Talk:The Hobbit (film series)

Plot ?

Although 'everyone' knows the plot and it is easily found in other Wikipedia entries (under the Book), for the massive interest out there, wouldn't it be correct to include the story line in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzbobrown (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and I imagine that at some point when the film is generally released a plot section will be added. But until it does, then it would be presumptuous to put a plot in. Especially when we dont know what the differences from the novel will be or what will be included in each film. MisterShiney ✉ 07:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's been out for 2 months now and made a billion dollars. I think now would be a good time to create a Plot section. Anyone care to take a stab at it? - thewolfchild 17:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Budget claim

"The Hobbit will likely be the highest-budgeted film so far to be shot on Red Digital Cinema Camera Company's Epic camera of which Peter Jackson received one of the very first shipments.[168]"

At this point, either it is or it isn't. 72.74.59.228 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done; claim removed. Good catch. Source (which is a forum) says nothing of the budget anyway. --MattMauler (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cast list too long

I feel the cast list is too long, contains too many minor characters, and desperately needs trimming. It strikes me as cruft. Any thoughts?

I agree. The list is long enough to almost have it's own page. Some characters could be removed. Also, the list could use some organization. Perhaps sub-groups like; the LOTR cast, the 13 dwarves, the elves, the antagonists, etc. Any thoughts anyone? - thewolfchild 17:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it could be trimmed somewhat, especially of the minor characters.
A suggestion: if sections are added, we should probably refrain from too many in-universe labels. For instance, the dwarves would work fine as a separate section, but I think the titles used in the proposed table before like "The Shire and Rivendell" or "Dale and Erebor" should probably be avoided; they wouldn't mean anything to a non-Tolkien fan. --MattMauler (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we just use this table rather than having all the current text, which is obviously too long. The text is already in the The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey article for that respected cast, and we will add the text to the next two films separate articles in the coming months. But for now I think a table would be more practice and relevant to the article. --2nyte (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as was mentioned when the table was added the first time, the next two films won't both be out for another two years; the last two sections of that particular table would be useless for now, but I think it would work well once the entire series has been released (even though perhaps the titles could be changed as I mentioned in my first post). We should wait until all three are out, once we know which characters appear in which films. --MattMauler (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this discussion has come up several times on this talk page, I went ahead and reduced the cast list to a simple/true list. It is now more readable, and, in my opinion, better. However, I know there hasn't been much participation in the talk page discussions, so I know there may be editors who see it differently. Let's see what happens. --MattMauler (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion here MattMauler (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have undone it. Mainly because I didnt see this before I went a head and did it and secondly, well at the moment this serves as a central information point for the whole series, just like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy did before all the films were released. As and when the rest of the film series is released, then we can talk about reducing/removing information, but until then it is important to have the information in a central location. MisterShiney ✉ 00:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I know it was a deep cut information-wise,... but the next two films in the series will not be released for another seventeen months. I think it can and should be reduced somewhat before then. We may use this as a central information point for now, but we do not need to include the date when each actor was confirmed for each role, for instance. It's just too much. I hope we can compromise on a shorter cast section before July 2014. --MattMauler (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the Cast Section though. For ease of reading I am currently in the process of breaking it down into sections. "Elves, Goblins at Laketown etc. Hopefully that will address the ease of reading issue in the short term. MisterShiney ✉ 00:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Biscuit marketing

Hi, I added some information:

German biscuit company Bahlsen has relaunched its existing brand of Hobbit biscuits for the UK market, both "Chocolate Hobbits" and "Hobbits Natural", in a marketing tie-in with the film.

which has been removed as "irrelevant". It seems to me that this is true, actual marketing done by Bahlsen and the Hobbit film makers. It is trivial and rather silly of them, although it has an interesting trade mark angle, in that the Hobbit film makers are not objecting to Hobbit biscuits, nor it appears requiring a license. But I can't see why it is irrelevant, since they've done it, and it reflects on them in certain ways. Could I be given an explanation, or could this otherwise be reconsidered? Thank you! Jim Killock (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly some relevance in that information though I thought it to be trivial and unnoteworthy. If there is a need to include it, it should be done on the article for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, though thousand of marketing schemes have been undertaken worldwide by Warner, New Line, MGM but it is trivial to include all of them. Just my opinion. --2nyte (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, It's an outside company though with no link to the film series though. It's just advertising sham latching onto Hobbitmania. Perhaps the information would be better suited on the Bahlsen wiki....? MisterShiney ✉ 00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, the film makers have done a tie in with them. Normally, the Tolkein estate would exercise a veto on branding a product like this, but in this case the film makers have co-operated, which makes it unusual. There have been some notable disputes with unlicensed Tolkein branding, including a Southampton pub, and a Birmingham café (I'm not sure if on copyright or TM grounds). Maybe these three elements could make a useful addition (somewhere) about the attitudes of the IP holders to independent uses. Jim Killock (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe here Saul_Zaentz#The_Hobbit Jim Killock (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bold font in the lead

There seems to be lasting confusion about highlighting the titles of the two unreleased films with italics and boldface while the link to An Unexpected Party is merely typed in italics. I've looked it up and I can't find any hint at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting that suggests the use of bold text in this manner. Usually, the article subject is highlighted with bold text, and that's it. So we should either use italics-only typeface for the two other titles or we use bold and italics for all three subtitles. Having this dual style is in fact confusing and undesirable. De728631 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's in bold in order to show that this is (for now) the main page for the articles in question, to stop confusion if a reader arrives here from a redirect, per principle of least astonishment. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously said principle has in this case rather caused a lot of astonishment. So I suggest we also bolden the link to An Unexpected Party to cause less confusion for those who don't follow a redirect. De728631 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

MGM's position on Hobbit film infoboxes.

I've looked at several articles and they make out as though MGM distribute the film as well as Warner. Also the end of the credits to the first film predominantly say 'Warner Bros. and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer'. I feel that MGM should go under 'distributed by' instead of 'studio', but leave New Line under 'studio'. Boushenheiser (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Release dates in infobox

My edit (which, admittedly, used 2012 instead of 2013 for the second film by mistake) was reverted per WP:FILMRELEASE. My edit was, however, intended to bring the article in line with WP:FILMRELEASE!

Quoting: (...)Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.

The current version of the infobox contains the New Zealand release date for the first film, the United States release date for the second film and a date of unclear source for the third film.

The dates I'd like to include are:

• The date of the earliest release (the premiere)
• The release dates for New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. (the countries that produced the film)

The articles for the individual films already include all these dates in their infoboxes. 82.139.86.180 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)