Talk:The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 13 December 2006 to 21 January 2007.

A Critique

I've added this link, others have added this link, and I've always seen it removed with the comment of "rv vandalism". Apart from the fact that when I added it, I did so with good faith. I have seen other articles with links to people's reviews, so what is wrong with including this one?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephenBuxton (talk • contribs).

• Sorry. I guess "vandalism" wasn't the right word. But, aside from my personal feelings on the website (that it highly exaggerates some of the film's most minor flaws, and often creates flaws where there are none, and that it is written by a person who doesn't seem to have much knowledge about Tolkien's writing), the main reason I removed it is because it is a fan site, and fan sites aren't encyclopedic. The author of that number is neither a published film critic nor a respected writer, but (in my opinion) a nerd with way too much time on his hands. I'm seriously considering adding that website to Wikipedia's spam blacklist. (Ibaranoff24 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Fair comment. I was wondering though (and this is a general query, not just restricted to the above review), as Wikipedia reports on pretty much everything, and a site such as this is a representative (albeit very small sample) of opinion, are there any circumstances where a review like this could be included in an article? By that, I mean either as a link, or referenced within the article itself?StephenBuxton 22:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"it is written by a person who doesn't seem to have much knowledge about Tolkien's writing" - this guy was a fan before you and I were! Have you looked at the rest of the Sarcasm Page? Sure, it's biased against the film, but you're biased in favor of the film. It's not vandalism! We do need to get a NPOV, but I think blacklisting the review URL may be going too far. Maybe just an invisible note saying not to put it? And though I know fan sites aren't generally allowed, how the heck are we going to report their/our opinions - as opposed to critics and other viewers - without getting into original research? They/we count too! I think they should change this, or at least make an exception in the case of certain fandoms. Uthanc 06:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

United Artists deemed the film a flop

Why would United Artists "deem" or "believe" the film to be a flop, if in fact it was a success, as the article claims? The distributor said it was a failure, but who exactly has determined that the film was actually a success? Was it the writer of this article? If so, that is strictly POV and original research. If the distributor felt the film was a failure, there probably was a good reason (i.e., the movie lost money). The simple fact that no sequel was produced (which surely would have been a natural reaction if the film had been a hit) strongly indicates the studio's assessment was accurate. But there is no way to know for sure from the way the article is currently written. I think such a bizarre claim (The film was a hit, but the studio said it was a flop) needs to be justified with a reliable source. I did add a citation tag requesting proper sourcing but it was abruptly and mysteriously deleted without explanation or discussion.-Hal Raglan 17:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished films

Seeing as the second part was never finished, should this be put under Category:Unfinished films? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)