Talk:The Hobbit film duology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Future
This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

[edit] Tolkien's son

I seriously doubt the reliability of this source; "The second will cover the 50 years between his return home and the events of The Lord of the Rings. That period is described in The Silmarillion." And Chris Tolkien has had a biography? Alientraveller (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted it more to show that Tolkien's son continues to contest the making of the films. Seems worth including if only briefly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"The Times" is most certainly reliable. Yes the Sil. does have some material in this time period. CT doesn't have a published biography, but may well have a biographer working on it. More to the point, this is still the same court case as is already reported in the article. --Davémon (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] move?

Since "duology" is neither a real word, nor does it appear to be part of the official title, can we please move this to The Hobbit (del Toro)? dab (𒁳) 19:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude! Duology. Alientraveller (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The article you linked to has “dilogy” instead of “duology” in the body. Since “-logy” is greek, “duo-” is latin and “di-” is also greek, I'd probably back “dilogy” over “duology” (mixing languages, I.E. “television,” is a major no-no.) 76.126.134.152 (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Duology" is a word, it appears to be interchangable with "dilogy". (Source) Blackngold29 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "I hate all that stuff"

I'm not sure if the quote from Del Toro should be removed from this article (I've removed it from The Hobbit, tho), but right now it's clearly not presented in a neutral way ("Del Toro was signed to do the movie, he said he hates all that stuff"). In this chat he elaborates on that quote (search for "My question is, when Del Toro has acknowledged his disdain for Hobbits"), but I'm not sure how to adequately word the issue without taking up too much space. Any suggestions? --Conti|✉ 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is presented in a completely neutral way, it makes no value judgements on the statement, or the person making it, and is completely verifiable. We could quote from the WETA interview and make sure the date and source is included and the sequence of events (i.e. quote "I hate hobbits", gets job, quote "I reread it and I liked the war bits") is clear and accurate. Note that Del Toro never says "that's a misquote" nor does he imply that he "loved hobbits" all along or anything, he's very honest. It's important that any new quotations retain this neutrality on what is clearly a sensitive subject. --Davémon (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You can make a value judgement by simply quoting the right (or wrong) words. In this case, the quote creates a rather strong impression that Del Toro doesn't like The Hobbit, especially since "I don't like sword and sorcery" was conveniently omitted. He doesn't hate hobbits, he hates sword and sorcery in general. That's probably not much better, but it's different. I don't want to say that we should remove the quote, tho, since it is relevant. And I agree that we should note that his elaboration on the quote happened after he was signed to do the movie. What about a small paragraph about the whole issue?
Del Toro was quoted in a 2006 interview as saying "I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits -- I've never been into that at all. I don't like sword and sorcery, I hate all that stuff." However, in May(?) 2008 he commented on that quote in a chat with fans: "When that statement was made (...), many a time I made the distinctive call to say that althought I had not read Tolkien outside The Hobbit I had been fascinated by the Trilogy films." and that he's "NOT a 'Sword and Sorcery' guy or a 'Fantasy' guy- By the same token, I'm not a sci-fi guy but I would make a film based on Ellison in a second- or on Sturgeon or Bradbury or Matheson."
Might be a bit long, so the "sword and sorcery" quote could be removed for brevity, I think. --Conti|✉ 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The quotes need to be placed in their proper historical context to make any sense to the general reader. The comments about willingness to adapt several science-fiction authors work or about divisions of genre isn't really about Del Toro's relationship with The Hobbit.
  • Del Toro meets PJ (2005?)
  • In a 2006 interview with Salon, Del Toro stated "I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits. I've never been into that at all. I don't like sword and sorcery, I hate all that stuff."
  • Del Toro gets job directing The Hobbit
  • In 2008 in a WETA-hosted internet-chat session, Del Toro claimed "...many a time I made the distinctive call to say that althought (sic) I had not read Tolkien outside The Hobbit, I had been fascinated by the Trilogy films."
  • Del Toro also stated "In re-reading THE HOBBIT just recently I was quite moved by discovering, through Bilbo's eyes the illusory nature of possession, the sins of hoarding and the banality of war- whether in the Western Front or at a Valley in Middle Earth."
2006 statement is a statement of opinion whilst 1st 2008 statement is an attempt to posit certain historical events. We should question Del Toro's reliability as a source, he's clearly got a versted interest in appearing to be a 'fan', and if it cannot be verified by secondary sources, we should not include it. I would prefer to use the final quote, as it's also a statement of opinion. Davémon (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
LOTR isn't Conan or He-Man or any of that stuff, so one can consider that old quote irrelevant. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither He-Man nor Conan could be described as 'little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits'. The quote is verifiable and from a very reliable source and is presented in a completely neutral manner. When quizzed about it (in 2008) Del Toro does not refute it, nor claim it was taken out of context.WP:BLP is not a reason to remove the quote as given in the edit. Davémon (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that my paragraph does put the quote into the right context. Del Toro explicitly does not say that the 2006 quote was in any way wrong. Instead he explained later what he meant by that, and I think the last quote in my proposed paragraph covers that best. Davémon, would you oppose adding that paragraph to the article? --Conti|✉ 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So you mean to say we've removed the fact Del Toro admitted to not being a fan of Tolkien until he was an adult, bar The Hobbit? All statements must be presented. Alientraveller (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, see my proposed paragraph above. The initial statement of him is included there. --Conti|✉ 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
All done: all the info about Del Toro only reading The Hobbit as a child and becoming an actual fan via Jackson's trilogy and befriending the director himself to the point of becoming his Irvin Kershner is in the article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine by me. --Conti|✉ 16:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
TORN and other forum posts are not generally considered reliable. Del Toro's comments really must not be presented as fact, and dates must be allocated to the statements for them to make sense. It is a fact that he said certain things at certain times, so we can say that! Try to keep it neutral. --Davémon (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well duh, he used to dislike epic fantasy but liked the Rings films and now appreciates Tolkien. And it's now in the article. Now if this is about some ridiculous old-fashioned "all forums and blogs are not allowed" rule, then that's just censorship. Filmmakers chatting in forums and having blogs is nothing new. Alientraveller (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well duh, self-promotion, advertising and propaganda aren't good sources of verifiable information. The point is that these need to be clearly sourced as such. The 'loved the hobbit as a child' misrepresented what the source actually said, and presented it as fact without putting it into proper context. --Davémon (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just hate the word "claimed". It reads fine now, and without the bizarre removal of the fact PJ and GDT met in 2005 over the Halo series. Alientraveller (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The 'Halo' dropping was a slip, it's a key event in the story. I'd really like an external source for that meeting. It's definately getting closer. Two critical points - that the chronology of events is told straight, and it's critical for NPOV that the word 'hobbit' appears in the quote. --Davémon (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)