Jump to content

Talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Legacy

This section says that 16 actors sued over revenue from merchandise bearing their appearance. However, only 15 actors are listed. Checking the reference cited, it appears that 15 is the correct number and that the list of actors is complete. Can someone check that I'm not missing anything and, if agreed, make the necessary modification? --Prh47bridge (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-production references

Could not find sources when trying to verify Post-production. This material was used to try to verify Lord of the Rings: Return of the King production countries but editing seems to have been done at WEDA in New Zealand not the UK. Pinewood Studios' website makes no mention of assisting in Lord of the Rings. Inomyabcs (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Box office/critical reception

I noticed the To-do list says: 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.

If that means box office tables and critical reception tables like most other film series/franchise articles—I'll be more than happy to do that, tonight. :-) --Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Mike Allen talk · contribs 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Caldecott, Stratford (2005). "Grace of the Valar: The Lord of the Rings". In Fiddes, Paul; Clarke, Anthony (eds.). Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing. ISBN 1573124583.
  • Desilet, Gregory (2005). "Epic/Serial Melodrama: Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings". Our Faith in Evil: Melodrama and the Effects of Entertainment Violence. McFarland. pp. 265–275. ISBN 078642348X.

Merger with The Hobbit (2012 film)

There is a debate over at Talk:The Hobbit (2012 film) as to whether we should merge some of the information from The Hobbit films into this page and change the name of the article to The Lord of the Rings (film series), as the two Hobbit films are also part of the same franchise. The merger would cover the production of all 5 films in the franchise. Does anyone have any objection to this?TheLastAmigo (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it is quite an undertaking, I think I'm pretty much in favour of this, as essentially the Hobbit films are an extension of this series. It will enable us to create individual pages for each of the two Hobbit movies and will allow comparisons here of cast and crew, box office, etc, etc... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree; I think merging the Hobbit films in to this article would try to present too much information in one place, ultimately at the expense of article quality. The reason is that The LotR Trilogy was one large production effort (in contrast with, say, Star Wars, where all 6 films were created essentially separately), allowing us to generalize about the film project as a whole, where necessary. I do, however, agree that there should be content somewhere discussing the franchise as a whole; just not on this article. Mildly MadTC 15:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Trilogy Discussion

There is no lord of the rings trilogy. It is one work put into 3 parts. (Drlf (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

  • I know, I know. A very common misperception; but, I would argue that you could make a case that the films could technically be called a trilogy as they are a group of three and are meant to continue the same story or plot line. And to nitpick your reply, the Lord of the Rings was not three volumes as originally written either. They just happened to end up that way due to publishing decisions. My recommendation, leave it as it is regarding the films, but clarify statements regarding the written work. Inomyabcs (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Extended Edition running time

There is only one "Extended Edition". The Blu-ray edition is not longer than the DVDs, in fact the durations labeled "blu-ray" in Wikipedia are the correct ones. It seems that no one had bothered to check the actual timings on the DVDs and only summed the theatrical versions durations to the advertised "additional footage", however, each film has also 10 to 20 further minutes of "fanclub credits". I'm correcting this issue on the films' pages. Rsnetto74 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move

To The Lord of the Rings (film series). Any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:06 4 January 2012 (UTC)

title formatting

Anybody know how to make the article title show as "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy"? (without the quotation marks, of course) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reactions to changes in the films from the book

This section does not have neutral point of view. - "Wayne G. Hammond, a noted Tolkien scholar" - His wikipedia entry lists him as a librarian. - The review of the Mythopoeic Society essays is by the Mythopoeic society "The book has been praised as balanced and its authors as "truly critical" since they seek to "discern how the films both succeed and fail, and why their massive popularity is both to be praised and lamented." - 8 of the references are to the the same Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of NPOV is that it is only concerned if opposing points of view are ignored. Are there any sources that conflict the tone of the sections? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I think opposing views are at least not well integrated, if they are not ignored. The WG Hammond quote contains this comment"[S]o many of its reviewers have praised it as faithful to the book, or even superior to it, all of which adds insult to injury and is demonstrably wrong" which implies that the balance comment is not in line with majority/many POV. Other quotes do not seem neutral in tone "Peter Jackson has a nine-year-old's understanding of Tolkien". I am also a bit concerned by reference to multiple non- notable authors all from the same volume. I appreciate the work the LOTR community does, but maybe if these criticisms were condensed and some other books , magazines or journals the section on criticism would be improved. Forgive me for this, but maybe GimliDotnet use his namesakes Famed axe to reduce this section :-) ? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Reactions to changes in the films from the book

This section does not have neutral point of view. - "Wayne G. Hammond, a noted Tolkien scholar" - His wikipedia entry lists him as a librarian. - The review of the Mythopoeic Society essays is by the Mythopoeic society "The book has been praised as balanced and its authors as "truly critical" since they seek to "discern how the films both succeed and fail, and why their massive popularity is both to be praised and lamented." - 8 of the references are to the the same Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of NPOV is that it is only concerned if opposing points of view are ignored. Are there any sources that conflict the tone of the sections? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I think opposing views are at least not well integrated, if they are not ignored. The WG Hammond quote contains this comment"[S]o many of its reviewers have praised it as faithful to the book, or even superior to it, all of which adds insult to injury and is demonstrably wrong" which implies that the balance comment is not in line with majority/many POV. Other quotes do not seem neutral in tone "Peter Jackson has a nine-year-old's understanding of Tolkien". I am also a bit concerned by reference to multiple non- notable authors all from the same volume. I appreciate the work the LOTR community does, but maybe if these criticisms were condensed and some other books , magazines or journals the section on criticism would be improved. Forgive me for this, but maybe GimliDotnet use his namesakes Famed axe to reduce this section :-) ? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Profit

The crude calculation in the Box office section is ridiculously wrong! To say box-office minus budget is the profit is utterly of the mark! First cinemas keep their share of the box-office receipts (around 50%), then distribution expenses and the profit of the distribution company are deducted, then marketing expenses, then the participation of cast and crew, and so and on… actually until today the entire trilogy has (at least to New Line Cinema) NOT made a profit (see: Hollywood accounting for an explanation of this phenomenon). Therefore I have removed the crude calculation of profit from the article. noclador (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Reactions to changes in the films from the book

I have added back the section that was archived prematurely. The section "Reactions to changes in the films from the book" does not have neutral point of view. "Wayne G. Hammond, a noted Tolkien scholar" - His wikipedia entry lists him as a librarian. The review of the Mythopoeic Society essays is by the Mythopoeic society "The book has been praised as balanced and its authors as "truly critical" since they seek to "discern how the films both succeed and fail, and why their massive popularity is both to be praised and lamented." - 8 of the references are to the same Society

My understanding of NPOV is that it is only concerned if opposing points of view are ignored. Are there any sources that conflict the tone of the sections? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I think opposing views are at least not well integrated, if they are not ignored. The WG Hammond quote contains this comment"[S]o many of its reviewers have praised it as faithful to the book, or even superior to it, all of which adds insult to injury and is demonstrably wrong" which implies that the balance comment is not in line with majority/many POV. Other quotes do not seem neutral in tone "Peter Jackson has a nine-year-old's understanding of Tolkien". I am also a bit concerned by reference to multiple non- notable authors all from the same volume. I appreciate the work the LOTR community does, but maybe if these criticisms were condensed and some other books , magazines or journals the section on criticism would be improved. Forgive me for this, but maybe GimliDotnet use his namesakes Famed axe to reduce this section :-) ? ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to remove the non notable names and to reduce the size of the section and the quotes drastically as it is overweighted towards the Mythopoeic society. Wakelamp (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the big blockqoutes and some non-notable names from the last Mythopoeic paragraph but instead of broadly axing the section we should rather expand it with positive reviews if there are any. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised by your comment "positive reviews if there ARE ANY" as the films were largely positively received ( my emphasis). The difficulty with finding positive reviews is that this section is called "Reactions to changes in the films from the book", so it will be negatively weighted. If we wish to get a better weighting should we combine this section with the public and critical reactions? Wakelamp (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we remove the phrase "noted scholar". It normally means famous, but I think in this case it gives undue weight to 1 persons argument Wakelamp (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
My phrase "if there any" refers explicitely to positive comments about deviations from Tolkien's original plot. That's why I have added some reviews that state how the adaptation portrays this and that in a faithful manner compared to the novel. And I don't think we should merge this section into "Public and critical response", the changes have in fact received a lot of criticism of their own which makes them notable as such. And Hammond has written and edited a number of books about Tolkien, so "noted scholar" is quite correct. He's not an ordinary librarian at a public city library but he works at a noted academic institution. So I don't see any problems with that wording. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at google scholar, Hammond is published, but my understanding of "noted" does not mean just published it means famous. I have posted to biographies of WP:BLP and asked for clarification as it seems to being used in fan dom as an honorarium. Wakelamp (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you object to the "noted", feel free to remove it. On the other hand the number of serious scholarly researchers on Tolkien is quite limited, so I guess publishing more than one or two essay makes one already a notable person in that community. De728631 (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
At least his college has been embracing that kind of wording, calling him and his wife "two of the world's leading Tolkien scholars", see info button for list entry #2; a review by the Dallas Baptist University repeatedly praises Hammond's and Scull's Tokien-related publications ("nothing short of monumental"), Michael D. C. Drout counts him among "the very best Tolkien scholars" [1] and the library at Yale didn't mind posting our Wikipedia article about Hammond as a biographical reference [2]. Add to this that his works keep getting cited by independent authors [3] and directories [4]. In my opinion this equates "noted" with "notable". De728631 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
So have agreed to delete the notable based on the BLP discussion? I am happy to leave him in and agree that he has something to say. I would query the word scholar as well and suggest researcher. Do we need to leave the Janet Brennan Croft part in, it seems a normal criticism of films versus books? 07:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs)
Let's remove the "noted/notable" bit but I'd leave the scholar in since he's clearly working from an academic background. Tolkien research can also be done by fans. And Jannet Brennan Croft is an established academic authority when it comes to Tolkien research, we should not remove her part either. 13:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked up wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scholar and I am now happy with scholar because of its life long learner and specialist. I am happy to have fans doing research being quoted if it is published in a reliable source. If Janet is an established academic authority then should we create a web page for her ? Wakelamp (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
A page for J.B. Croft is actually a good idea, I might even do that myself. Do you still have concerns about the neutrality of this section or should we close the request for comments? De728631 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The use of the words decried and wholesale times still don't seem very neutral. I would like to change the structure as well. If you agree I will do the change then we can tidy up and close "The trilogy caused reaction amongst fans and scholars of the book [73][74] and were seen as changing parts Tolkien felt necessary[75] in terms of characters, themes, events and subtley. Some fans of the book who disagreed with such changes have released fan edits of the films, which removed many of the changes to bring them closer to the original. A combined 8-hour version of the trilogy exists, called The Lord of the Rings: The Purist Edition.[84][85]

Various changes to Gandalf, Aragorn, Arwen, Denethor, Faramir, Gimli, and the protagonist Frodo,[75] when considered together, are seen by some to alter the tone and themes from those found in the book. Several authors contend that the portrayal of women, especially Arwen, in the films is overall thematically faithful to (or compatible with) Tolkien's writings despite some differences.[91][92][93][94] Douglas Kellner argues that the conservative community spirit of Tolkien's Shire is reflected in Jackson's films as well as the division of the Fellowship into "squabbling races".[95] Wayne G. Hammond, a Tolkien scholar,[77][78] said of the first two films that he found them to be "travesties as adaptations... faithful only on a basic level of plot" and that many characters had not been depicted faithfully to their appearance in the novel.[73][79] Also other critics have argued that Tolkien's characters had been weakend and misinterpreted by their portrayal in the films.[80][81][82]

Changes to events (such as the Elves participating at the Battle of Helm's Deep[76], Faramir taking the hobbits to Osgiliath),[75] and the deletion of the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire",[75] are seen as changing Tolkien's themes.

Janet Brennan Croft criticises the trilogy using Tolkien's own criticism of a previous proposed film script “anticipation” and “flattening” . She contrasts Tolkien's subtlety with Jackson's tendency to show "too much too soon".[83]

Supporters of the trilogy assert that it is a worthy interpretation of the book and that most of the changes were necessary.[17] Many who worked on the trilogy are fans of the book, including Christopher Lee, who (alone among the cast) had actually met Tolkien in person,[86] and Boyens once noted that no matter what, it is simply their interpretation of the book. Jackson once said that to simply summarise the story on screen would be a mess, and in his own words, "Sure, it's not really The Lord of the Rings ... but it could still be a pretty damn cool movie."[87][88] Other fans also claim that, despite any changes, the films serve as a tribute to the book, appealing to those who have not yet read it, and even leading some to do so. The Movie Guide for The Encyclopedia of Arda (an online Tolkien encyclopaedia) states that Peter Jackson's films were exceptional since filming the whole story of The Lord of the Rings was probably impossible.[89] This notion is partially supported by a review published in 2005 that otherwise criticised a lack in "faithfulness to Tolkien's spirit and tone."[90] Wakelamp (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That looks good, let's insert the above draft. Gimli, what do you think about it? De728631 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And I've just written an article on Janet Brennan Croft, so you may wikilink her. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we continue Waiting for Gimli ? Or should i just go ahead? Wakelamp (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't wait on my account. No-one owns the article as long as we have some agreement I'm fine with any change. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 12:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible name change

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy → The Lord of the Rings (film series) – I know that this page has been called "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" for some time now, but I wondered if we should possible change it to "The Lord of the Rings (film series)". One of the reasons is because the books are meant to be one book, but the publishers apparently made JRR Tolkein split it into three 'volumes', and JRR I believe did view the 3 books, as one, and not a trilogy. So I thought we could sort of respect that, even though 'film series' obviously means it isn't just one film and we know its three. Another reason is that because of "The Hobbit" has now been confirmed it will have three films, instead of just two. And on The Hobbit talk page the current (short) consensus is to change the page to "The Hobbit (film series)". I would say we could change The Hobbit to "The Hobbit film trilogy", but we'll see what the final consensus is. Charlr6 (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm supportive of the proposed change, it seems more in line with other film articles to me. GRAPPLE X 05:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I also support this change. This way it will be consistent with other film series articles. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to the move. Personally I don't think we should make special exceptions for trilogies. Articles about 2 films, 4, 5 and so on will all be disambiguated by (film series), so personally I would just use that term in all cases. Betty Logan (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with this change either. However, we should be clear: "The Hobbit (2012)" has not reached such a consensus; in fact, a move has been formally requested to "The Hobbit film trilogy." I realize consistency (between these two articles) isn't the highest concern, but it would make sense for them to share the same designation, whichever it is... especially because it seems as though each of the two discussions has at least briefly referred to the other set of films, for better or for worse. If you have a strong opinion one way or the other, consider making your voice heard in both discussions. MattMauler (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I created the post on the Hobbit page about the name change there, so I already made my voice heard. Then I remembered this page was called 'film trilogy', and by the time I wrote that the current consensus was for "The Hobbit (film series", and I did say on here 'on The Hobbit talk page the current (short) consensus'..., notice the 'short', as in not finished, still-going on. Charlr6 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for all film series articles to be disambiguated with "(film series)", rather than "trilogy", so I would support this move. "Trilogy" is overused to market any film series that have three films, without taking into account what a trilogy is. However, I can see opposition to this move, so I'd say if there is an exception to the rule, then this is it! However, I'd even go so far as to propose removing the part of the guideline at WP:NCF that allows for "film trilogy" to reflect this, although this would cause problems for thematic trilogies, such as The Three Colours Trilogy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revert to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

Can I just say that I am completely opposed to the change to The Lord of the Rings (film series). Firstly, as stated on WP:NCF: "When trilogies are often referred to as such by outside sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy." It does not matter what was intended by the books, or what is assumed by some. The name, by studios, by the director himself and by the people is known to be The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Why choose to change the name? The reason I have found for the change, by reading the Talk page, is to conform to a set criteria, which I have stated above allows the name The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. -- User:2nyte 14:23, 11 August 2012 (AEST)

Hey there,
It seems like Jafeluv moved the page, even though he never commented himself. Also seems like he archived the discussion even before a final consensus was reached, and there were weren't many people discussing any way as you can see, only a few people.
I assume you only just noticed recently the page had been moved as you hadn't commented on the possible name-changed, but now you have now that is fine.
But I'm happy for it to be reverted back because like I said, no consensus was ever reached and because of how very few people gave their views, which on a big page like Lord of the Rings should have more people involved.
Like I said, I am happy for it to be reverted back, and I don't really mind now what the final consensus is, if it is ever bought up again. Film series or film trilogy I don't mind now.

Charlr6 (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of "film trilogy" is not the recommended disambiguation at WP:NCF, just the use of "trilogy". If you follow the guidelines, it should either be "The Lord of the Rings trilogy" or "The Lord of the Rings (film series)". As "The Lord of the Rings trilogy" is applicable to the books per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it would need further disambiguation, ie "The Lord of the Rings trilogy (film series)", so we're better off where we are. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is not applicable to the books, as they are not a trilogy, they are one novel split into 6 books, sometimes published as three volumes. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that it's commonly published as three volumes has led to it being considered a trilogy, if not by the strictest definition but by the layman, which is the target audience WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tends to address. GRAPPLE X 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I've never actually heard of Lord of the Rings novels ever being split into six books, I've always seen them as three books, three volumes. But I'm talking about the books when I say this but they were written like already said, to be one novel, but they had to be published separately because of them being over-long. Charlr6 (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We're kind of off-topic really. The fact is that if someone was searching for "The Lord of the Rings trilogy", they would most likely expect to find the books, and not the films. Therefore, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "The Lord of the Rings trilogy" should redirect to the books. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, User:Jafeluv was the closing administrator, and was not expected to comment, but instead give an impartial eye to the discussion, and consider whether consensus had been reached. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
They did a great job seeing if the very short consensus had been reached. Charlr6 (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well those pages should have their name changed as they are practically sub-catgegory pages sort of, they didn't really need their own page created except to have more information on them and so that the main page wouldn't get bulky. But whatever the final consensus is, then those pages should be automatically changed, we don't need to discuss each one there unless someone will try to be extra awkward. Charlr6 (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Official Title

  • Comment While I prefer the current "Film series" nomenclature, The official website indicates its official name is The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy. One could argue that this is close enough to the common name that we should use this as the article title, or at least gives good ground to be titled as a trilogy. WP:NCF specifically mentions/allows using the "trilogy" nomenclature, as long as it is used by outside sources, which is most definitely the case here; the WP:GOOGLETEST also yields more hits for "...film trilogy" than "...film series". Mildly MadTC 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind if we re-name it to "The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy". It is on the official website and not just from some silly article so it should be sort of the main place we could reference the possible new title to. Charlr6 (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
(film series) is a disambiguation term, and therefore not subject to WP:COMMONNAME. The COMMONNAME test applies to potential titles, so the usage should be determined for each of The Lord of the Rings, The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy and any other recognised title for the series. A title is selected on the grounds of being the most frequently used in reliable sources, and if it then needs to be disambiguated because it is not the primary topic for that title, (film series) is appended as per WP:NCF. The correct disambiguated titles for the aforementioned articles would be: The Lord of the Rings (film series), The Lord of the Rings trilogy (film series) and The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (film series). As you can see, the correct disambiguation for The Lord of the Rings trilogy is not ''The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, but The Lord of the Rings trilogy (film series). It seems to me article titling and disambiguation keeps being confused in these discussions, but the Film Project only has one disambiguation term for a film series, although a film series may be known by several different names. COMMONNAME applies to article titling, and NCF applies to the disambiguation term (which always goes in brackets after the article title). Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This makes sense to me, please excuse my quick attempts at understanding the intricacies of naming policies :-) However, I do think the relevant part of WP:NCF could be expanded and/or clarified to make this point more clear. To review:
  • The Lord of the Rings - acceptable title, but reserved for the novel
  • The Lord of the Rings (film series) - acceptable, there is only one LotR film series (although readers may actually want Middle-earth in film)
  • The Lord of the Rings trilogy - acceptable title, but reserved for the novel (redirect) (currently redirects to this article, but that's another discussion)
  • The Lord of the Rings trilogy (film series) - acceptable, distinguish the novel trilogy from films per WP:NCF
  • The Lord of the Rings film trilogy - not acceptable, incorrect disambiguation
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy - acceptable, official title of the series
I think that pretty much covers the options at this point. Mildly MadTC 03:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, I think we should discount the so-called "official" The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy option as not being a likely search title, as the name of the trilogy or series is commonly known as "The Lord of the Rings". Using "trilogy" seems a superfluous disambiguator, as we'd have to disambiguate with "(film series)" anyway, so I think we've come to the right decision (by consensus) by moving the article here. The redirects can sort the rest of it out... --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just searched "Lord of the Rings", just like that, into Google. And at the top I come up with the Wiki page for the books, and the film series, which is this page. And as it seems to have been stated on here, people who search 'Lord of the Rings' are after just the books apparently, well, I found the film series and the books at the top.Charlr6 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Extended edition cast

When a character only appears in the extended edition of a film, such as Sean Bean in The Two Towers and Christopher Lee in The Return of the King, I think it would be useful to have a note which states they only appear in the extended edition of that film, similar in the same way the Marvel Cinematic Universe page does when a character only has a cameo in a film. Any thoughts on this? Frogkermit (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Release dates messed up

Release dates in the right box list the movies in the wrong order. It lists "The Two Towers" as the first movie released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.109.15.231 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Nice catch! Ckruschke (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


Should there be a possible gaffes Section?

I've just been repeat watching "The Two Towers" (six DVD Edition) and have noticed a tendency for Aragorn's (a right-handed swordsman) weapons to swap sides, as if the negative had been printed reversed. Should we have a section to highlight such incidents; and, where possible, an explanation of why they happened?

--Tim Battershell (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The answer is no. They violate several editing policies including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:TRIVIA. Occasionally, if an item has received coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources an item might be mentioned but we usually leave this sort of thing to blogs and IMDb. MarnetteD | Talk 22:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Lord of the Rings (film series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No mention of VHS release

In the article has no mention of the VHS release, and makes it appear that the film was only released on DVD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 25willp (talk • contribs) 01:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Lord of the Rings (film series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Starring" Section Modification

I have noted that the casting list is set to correspond to each of the film poster as accurately as possible. Liv Tyler's name is before Viggo Mortensen's on every single film poster, filmmaking credits on DVDs, and movie information/guide on television. On each, the first three actors read: Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler. I have provided URL references/ image addresses for each film poster below.

The Fellowship of the Ring: [1]

The Two Towers: [2]

The Return of the King: [3]

A.L. - (29~8~2017)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cinema52.com/2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Fellowship-of-the-Ring-Poster.jpg
  2. ^ https://alienationmentale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/two-towers-movie-poster.jpg
  3. ^ https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/lotr/images/b/ba/Rie.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150203041337
After looking further, the infobox documentation seems to agree with your point. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Lord of the Rings (film series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Primary genre across the film franchise

Per WP:FILMLEAD, the primary genre classification should be listed in the opening of each LOTR film, not a string of genres that causes a WP:SEAOFBLUE concern. According to the top three sources we use to determine that:

Film AFI BFI AllMovie
The Fellowship of the Ring Adventure, Drama, Fantasy (link) Fantasy, Action and Adventure (link) Fantasy, Epic (link)
The Two Towers Adventure, Drama, Fantasy (link) Fantasy, Action and Adventure (link) Fantasy, Epic (link)
The Return of the King Adventure, Drama, Fantasy (link) Fantasy, Action and Adventure (link) Fantasy, Epic (link)

It is clear that "Fantasy" and "Adventure" are the primary genres. The articles will be updated to reflect this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How about adding some of the female co-stars to the list of actors?

How about adding some of the female co-stars to the list of actors? Really? Not one listed...????

You may have missed The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Cast where they are listed. MarnetteD|Talk 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Average row

Regarding my edit here, as I commented to Mazewaxie, "...these rows did not have routine calculations per WP:CALC. For example, how do you 'average' between two films when one has 'A' and one has 'A-'? The outcomes are WP:SYNTHesized, 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.'" Other editors are welcome to comment. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The average between "A−", "A" and "A+" is exactly an "A" so your argument is invalid. --Mazewaxie 13:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It is original research to state that the film series as a whole got an "A" because the existing grades are for each film, and none of them explicitly state a series grade. It is a conclusion reached/implied only by Wikipedia. Same with the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic "average" scores. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It's just an average. It's not original research by any means. It's the average grade of the films, calculated using simple math. --Mazewaxie 14:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This is only a lucky case where the grades "happen" to line up. If two films got the same grade, then the calculation could not work. That's why it is inherently problematic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
For example: if you have like an "A+" and two "A" the the average grade would be rounded to "A". I don't see a problem at all. --Mazewaxie 14:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Let me try to clarify what I mean from a mathematical standpoint. For each film, there is an average score based on x units, and that will vary across films. So trying to determine the average of averages does not work because of that. A more direct example is something like Rotten Tomatoes. If Film A has 200 reviews and Film B has 20 reviews, then it cannot be as simple as adding the scores from each and dividing by two. So such calculations really aren't that routine, and the synthesis problem still exists, where no one outside Wikipedia is stating this conclusion. A film critic who grades "A+" on one film and "A" on the other two films could still say the whole series was "A+". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It is in fact not as simple. The math is not much harder, but that's besides the clearly Bad Statistics being performed here for incomparable ratings (just because there is a rating for X does not mean that rating is reasonable to compare to Y). --Izno (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Not only can letter grades not be trivially "averaged", the computations of the averages for the rest of the columns are simply wrong (and I refer the interested reader to mean average). This is clear WP:OR and the removal was appropriate. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The point you are making with Rotten Tomatoes doesn't make much sense to me. I understand your point but I think we shouldn't take into account the number of reviews of each film. Anyway there are other pages that use the average row, like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and no thought that the averages are a problem. I will respect your decision and I'm not going to revert the changes since I seem to be in the minority here (even though there have been only three user opinions). --Mazewaxie 16:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a case of WP:OSE. It should probably be removed from that page also. --Izno (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There are clearly problems. The correct mathematical method for calculating grade averages would be to use the median. For example, [AAD would be A], [AACC would be A/C], and [ABBD would be B]. So that can be addressed without resorting to OR. However, the greater problem is that you fundamentally change the nature of the underlying data. For example, 60% on Rotten Tomatoes means that 60% of the reviews are positive. However, if you have 80% (from 200 reviews) and 60% (from 100 reviews) then a 70% average no longer means that 70% of the reviews are positive, because in fact 73% of the reviews are positive (220 out of 300), so it becomes a meaningless quantity. If you weight the averages so that the score comes to 73%, then that is not a true average for the series because some of the films count more to the score than others. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly some people don't understand that averages have an important part in communicating responses of critics . They help by adding info on a particular franchise . An average score informs readers,users of what most critics think of a franchise on an average/estimated level . Other pages like Harry potter , wizarding world , MCU and DCEU also have averages - so what's so different about LOTR . I say that wiki editors should Apply consistency and put back the damn averages . I'm not going to do this simply because I'm not interested in re-reverting changes I made because some other user/editor has delusions of grandeur. Hpdh4 15:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (talk • contribs)

Averaging the score doesn't achieve anything as I clearly demonstrate above. Averaging percentages doesn't get you an average percentage, it gets you a meaningless number. It is basic mathematics. Betty Logan (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
We understand your opinion HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 and others, but we disagree that Averages are in any way important, or that they communicate anything useful or informative. Taking an average of the aggregator scores certainly does not tell you what critics think of franchises as a whole, the reviews were only what critics thought of each individual film at the time no-take-backs, not how they fit together as a series as a whole. Even if the averages could possibly be saying anything insightful about a franchise (upward trend, downward trend, outliers, well liked series except for Cars 2 etc.) such things can be better expressed as WP:PROSE.
You've clearly made good faith efforts to improve articles based on what you've seen before and I feel bad for you that your time was wasted but unfortunately WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and sometimes we end up copying bad examples, I think it has probably happened to all of us at some point. You're right about consistency too, and when new rules are decided editors definitely should do more work to follow-up and make sure rules are consistently applied to avoid there being so many bad examples. A lot of the film series articles had Averages before now through this discussion does it feel like it has become clear that these sorts of Averages (in the Reception section at least**) are a bad idea rather than mostly harmless, and we have at least a local consensus against including them in other articles either. (** There are some pretty weird uses of box office averages in places like the Film series article but that's a whole other can of worms.) -- 109.76.135.14 (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Production section

RESOLVED
I'm closing this since I rewrote the production section some time ago. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I need help with the production section. Since there is the page Production of The Lord of the Rings film series that covers the topic in detail, I think it should be shortened. I would do it, but I'm not that fluent in English and since I should rewrite things to make them shorter, I don't think I can do it. I was thinking in writing a small paragraph like this, which summarizes every production phase. I would appreciate if someone could do this. Thanks. --Mazewaxie 15:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"The Lord of the Rings film series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Lord of the Rings film series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#The Lord of the Rings film series) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Reunited Apart

Here's a draft of the recent cast reunion. Not sure which section to put it in - a new subsection under legacy perhaps? 

As part of his Youtube series Reunited Apart which reunites the cast of popular movies, and promotes donations to non-profit charities, on June 1 2020 actor Josh Gad reunited through video-conferencing a large part of the series cast, including Sean Astin, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Billy Boyd, Ian McKellen, Dominic Monaghan, Viggo Mortensen, Miranda Otto, John Rhys-Davies, Andy Serkis, Liv Tyler, Karl Urban, and Elijah Wood, plus writer Philippa Boyens and director Peter Jackson.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12425780/?ref_=ttep_ep5
  2. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/actor-josh-gad-reunites-stars-of-lord-of-the-rings-while-raising-money-for-kids-in-need/

I included only the one ref (CBS) but there are many more if needed. CapnZapp (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I added it. Thanks for the suggestion. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thx CapnZapp (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cast order?

I noticed the (alphabetical) order of castmates in my draft (above section) were changed. So I checked the article - there seems to be no consistency. Shouldn't we use the same order everywhere, and assuming "yes", what is that order based on? CapnZapp (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I ordered them according to how they appeared in "Reunited Apart". Sean Astin was in it from the start, that's why he is mentioned before Elijah Wood, for example. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I only noticed because the actresses (Otto and Tyler) came last. The order is different in the header + info box (and I can't see the pattern; my only guess would be order of credits), and (of course) it's sorted on "affiliation" in the Cast section. I suggest 1) we stick to the same order as in the header + info box, then 2) that we discuss why this order isn't alphabetical.
I should probably add that "order of appearance" (in the Zoom video) would have been acceptable if that did not happen to order females after males. I see no good reason for Wikipedia to appear oblivious. CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@CapnZapp: It's clearly stated in the infobox and lead: "ONLY ACTORS THAT APPEAR IN EVERY FILM. ORDERED ACCORDING TO FILMS CREDITS." Also, what do you mean with gender bias? I clearly stated that in the reunion section they are ordered according to their appearance on the show, and since Otto and Tyler joined the Zoom call after every other cast member, I don't see why you have to bring in gender bias, when it's simply the order in which they joined. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Ordered according to credits. Thank you. If you must keep your current order, please add/explain "in order of appearance", since, believe it or not, to many presumptive readers, it comes off as very odd indeed to list males before females. (I really hope I don't have to explain further). CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@CapnZapp: I din't think someone could interpret it as gender bias. I will add a note that clarifies that. Thank you. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I am very sorry but I don't think you get it if you add an editor note. I've rearranged the cast list in its original alphabetical order. CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@CapnZapp: Sorry but I don't understand. Why the alphabetical order? If you don't like the appearance order, then we should use the order according to film credits, for consistency. I still don't see the problem in using the appearance order though, only because coincidentally the actresses are mentioned after the actors; it doesn't make a lot of sense honestly. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to take my word for it then: for many readers (myself included) coming upon a list of people where males appear before females trigger the question why?. I'm not saying anything's wrong. Just that the text doesn't appear very modern; the writer appearing oblivious about the issues I linked to earlier. One solution is to explain (to the reader, not the editor); in my view a better solution is simply to choose a different (but equally fair, viable etc) sorting order that sidesteps the issue altogether. That's my answer as to why I did it. I remain open to discussion, but at some point one question can no longer go unanswered: why not an alphabetical order? (Assuming we have no source on the order of appearance, it stands to reason, I think, to avoid that as a sorting order, even if it had not resulted in every male sorted before every female). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@CapnZapp: Ok. I will not continue this discussion then. Anyway I still think that "male before female" it's not a valid point, because it's coincidental, it's not done on purpose, and if someone thinks that's sexist or whatever, then he is just reaching. But that's just my opinion. Alphabetical order is fine. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Home Media

This section still reads as if organically grown, which is of course how Wikipedia is written and isn't wrong. But now it comes off as hopelessly entangled, with no-longer-relevant emphasis on releases of the first films before the third one was done; it's not clear which edition contains what; and when it says Each film's extended Blu-ray version is identical to the extended DVD version I can't understand what version (and what extras) are referred to. The encyclopedic value would greatly be enhanced if this section were rewritten to hold a clear presentation of the major releases (and their contents). CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like the section to succinctly present the following facts: that there are dvd and blueray boxes, that these offer the extended releases of the films but not the theatrical releases, that the extra material is shot in standard definition and comes on dvds even in the blue ray boxes, except that the Costa Botes documentaries only appear in the blueray boxes, not the dvd boxes. Furthermore, that the blue ray extended editions offer remastered films offering a significant upgrade to not only the dvd versions (obviously) but also to the blueray theatrical releases.
At least that's my understanding. Corrections welcome. CapnZapp (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I will see what I can do in the following days. Unfortunately I'm not a native speaker, so I would like some help. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick Facts Box Office

Should this not read 2,991 million (or 2.991 billion if you want) instead of 2,991 billion? The latter figure can't be correct. 95.146.56.26 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Homohpobic attacks on Ian McKellen

Apparently there have been a backlash to the casting of Ian McKellen from conservative circles, who called the actor "the worst thing that has happened to Tolkien's legacy" or something along those lines. Ian McKellen spoke out on the whole thing when it happened. The controversy was brought to public attention again by theonering.net in response to the same people organizing a hate campaign against the upcoming Amazon Prime series due to the casting of non white-actors. Does anybody know about reliable sources reporting on this? Sounds like something that needs to be mentioned. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Special:Contributions/46.97.170.112; no this doesn't belong in this article at all. Your source is not reliable, nor does it benefit this page in any way/shape/form.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Article title

With the announcement of a spin-off prequel film to this trilogy, doesn't it make more sense to retitle this article "The Lord of the Rings (film trilogy)", if we're not going to have the fourth film listed here. Mitchy Power (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The title is familiar and well-understood both on and off Wiki. Calling the putative anime "the fourth film" is (WP:POV) greatly overstating its status and relationship with the existing films. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mitchy Power: no, the practice of naming an article with the specifier of "trilogy" -- is not at all good practice.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification of phrase "New line had many promising reasons the trilogy would be successful"

Suggest this phrase be clarified - the subsection under development on the move to New Line decribes their reasoning for acceptance of the project as due to having "many promising reasons the trilogy would be successful". Stands out as very vague in an otherwise clear and informative section. Suggest this be amended to clarify the main lines of reasoning - why did they believe it would be successful? Don't have access to the book cited or better sources to offer at the moment or I would have a go myself, suggesting for more knowledgeable and capable hands Equal Inequity (talk) Equal Inequity (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_(film_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1186131538"