Talk:The Lord of the Rings (film series)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose. I think that "film series" fits better with the naming conventions than "film trilogy". Alphius (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Common usage does not favor The Lord of the Rings film trilogy: the titles in RS usage for this series are The Lord of the Rings and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, so one of those should be used for the article name, disambiguated by (film series) in the event they are not the primary topic. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above (see subsection below) I think "film series" is more in line with current usage than "film trilogy", and also seems a bit less of an overly extravagant title. Also, we should similarly move the following sub-articles to follow whatever consensus is achieved here (and I hope we don't have to achieve consensus on each one separately) Mildly Mad^T_C 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. Special effects of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
  2. Principal photography of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
  3. Production design of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
  4. Music of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
  5. List of accolades received by The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
  6. List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

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 Mad^T_C 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 Mad^T_C 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

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

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080421050917/http://www.doc.govt.nz:80/templates/page.aspx?id=38714 to http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/page.aspx?id=38714

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)