Talk:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Lord of the Rings film trilogy has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. 22 January 2006 - 25 February 2008
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Some clean-up is required to be standard with current GA film series articles:

  • Clean-up production sections, use individual film articles for level of detail inappropriate here.
  • Pare down reaction sections to boxes for RT, Metacritic and Yahoo ratings, box office performances and lose focus on Oscar and individual critics. For a trilogy like this, focus on Top 100s.
  • Source everything using citation templates.
  • Copyedit.
Priority 1 (top) 

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)