completely redundant with the book itself. Also, it's not accurate: some things mentioned in the summary didn't actually happen in the movie. (For instance, I'm sure there were no Huorns in the movie.) I think it should mostly be cut out, and we should only mentioned important divergences from the book.

Also, if we do cut the summary, should we just delete all the screenshots? Eric119 06:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the plot section is worth keeping. If it doesn't reflect the movie accurately, it should be changed so that it does. Perhaps the summary could be condensed a bit (although I'm not keen on trying, myself). In this case, I lean towards improvement over deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't change a thing. It's perfect. (Ibaranoff24 04:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

Aruman

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, there's only one reference to "Aruman" in the film, towards the beginning ("I'm going to see my old friend Aruman"). Maybe change it to "one reference to 'Aruman' remains in the finished film"? (Ibaranoff24 04:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

Sure. It's been a while since I watched it, and I can't really recall whether there's one or multiple "Aruman" references. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

I added the external link "If at first you don't succeed ... call Peter Jackson." Despite the title, the article is very neutral, and doesn't praise any film attempt at The Lord of the Rings. It features many quotes from Ralph Bakshi about the making of his 1978 film, and I think it's a pretty interesting read for fans. (Ibaranoff24 02:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

Moved

I moved the page from The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) to The Lord of the Rings Part 1. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

"Plot" section copyvio?

It appears that this summary on imdb is quite similar to parts of the "plot" section our anonymous editor keeps deleting [1]. Lunkwill 07:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the author's name. (Ibaranoff24 21:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

number of images on this article

Personally I think this article looks ridiculous with this many images on it. On top of that I don't think all of these images are really adding to this article. Can I get some other users opinions as to the number and quality of some of the images on here? I think there should be about half as many as there are right now and they need to be organized a bit better. I'd just up and remove them myself, but I think it is better to have some community consenus on the issue first. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 07:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the UK DVD cover image should be deleted, since it's the same painting as the "B" style poster I recently uploaded, but I have absolutely no idea how to delete images. (Ibaranoff24 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
Well if you find duplicate images you can typically tag one of them to be speedy deleted, see WP:CSD for details on how. But I really meant that I think this article has too many images on it right now. With all that text trying to wrap and bend around these images, it makes it look bad, IMO. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I moved the screen captures further down into a small image gallery. (Ibaranoff24 05:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

Is "Part 1" poster legitimate?

Our anonymous friend added an accusation that the "Part 1" poster was faked by Ibaranoff in its image description. I've removed it, as it was clearly a personal attack. Of course, I'm much more likely to assume good faith of a user who uses an actual name than an anon, but it would probably be good if Ibaranoff stated for the record that he didn't fake the "Part 1" subtitle. (His word would be good enough.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I found the image online. I honestly have absolutely no idea if it is real or not, but I would never upload images to Wikipedia that I knew were fake, and I take great offense to these personal attacks. If anyone can prove that the image is fake, it may be deleted, and I can upload an unaltered image instead. (Ibaranoff24 17:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
Unlike the anonymous editor, I had no intention of impugning your honesty. Where online did you find the image? That might help in determining whether it's real. (I think the image can stay until we find out whether the anon's concern was legitimate, if inappropriately expressed, or purely malicious.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I tried to find the image again, but I couldn't locate the URL. But I was able to upload a new version of the image, taken from a personal scan. (Ibaranoff24 22:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
So do we know whether the film was ever promoted with the "Part 1" title? If it wasn't (and it doesn't say "Part 1" in the film itself), then shouldn't the page be moved back to its previous location? (Just wondering.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Since the film has been repediately referred to as "Part 1" by Bakshi and others, I think it's safe to assume that the film was always promoted as "part 1," in the United States at least. (Ibaranoff24 23:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
Is it, though? Bakshi may have wanted it to be promoted as "Part 1", and may have done so in interviews (both at the time and subsequently), but I think that in this case the studio had the final say about what title the film was promoted under. Since none of the posters we have here have "Part 1" on (any more), it's at least possible that the studio decided not to promote it with the "Part 1" subtitle. (I know that IMDb is far from infallible, but they don't have the Part 1 title listed even as an alternate title.)
I'm just playing devil's advocate here — I don't really know enough about the facts of the situation to advocate for a return of the article to its old location. But I do think that the article should be under whatever title it was released under, rather than what the director feels it should have been released under (if those are different things). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate accusation?? I dont think so..

Yes, I have evidence. I posted pics of those posters in another forum (without the "subtitle") in a discussion about this film. Isaac Baranoff(who never admits he can be wrong) later made that edit, and to prove his point, posted it here as evidence for his assertion... "its on Wikipedia so it must be true..." LOL Its not the first time he pulls a shitty stunt like that.

You can read the discussion here: http://www.zappa.com/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=rant;action=display;num=1096347348;start=150

So Isaac..you didnt find the URL again? so suitable for you. But I'd allso say, its a bit "strange" that the "new", unaltered image you posted has the same blured out section in the middle as the altered one.... If anyone looks closely, they'll see its the same pic I posted, and the blured-out section is a "copyright" in green letters, put there by the person who used that image to sell the original poster online.... A personal scan...yeah right!

Early poster...later poster..you have absolutely no idea!

You have lost all your credibility in the Zappa-forum, and I suspect you're about to do loose whatever credibility you have in here.....

Bjorn M Bruun, Norway (not anonymous friend)

Thanks for joining the conversation here, Bjorn. (As I said above, Wikipedia doesn't encourage discussions about page content on the page itself, which is why I doubted your motives earlier — for which I apologize.) It does seem that your concern about the legitimacy of the image is valid. (Since the "part 1" version has now been deleted, I can't see whether it has the same tell-tale blurring in the center.) There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this, but I can't see it right now. Isaac? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Well, the fact that Isaac so convenient "lost" the image he had uploaded to this site, the image that would suport his statement that Bakshi's film in fact was promoted as "part 1", as soon as someone started to question the authentic of it....well, I think it speaks for itself. The fact that he faked it, is allso suported by the fact that someone saw it and commented on it in the Zappa-forum at the time... he allso deleted his picture there when he knew he was busted... The fact that he still claims that the poster he still got up here, is a "personal scan", when its clearly the same image I posted over there...well, again, it speaks for itself. first picture http://imagehost.vendio.com/preview/co/comicod/lordoftrings1978s.jpg Isaacs blured out pic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Lord_of_the_Rings_Part_1%28a%29.jpg

Even though this guy (Isaac) knows a lot of stuff, he is allso a notorious liar, and does have a huge problem deviding facts and personal opinions... and when hes wrong, he just cant admit to it, but diggs himself into a whole lot of trouble by "constructing" proofs and big fat lies...

I do believe, some day, when he grows up, he will be a great asset for any site like this, but until then, he sure are confusing writing history with making up history......

Bjorn M Bruun

Yeah, that looks pretty suspicious. I've listed the image on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, so it can be examined by people who know more than I do about this sort of thing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't create the image. I merely found it online. Mr Bruun, please do not accuse me of submitting bogus information to Wikipedia, when you very well know that I would never do that on purpose. If the image is indeed altered, I know nothing about it. (Ibaranoff24 00:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

Nice Isaac..deleting everything I wrote here. I bet that makes your case look stronger...

Bjorn M Bruun (comment deleted by User:Ibaranoff24)

OK Isaac, I see you continue to delete my posts in here... I have to say it sure makes you look mature...

Bjorn M Bruun (comment deleted by User:Ibaranoff24)

OK, thats the third time you've deleted my posts in here...whats wrong with you? And do you think Mr Rowe will appreciate that you deleted some of his posts too? Please grow up Isaac, OK...

Bjorn M Bruun (comment deleted by User:Ibaranoff24; re-added by User:Bjorn M Bruun (except changed to "fourth time"), and deleted again by Ibaranoff24)

And please stop adding troll comments to the talk page before you get banned, Mr. Bruun. Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 02:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

(Bjorn M Bruun added the comment above (changed to "fifth time") again, and Ibaranoff24 removed it again.)

Mr. Bruun, you are a troll who is trying to stir up controversy with false attacks against another editor. I would never submit information or images that I knew were fake to Wikipedia, and you know it.

Please stop vandalizing this website before you get banned. (Ibaranoff24 02:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

(further additions and deletions here)

Im gonna be banned? for what? telling the truth? letting the people here know what you did? Now, you've deleted my comments here 10 times... what are you afraid of Isaac? What is wrong with you? And do you think Mr Rowe will appreciate that you deleted some of his posts too? Please grow up Isaac, OK... And whos the troll? me, or the one deleting my posts? Just stop it Isaac, couse it makes you look like a fool.

--Bjorn M Bruun 03:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Isaac, you're the one who's walking close to the edge here. I'm pretty sure you've violated the three-revert rule tonight in your effort to remove Mr. Bruun's comments (and mine). It may be true that he has violated "No personal attacks", but that doesn't justify your behaviour. Please, let's settle this in a civilized manner. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Check out the history of this page to find out that Isaac Baranoff is deleting other users' comments on his forgery of a "Lord of the Rings part 1" poster that never existed. Isaac is pretty knowledgable when it comes to Ralph Bakshi's work, but he can't handle the fact that this movie was a commercial and critical stinker from the moment it came out (years before Isaac was born..) .
Regards - Studebaker Hawk, superhero of the current economic slump.

I didn't create the "part 1" poster, nor did I blur out anything on either poster. The blurred object on the recent version of the image came from my scan. (Ibaranoff24 03:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

Just for clarification: was that a physical scan of a poster you own, or what? (I'm just trying to understand the truth, here. Please don't delete this honest, good-faith question — it does make it seem like you're trying to hide something.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The most recent updated image was a physical scan, yes. As I said before, the image with the "part 1" text added was something I found on the internet that turned out to be fake. However, I would never upload images that I knew were fake. (Ibaranoff24 04:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

I've just noticed that the page that Bjorn linked to is an image hosting and auction site, and I can't get into it to find an internal link to the picture without registering. I suppose it's possible that someone else took your image (with the blur in the middle) and added the green text to it for the purposes of incriminating you. It's possible that the blur and the green text are completely coincidental (although given the link to the Zappa forum it seems unlikely.) It's also possible that Isaac blurred the image with the green text and added it here, although he says he didn't. I honestly don't know what the truth is here, and I'm not going to play detective any more to find out — instead I'll just assume good faith on both Isaac and Bjorn's parts and suggest that we try to put this mess behind us. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone could upload the image with the green text and link to the source URL in the summary, or we could find a different copy of the same poster illusration/painting and upload it. Would that work? (Ibaranoff24 04:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC))
Frankly, I don't understand Wikipedia's rules for uploading images (what's fair use and what isn't, etc.), so I can't answer that. Ideally, if an image of that poster is going to be on the page it shouldn't have the green text on it, or the blur in the middle. I'd think that another copy would be OK, but I'm not at all sure. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded an unblurred image. (Ibaranoff24 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

....You're welcome Isaac...--Bjorn M Bruun 05:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Since we probably never will get to the bottom of this whole "fake part 1" poster case, Ive desided to just let it go... The only reason I got involved in the discussion here, is only because I thought it would be interesting for you people here to know that the image first posted here was a fake, and allso let you know who did it. Now, the image is removed, and I doubt it will be posted here again. The discussion I was first involved in with Isaac, was at another board. But somehow, this place got involved as well. Below is a copy of my last message regarding this incident, copied from the Zappa-board where it all started... [2]

.......

"I have no problem with Isaac using that image, loading it onto Wikipedia or whatever he wants.... thats not the issue.


What first pissed me off, was his bad "photoshop" job, editing the image and adding the fake "part 1" part onto it. Then uploaded it onto Wikidedia, to prove to us that it was real... And that was the reason he blured out the green "copyright" letters in the first place, so we wouldnt see it was the same poster. ....Then of course, denied having done that...calling me a lier, an idiot and so on...

Then, when I told on him on Wikipedia, he did an incredible "research" and found out it was a fake (I'd say he got cold feets..), he removed it from Wikipedia, and replaced it with the one he claims he personally scanned from a poster... But of course, by accident, his scanner blured out the middle part, at the exactly same place as the green letters on the poster I posted (LOL)..

Now, Im not sure if Im gonna be more offended by all the lies or the fact that he still insists on calling me a lier...and an Idiot.. ...or his crappy "photoshop job"...

By now, I really dont care about this whole insident. I've known Isaac for so long now, that nothing really surprises me anymore when it comes to his little pranks... I know he will never admit to what he did...and the only proof, is the people who saw what happend...


Now, if you want a better image of that rare Bakshi Poster, without those ugly green letters, feel free to use to one posted below here... Only thing I ask for, is that you dont fuck with this one, and try to make another fake "part 1" poster out of it..." http://zappafreak.com/forum/lordoftrings1978.jpg

--Bjorn M Bruun 06:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)



Calm down, everybody!

OK, there's a general lack of civility here on all parts. Let's all just calm down, assume good faith and try to go forward, OK? Isaac, Bjorn, it's clear that you two have a previous animosity from this Zappa board. Let's try not to bring it here, shall we? The important thing is that the article be accurate, and not purvey false information or content of questionable authenticity. Isaac has done a lot of good work on this article, and should be able to do so in the future. The image in question will probably be removed soon, and we can put this ugly incident behind us — if the two of you can keep from edit warring and name-calling. Truce? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved

Well, here we are again. (Ibaranoff24 23:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
If you think that's best. (As I say, I don't know enough about the facts of the matter, really.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Part 1" mystery solved

I found a website ([3]) which has a quote from Bakshi who not only says that the film wasn't promoted as Part 1, but explains why. I added the quote and the source link to the "Reception" section. I hope this clears up some of the confusion being caused by this whole series of events, including the forged poster. (Ibaranoff24 01:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

Well, it doesn't really explain the forged poster, but it is an improvement to the article. And thanks for finding a better copy of the poster image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Isaac did not find either that website or the poster. Both came from fellow Zappa forum members.

You guys here at Wikipedia seem like gentle folk, and I'm not here to cause trouble or "troll" as Isaac will try and have you believe (thats his current favourite accusation: If you post something thats negative about him, guess what? You're a troll!). Instead, I am here to warn you good folk that Isaac is notorius for being a chronic liar. Also, he does not know fact from opinion. It is hard to express opinions in his presence because he will argue with you 'till the cows come home. He will probably delete this post, despite the fact he is always raving on about censorship, and how against it he is. Hell; he even has this as his signature at the Zappa forum:

"Censoring what you say is one of the ways in which people who are not nice can take away your personal freedom." - Frank Zappa

In closing: I would not trust a word he says. Just take a look at the link that Mr. Bruun has posted and you will see for yourself this weasel can't be trusted...

- Mr. Nice Guy

I accept that you're not trying to cause trouble, and appreciate the intention behind your warning. At the same time, I should probably mention that Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks which has been violated several times here in the past few days (as was the three-revert rule). I'm not mentioning these policies to scold anyone or get anyone in trouble, just to remind both sides that Wikipedia values civility highly. As I said above, the most important thing here isn't Isaac's behavior, but the article. I'll take your warning under advisement, and admit that there's a lot about this poster/"Part 1" incident that is suspicious. However, I'll also remember that Isaac has made some real improvements to this article in the past few months. As far as I'm concerned, he is welcome to continue to do so — as are you good folk from the Zappa forum. Everybody's welcome! :D —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't know who this "Mr. Nice Guy" is, but I'm guessing from his comments and unwarranted attacks on me that he is a troll. But since I'm such a nice guy (no relation), I'll leave this comment up so other readers can laugh at his laughable attempt to ruin my "image" with outrageously false accusations. (Ibaranoff24 22:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

More on "Part 1"

I don't want to be confrontational here, Isaac, as you're clearly very passionate about this. But I just did a Google search for " "Lord of the Rings Part 1" Bakshi", and didn't find any examples of Bakshi actually using the "Part 1" title. I found several interviews with him, in several of which ([4], [5], [6]) he simply calls the film "Lord of the Rings", and one in which he talks about the film but isn't quoted as using a title for it. I also did another Google search for " Lord of the Rings Part One" Bakshi" and got similar results — no citations from Bakshi himself. I did find some references to the film under that title, (including one, at H2G2, that claims that the studio eventually relented and did promote the film as "Part One, against several which disagree (e.g. [7], [8]). Besides postings on various forums (about half of which seemed to be by you!), the only reference I could find to Bakshi calling the film "Part One" was this IGN page, which might be enough to justify the sentence about Bakshi calling it "Part One" — maybe we could say "...sometimes refers to the film The Lord of the Rings Part One"? — but it would be better if we could find an actual interview or quotation of him doing that. You're much more knowledgeable about this than I am — do you have a source for this?

I don't mean to belabor the point, I just want the article to be accurate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Lord_of_the_Rings_%281978_film%29_Archive01_8173.html"