Jump to content

Talk:The Hobbit (film series)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Page moves

Please do not copy and paste content while attempting to move the article to another location. If editors require assistance, please consider WP:MOVE in the future. Thanks, Mephtalk 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

Surely we can no longer say...

  1. That the first two films will still be titled "An Unexpected Journey" and "There and Back Again"
  2. That the current "There and Back Again" synopsis is accurate? U-Mos (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that the title shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all, currently it is never mentioned that "There and Back Again" was one of the original titles.  The Windler talk 

Cast section change

Hi, I wanted to change the cast section into a table format as in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy cast section. It will provide the same information though in a simplistic form . And I don't think casting rumors or quotes as now appropriate as we have a confirmed cast list, or at least partial list.

You need reliable sources stating which actors will appear which films.--01:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit early to put in a chart like that. We don't know much about film three and having that for only two films seem a bit excessive. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The current cast list is too bulky and too wordy. The cast list in the LOTR trilogy page is much cleaner and simple. Thus, we should change it. The only opposition is that "we need reliable sources stating which actors will appear which films" or "It's a bit early". The current format doesn't specify what actor appears in which film, so it will be the same (we can also put a disclaimer to clarify this), and what is meant by too early? We can change it later. - My opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter98172 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the cast list could use some trimming, but I think what the previous commenters were saying is that the chart format does claim to show which characters appear in which movies... which we don't know yet.
I think work should certainly be done to clarify/shorten the section, but if a box-chart is used, it should probably resemble a more generic cast list (e.g. two columns, just actors and characters).
That said, even though I'm in favor of a simpler (and more easily readable) chart form, some editors might want to keep the Jackson quotes, so it's good to air it here first and see what people think. --MattMauler (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Much of the info (including the Jackson quotes) used to be relevant/encyclopedic, but now that the film (or at least the cast) is out of the early speculative stage, we should reduce it to just a list.
I believe the current cast section emerged out of what used to be a (prose) 'casting' section (back in Spring 2011). This is the reason for the information overload. If someone wants to rewrite a separate casting section containing some the extra info, that would be fine, but I don't think we need a tidbit for every actor.
So basically, I agree with you, Peter, but I do not think the list should mention the separate movies or regions/story-sections (Dale, Esgaroth, Erebor) because we still do not know which characters will be involved where/when.--MattMauler (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you think this would be a suitable replacement: CLICKY HERE. Or maybe we could have a note column with quotes. I particularly prefer the table over the current cast section. -- User:2nyte 1:21, 21 August 2012 (AEST)

Your change did make it much more readable, but I see that it was reverted. Evidently tables are unacceptable according to the official MoS (I was not aware either). The section does mention that a 'casting' section (separate from the list) may be included. This might be our best bet. --MattMauler (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we're jumping the gun here. A comparative table showing actors in each film will be appropriate in time, but only once we have more than one film, and we know who will be in which film. At the moment, the cast section is a casting list, and per MoS, it shouldn't be tabulated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me; I posted below before I saw your comment. I now agree with you that a table would not be wise at this point. What do you think of my suggestion? : a simple (only actor as character) list accompanied by a separate prose casting section. --MattMauler (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that according to the MoS, the current (longer, unaltered) format is technically acceptable, but, as I said, I agree with you that the section is difficult to read because of the amount of information it contains. I would advocate changing the current "list" to a simple list (with actor first, character second) and adding a prose casting section with pertinent information which we decide should not be lost.... The 'casting' section should probably be written and posted at the same time as the reduction of the list in order to avoid alarming editors unaware of our conversation. I can start writing one, but it might take me a bit; it may be difficult getting casting info to hang together in a single paragraph. --MattMauler (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. A detailed prose description of the casting process would be a good way to collate the information so that it isn't lost when an comparative cast table is eventually added. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and incidentally, there is a comparative cast table in progress at Middle earth in film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

shpuldnt this be merged with the lotr film series page

the 2 star wars trilogies do not have seprate pages there are the indivdiuals and one for all 6 thats it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.69.46 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I said the same thing above in the 'Alternate Idea' that we would do in the future. We could only properly do this though after the first film has been released and when there is enough information released on the second.
But I do personally was well think that The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings film pages should merge together so there should be a sort of "Peter Jackson Middle Earth Film Series" page. I know there is already another page called "Middle Earth in Film", but that is talking about EVERYTHING that has been made on the radio or film and whatever else, but this page would be JUST For Peter Jackson's films.Charlr6 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Such a page may eventually exist (if it's notable!), but should definitely not replace The Hobbit (film series) and The Lord of the Rings (film series). The Star Wars page is actually about the franchise in general (movies, books, tv shows, toys, etc), and each Star Wars film has its own individual page. The reason The Lord of the Rings (film series) exists is because the three films were all part of the same production, with simultaneous principal photography for all the films; The Hobbit is a similar yet separate production, thus warranting its own article. This is different from Star Wars, where each of the six films had their own distinct production--this is why there's no analogous page for the Star Wars "Original Trilogy" and "Prequel Trilogy". Mildly MadTC 18:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
In the future, this would be a good 2-3 years we could have a main page for both and that maybe also has stuff on merchandise like toys and video games set in the Peter Jackson universe. Probably won't be as much as Star Wars though, could also mention those two fan-made films that I think are even mentioned in the info box.Charlr6 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Individual film pages

I believe that there is enough information on this page for the first film, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adervae (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is enough information to make a page for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, though this page does cover the film(s) fairly well, so I don't think we 'need' to make a separate page (we can but we don't necessarily need to). Just wait a couple weeks; the marketing campaign and greater detail of the first film will emerge soon. It is then we should start the page for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. -- User:2nyte 3:37, 27 August 2012 (AEST)

This page should be rewritten

I think this article should be rewritten. It's outdated. It's very unbalanced and spends more time describing Del Toro's interpretation, then it focusses on the ideas of Peter Jackson. It's frankly weird to see the Del Toro parts be longer, then the production parts. (considering Peter Jackson's long production video's, I doubt there is less information then comments made by Del Toro before principal photography started. Also it lacks information about how Peter Jackson regards this interpretation by Del Toro (http://io9.com/5937177/peter-jackson-tells-us-how-much-of-guillermo-del-toros-design-dna-is-in-the-hobbit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.128.245 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that there is information that should be added, feel free to add it yourself! -PUNKMINKIS (TALK) 23:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Release date

This needs a source, and someone ought to figure out whether the first film will come out on November 28 or December 14. I've seen both dates in articles, and I've also seen both dates in the same article. This article at BBC says "Next month's world premiere of The Hobbit will see New Zealand's capital Wellington renamed Middle Earth, after the film's fictional setting. The city will spend 1.1 million New Zealand dollars (£557,800) preparing for the event on 28 November." This article is from this month, so "next month's world premiere" means the premiere will happen in November. But later, the article says "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is due for world-wide release on 14 December". Does anyone know why this article gives two separate release dates? Zeromus1 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added the reference from the infobox, which is dated 31 August and gives the 14 December release date. I'm not sure about the above reference's conflicting dates, but after doing some searching online[1][2][3][4] it looks like 14 December is indeed the release date. The BBC ref says "preparing for the event on 28 November", but that seems somewhat unclear, is it preparing on that date, or is the event on that date? Is it referring to the premiere? I'm not sure, but I think as all of the references I could find use 14 December that's likely to be the date, as much as I'd love to see it a few weeks earlier. - SudoGhost 13:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Image

While this page is, of course, about the film series as a whole and not the first film, we should be aware that because of the rather small image used on the page, Google isn't pulling in anything from Wikipedia for "The Hobbit"-related searches. Take a look at Google's search results (right-hand side) for "The Hobbit" to see what I mean. That's known as Google's Knowledge Graph and they try to pull in images and data from reputable sources so that they can display rich information in search results. Since the image we have on the page is "not ideal" from their POV, they're pulling in a pretty poor Photoshop job from a fan site as the main image that's tied to the Hobbit. If we could find a suitable movie poster-esque image for this Wikipedia entry, I think we could provide a much better result for searches and continue Wikipedia's reputation as an awesome source of both information and imagery for users and Google. Note that the poster from the first movie is uploaded here with appropriate copyright attribution. Not sure if it is appropriate for use, but I'd love to see it up. - mikkei 12:04, 15 October 2012 (PST)

Once the individual film articles reach independent notability from this article, I'm sure the film posters will be added to each article's infobox. Futhermore I don't think we should concern ourselves with Google's practices.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles

Shouldn't all three films have separate articles as time goes on? -- Anonymous 173.57.44.147 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as time goes on there is an intention for separate articles on all three films as done with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Though as of now, The Hobbit (film series) page is quite sufficient. -- User:2nyte 15:22, 3 September 2012 (AEST)
At what point though? An Unexpected Journey comes out in three months, I'm surprised that one doesn't have an article yet. Hot Stop 05:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think 2nyte covered it pretty well in the talk 3 categories above this one. The closer we get, the more information and detail will be put out. Now, if you think you have what it takes to make a good page for the first movie, I personally say go for it, go ahead and make The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. If not, be patient, it WILL be made. -PUNKMINKIS (TALK) 05:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that there should not be much redundancy between the individual film articles and this one. Casting information, for example, should probably remain at this article, given their back to back production. I think one reason why an article for An Unexpected Journey hasn't been made yet is that there does not seem to be a substantial amount of information solely about that first film, as opposed to the development and production of the three films as a whole. At any rate, it might not be a bad idea to start an article for An Unexpected Journey in the Article Incubator, which would be moved into the mainspace once it has been developed. Also, we might want to consider spinning off the development section of this article as a stand-alone article, like Production design of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and Principal photography of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Cliff Smith 18:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
As there is a great desire for a article to be made for An Unexpected Journey, I just made an incubator article, as proposed by Cliff. It can be found here. -- User:2nyte 16:49, 4 September 2012 (AEST)
Where was there a consensus to turn The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey into a redirect? As this movie comes out in just two months, I think it's reasonable for it to have its own article. Zeromus1 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The long-term goal for the structure of the articles was first brought up in Requested Move II and referenced in many subsequent discussions. It's not about a timeline or deadline but when there are enough independent sources for each film to warrant there own articles. For example the sources in the latest attempt at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which was essentially just a cast section did not distinguish which characters were appearing just in that particular film but instead used the general term The Hobbit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you provide a link to where this was discussed recently? The most recent "requested move" discussion I see on this page occurred in August, and then it more recently was decided in the thread above to create a new article. After it was decided in the thread above (last month) to create the article, I'm asking where it was decided more recently to merge them again. Zeromus1 (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
After looking at your comment again, I think perhaps you were referring just to the discussion in August. I don't agree that the August decision to merge the articles should overrule the more recent decision to give the first movie its own article. This movie's release is quickly approaching, and surely we can all agree that eventually it will warrant its own article. In this situation, I don't think a consensus for what was appropriate two months ago should overrule newer decisions. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
What more recent decision? As recently this thread some editors have suggested to wait for more sources. Again we do not operate by deadlines. The article will be made but not before it is ready. It might be before the release or after, it depends on the material that comes out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Earlier in this thread, Hot Stop and Punkminkis expressed the view that if someone thought they could do a good job making an article on the first movie, that person should go ahead. But when someone decided to go ahead, you restored the redirect because of the outcome of the discussion in August. I'm open the the argument that the first movie shouldn't have its own article yet, but I disagree with your reasoning for why it shouldn't. The decision should be based on what's the case now, not what was the consensus two months ago. Zeromus1 (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Still, others in this thread have suggested to wait. There is no clear consensus here to override the preexisting one.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest position

So when can the redirect be unredirected? I don't see how the first film fails WP:NFF. I'll also raise this at the Film Project for further input. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see both sides here. Considering how prematurely some articles are created, this has to set some kind of record for such a high profile release not having its own individual page so close to its release date. Conversely, is there enough coverage on the individual film, independent of the series as a whole to warrant an individual article? It's a technicality of course - the film is made, and once it has had its premiere then sources will abound. Has anyone started working on an article in userspace or anything? Maybe if we had something, we could seek consensus to move it to mainspace? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I see there is an article started in the Article Incubator. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, there was! It seems to have been deleted by its creator in the last few minutes! --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I just asked the admin to restore it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I found it and moved it back! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, that we still don't know much about what applies specifically to the first film besides marketing and release information. I think after the release well have a clearer idea on what to include in that article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
But that logic can be applied to pretty much any upcoming film. Do we hold back on those too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Most upcoming films do not already have a large dedicate page to content like the Hobbit does with this article. There is no rush to have a specific page about a film we know very little about other than what is in this article here. As we are unable to reliably differentiate between the different films then there is no need for the separate article yet. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So it's only three days before the first film premieres, and there are lots of articles about the first film appearing online. So should the first film's article be released from the Article Incubator? I think I can help on the citations but it might be tomorrow. Woofygoodbird (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, release it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, think now is the time to create the article for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey by merging the incubator article.--2nyte (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The incubated article still needs a lot of work as far as specific referencing is concerned, and we should not be swayed by a rush to create a stand-alone article by the film's release date before the article is ready.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
There's no rush, but there's also common sense. The latter applies here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Common sense is not to have a ill-referenced, inaccurate article, but not to worry we're working on it. I suspect the article will be ready sooner rather than later.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"Common sense is not to have a ill-referenced, inaccurate article" You best fix the other four million articles while you're at it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of The Hobbit film trilogy it has been decided to merge that soundtrack article into the main article on the film. With this additional coverage, the incubated article and the previous content of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey we'll have enough references and notability to keep a standalone article. So I think I'll go ahead and create a big merged article on the film. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The claims made in the article still need to be explicitly attributed to this film, not the series nor a generic "The Hobbit".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as referencing is concerned, I think the incubator article article is quite complete and trustworthy. As far as specific to "A Unexpected Journey", I think the incubator article is also well done; Plot, Score, Marketing and Release sections all have separate/specific detail of the specific first film, and that is the most part of the article. In one day will have tenfold the information to add to the article. Why can we not start developing the article now. I think that it has enough information to be created. If you disagree can you please further explain why and what specifically can be changed. Yes, I agree it is not the most developed article as yet. Though here is merit to create the article now.2nyte (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I tagged the issues that needed to be addressed, it seems De728631 is taking care of most of them now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, please see this latest version of the incubator article. I think it's ready to go. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2nyte, can you please explain this revert? De728631 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to have an edit war, though all you did was copy and paste massive chunks from The Hobbit (film series) and removed the unsourced edits. The purpose was to create a page dedicated to "An Unexpected Journey" not copy and paste material from The Hobbit (film series). That is why I reverted your change.--2nyte (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That text was actually not directly taken from the "series" article but as I explained in the edit summary, it was from an old revision of the main film article. If anyone pasted it there before then so be it. And as has been said above, the incubator page had deficiencies that had to be addressed. And it is quite common to use existing text from overview articles when splitting off new standalone articles. So I don't think there's a problem with that because from my point of view the incubator page is still focused on the single film An Unexpected Journey and not on the series in the series in general. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced all unreliable sources and I now think it has merit to create and merge to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Opinions?2nyte (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I think a compromise between the two version might be better, 2nyte has limited the cast section to what can be verified here (which makes sense, and should probably be used as a secondary reference). De728631 has added bit more general information from the this article, which makes for a nice summary without going into too much detail and eliminated the filming locations table, which even if the worst of the unreliable sources have been replaced, still doesn't specifically state that those locations were used in filming An Unexpected Journey. It might be better suited for this article, not the individual film page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The "Filming locations" section has been removed. I also agree it quite general regarding the film series, though The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring article has had a "filming locations" section for some years now. I think we can merge the page now, unless there is any protest.2nyte (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The quoted text in the Plot section is overly long which makes it a borderline copyright infringement and adds a smack of promotion. We should rewrite this using our own words. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason for the page not to be made, as stated in WP:GRADUATE: Candidate articles may be moved back into mainspace if they meet basic Wikipedia inclusion requirements. 'The quality of the article is of secondary concern, as it is expected that improvements will continue after graduation.'" --2nyte (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright. I have now merged the edit histories from the article incubator to the main article The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The incubator page is now a redirect, so please continue editing the "live" version. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Music

„Artist Neil Finn will contribute as will some actors including Richard Armitage and the company of dwarfs“. This should be corrected:

  • They have already contributed
  • It's not „Richard Armitage and the company of dwarfs“ - it's what the cd states, but officially it's Richard Armitage and the rest of the dwarf cast. --Henry McClean (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Does it really say "dwarfs"? I thought in Tolkein-world the plural of dwarf is dwarves. 43hellokitty21 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

PETA fuss and bother

This section should be more balanced. Jackson has said that the "whistle blowers" PETA has relied upon are in fact disgruntled ex-employees, who were fired because they did not adhere to standards of animal care set by the production. Nothing about that side of the fuss has been placed in this sub-section, and it should be. Otherwise, it's just a PETA press release, no matter how many "sources" it has.Theonemacduff (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that at the end of the credits, the film includes the usual disclaimer that 'no animals were harmed in the making of this film'. My only source for that though is having just seen the film, so I guess it would be original research to add it. Robofish (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. A common misunderstanding. Original Research is for people publishing their findings. MisterShiney ✉ 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Source Reliability

So following this edit from 2nyte, I reverted it, citing that it was Original research and that a source was needed. Then after another revert The editor then came up with a source for the content in dispute, however the source he provided (http://www.stansborough.co.nz) doesnt seem that reliable for the claims being made in the content. So have opened a discussion (which according to BRD they should of done before hand. I cant revert it again, because that would break 3RR, if another editor could comment on this source's reliability that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 09:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly, I don't really know much about much about Wikipedia's "law" (I guess?), such as 3RR which you brought up. I found the line "considered to be one of the biggest and most ambitious movie projects ever undertake" on The Lord of the Rings (film series) article with no source. I added it to explain the magnitude of the film series on The Hobbit film series page; I thought it was a good fit. When you called for a source to the quote I simply googled it and various web-pages came up, http://www.stansborough.co.nz/lord-of-the-rings/page.aspx being one of the first.--2nyte (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mister Shiney that the source you provided is not reliable. In fact it looks like a so-called backwards copy, i.e. Stansborough seems to have taken the text from Wikipedia's The Lord of the Rings (film series) to present their content. This excludes the Stanborough website from being used as an independent reference over here. Apart from that, the phrase "considered to be one of the biggest and most ambitious movie projects" in The Lord of the Rings (film series) is a summary of what has been presented in that article throughout multiple sections with various sources, so it doesn't have to be referenced in the lead section there. In this Hobbit article however, we would need to find a direct reference for the claim. And I don't really see a reason to stress the relevance of the LotR films in this article about the Hobbit films. This is why I have removed the phrase again. Please don't restore it unless we have a section in this article that directly compares the two trilogies in terms of logistics, production cost, grossing and such. De728631 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

2D, 3D, Del Toro

I've read that Del Toro didn't want to do the film in 3D but the studio was dead-set on it, and that was one of the reasons he departed as director. Has anyone else heard/read this? --RThompson82 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I had heard that del Toro didn't want 3D, but this was not the reason for his departure. He left well before the film was officially greenlit, and the studio was going through major bankruptcy issues; 3D was a question that would have been settled later.--MattMauler (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This should be mentioned in the article. Every 30 years or so this country goes through a 3D movie craze and, with the exception of maybe animated films, look back on it as "....what the fuck were we thinking?" --2600:100F:B10D:7B47:0:21:82F9:8F01 (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Del Toro left the project because he couldn't continue to keep working in New Zealand without MGM being able to give them a start date, due to the company's financial troubles. http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/del-toro-leaves-the-hobbit-and-evidently-peter-jackson-wont-be-next/ Primogen (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Public and Critical Response...

Why is there a table instead of a general summary like other film articles? MisterShiney ✉ 08:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a "film article", it's a film series article and I put the table as it is easier to read (taking out the mess and giving the specific information desired), as well to cater for the films to come as the article is concerning the whole series, not just the first film. A "general summary" is available in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey article.--2nyte (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah saw that. Agree completely, although it does rather restrict what is being shown. But as long as it shows the main ones then thats fine. MisterShiney ✉ 08:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Table was very good, I made it better by including over 140000 public ratings which are higher than the critics reviews, After all its the public who pay and they are saying they like it a lot more than 58% Blade-of-the-South (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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",[1] in a marketing tie-in with the film.[2]

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)

Your absolutely right, I should have made a closer look to your edit. However, since this is an article on a series of films, I do not think listing 9 different release dates is in the best interest of the readers. Perhaps we should just limit it to the first release date for each film. The spirit of WP:FILMRELEASE is to avoid indiscriminate details.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Over-all budget

There has been released new information about the budget of the trilogy and apparently $561 million has been spent so far on the trilogy. Do you think this will be worthy of a mention? It isn't the final budget, but thought it might be worth a mention?

Here is the link; http://www.slashfilm.com/peter-jacksons-hobbit-trilogy-has-cost-561-million-so-far/

Charlr6 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Box office ranking

In time (as it has already) the box office ranking will be lowered as newer releases overtake. So should the Box office ranking in the Box office section show the latest ranking (with need of constant updates) or the peak position? This can apply to The Lord of the Rings (film series) as well.--2nyte (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cast lists in individual articles

The cast lists at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug are both copy and pasted in part from this article. While per WP:FILMCAST this information is useful, we do not need to detail the same information verbatim in each of the individual film articles. I propose we reduce the sections in those articles to bare lists, while retaining the hatnote point readers here for further information at the top of the section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer we followed The Lord of the Rings (film series)#Cast and use a similar table on this article - like this User:2nyte/sandbox. As with the individual film articles, I suggest (as with the individual LOTR film articles) we keep the current detail.--2nyte (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
2nyte, I like your tables but I wouldn't call it "The Shire and Rivendell" but rather "Trollshaws and Rivendell". The troll episode doesn't take place in the Shire but way eastward in the Trollshaws near the river Bruinen. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps we can use your table in the "Cast" section and move the casting information to separate a "Casting" section. That we can still avoid coping the same casting information in each of the individual articles. With this though, we might need to retain the same brief character descriptions in those articles but its better than the current state.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I would format the individual articles as in the cast section of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. Maybe if the film introduces a new character (i.e. Legolas, Bard or Beorn in The Desolation of Smaug) we can add casting info, where as if the character was introduced in the previous film we'll just have a brief character summary.--2nyte (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Hobbit although three films was one production. The casting was all done together, I think it would better served here in a central location like the rest of the production info.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I can agree to that, but I think a table would be more valuable for this article - it would state which film(s) the actors/characters appeared in. We could have a note in the section saying For more casting information, see the individual film articles. Also, just a side note to your first point - I'm a massive fan of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit and I know everything about the production.--2nyte (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstand, I think we have both in this article; the table in the "Cast" section and the casting information in prose in a separate "Casting" section under the "Development" section.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, now I understand. Yes, that would be a good idea. But don't you think it would be good to have casting information on the individual film articles, or would you just prefer a separate section in this article. It is a good idea to centralise the information to this article, but size might be an issue with a lengthy casting information section. I assume a lot more content will be added when the next two films are released and the article is already long. We could just split the content up on the individual film articles--2nyte (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think one location would be preferable so readers do not have to search across different articles. Also with the nature of this film's production, there was one casting process for all three films, I doubt there will be too much more information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. How should we organise the new Casting section?. By order of casting seems logical. And where should we put the new Casting section?--2nyte (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree chronological order seems best and I would put it between development and filming.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I reworded the current casting section in prose, but it's a very basic format. Here Anyway, something like this?--2nyte (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Great job, it looks good to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

All looking good, but really, the development section should come first. Maybe move the "Cast" section down near to the "Casting section" so that there is context. Before/after/combined, I have no preference! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I okay with that as well, preferably before. Also we can start making the recommended changes to the individual articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There are NO sources for this, and presents conflicting information to the middle earth in film article. It has been reported that Elijah Wood and Ian Holm aren't in The Desolation of Smaug, and haven't been listed in the cast for it, along with Hugo Weaving, Cate Blancett, Christopher Lee, e.t.c. The sources for this table really need sorting out, otherwise many of the spaces in the table of There and Back Again and possibly The Desolation of Smaug comes out that will need to be changed to TBA or left blank. Frogkermit (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to find a reliable source for the table. Most sources still have Orlando Bloom in An Unexpected Journey even though he didn't appear in the film nor the end credits. If anyone can find a good source, please provide it.--2nyte (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Good work, people. The table with a separate casting section looks a lot better than the imposing cast list there before. The info for There and Back Again won't be accurate for a bit, but we know we'll be updated soon. --MattMauler (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Creation of The Hobbit: There and Back Again article

Although the film still has one full year until release, the hype starts now, as does the gathering of information about the new film. The hype will continue to grow, feeding the need for an article on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximusAlphus (talk • contribs) 01:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not edit the article without consensus being reached to do so. Read Talk:The_Hobbit_(film_series)/Archive_3#Articles; there is no need for an individual article as of yet.--2nyte (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

CinemaScore

The CinemaScore for "An Unexpected Journey" is incorrect. The Hollywood Reporter article cited actually says "Hobbit received an A CinemaScore from moviegoers, portending good word-of-mouth." However, it later specified "while younger moviegoers gave the epic an A+ CinemaScore." Also, this BoxOfficeMojo article also denotes that the first film received an "A" CinemaScore and that "Desolation of Smaug" has received an "A-".

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3763&p=.htm

I would have gone ahead and changed this myself, but I'm guessing it would have just been reverted, hence I am discussing it here first.

S. Luke (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As nobody has objected, and there really isn't much to object to, I have changed the article to accurately reflect the Cinemascore the first movie earned.
S. Luke (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

48 fps stuff

Hi all, this is as yet unsourced and based on my primary observations, so please bear with me until I find something which also backs this up... the 48 fps thing was maybe not the issue which gave people the reactions they did. Looking at the film stills and comparing between lotr and hobbit, the issue was in some aspect of the cinematography: either the 5k resolution, all the green screening, lighting, possibly different lenses on the cameras (? still checking that one out), or a combination of all those things. If I can find sources which draw similar conclusions that it's not the 48 fps which is to blame, how would people feel about inclusion in this article? I honestly believe the 48 fps is being blamed when that wasn't the issue. However, I realise that noteworthiness has to be considered with the encyclopaedia. Will look for articles anyway, and would be grateful on other editors thoughts on this (either the film; or the discussion of accuracy vs noteworthiness). Thank you. Shelly Pixie (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the reaction is a mixture of 48 fps and 5k resolution, but people are just focusing on/blaming the 48 fps. All HFR does is give the film a smoother movement by removing motion blur. High resolution (or high definition) gives the film a crispness and sharpness. Both can be noticed by individual viewers with various reactions resulting. I remember noticing the 5k resolution in Skyfall (which was one of the first movies to be filmed in 5k), it didn't bother me, but I could notice the higher definition from standard film in that case. On the other hand in The Hobbit (both 1 and 2, which I've seen 5+ times each in the cinemas) the high definition (which again I noticed) didn't bother me, it was only the jitteriness of the film from the 48 fps where it appeared as if the film was being sped up in some movements of characters that bothered me.
So, maybe we should elaborate on the 48 fps (high frame rate) and the 5k resolution (high definition) of the film as it's currently only a few lines. We could explain what each function does to the film and why Peter Jackson chose to use it in the The Hobbit (film series)#Technology section, and then we can elaborate a bit further on the reactions and the focus on HFR in the The Hobbit (film series)#Reaction to high frame rate section. Of course this will all need to be sourced.--2nyte (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Viggo Mortensen not offered role

This article contained the following incorrect statement, which I have removed: "In 2008, the producers asked Viggo Mortensen if he was interested in reprising the role of Aragorn, but he declined, citing the character's absence from the book and the 60-year gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings." The reference given was http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/viggo-mortensen-says-he-turned-down-the-hobbit-making-directorial-debut-with-the-horsecatcher-20130529 -- however, that article is misleading "linkbait", because it misquotes the original source article, given as http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/28/viggo-mortensen-interview -- when you go back to the actual source and compare them, you will see that the full quotation actually reads: "Was he asked to take part?" to which Viggo responds "No." He then mentions that they casually inquired about his interest at one point, but he just says basically, "I didn't understand how Aragorn could be there." That statement about a lack of understanding is being twisted in this Wikipedia article into "he declined a role," when that is not what he was saying at all. What Viggo's actually saying is, "They never formally offered me a role. Someone mentioned the idea once, and I said I didn't understand how it would be possible for my character to be there." -- Mecandes (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wording

Does anyone else think this wording is a little clumsy? there's a little too much redundancy for my taste, but I want to get everyone elses opinion too.

"Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy." Bumblebritches57 (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that everything after "third film" could be cut. Also a bit ambiguous...is it three films, or a three-part film? DonIago (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the time lapse between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

I notice an IP address has changed the time passed from 60 years to 77 years on several occasions, claiming that it is 77 in the book. I have no idea whither it is or not, but the film has a different time chronology, and in An Unexpected Journey it is said to be 60. I just thought I'd mention it as it seems to be a recurring matter and may turn into an edit war or something. Thanks - Over Hill and Under Hill (talk • contribs) 12:13, 09 February 2014 (UTC)

I could imagine that this IP is not counting to Bilbo's birthday party as the film sources do, but to the time when Frodo and Sam set out to Rivendell which happens in fact several years after Bilbo's party and his secret retreat to Rivendell. Anyhow, as we're using a source that counts until the 111th birthday, we also need to write a "60". De728631 (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Sixty is the #years that elapsed between the beginning of Bilbo's adventures and his 111th birthday, which The Fellowship of the Ring opens on. Seventeen (hence a total of 77) more elapsed before the main events of the Lord of the Rings began/Frodo+three other Hobbits set out for Rivendell. The film's time chronology is more or so irrelevant. These are all in the Appendix of The Return of the King, which holds authority. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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: not moved. The purpose of this request remains unclear. Any editor wishing to begin an article on the third film may do so, if adequate sources exist. The redirect is not edit-protected. The process of creating content for that article is subject to normal editorial choices, including WP:BRD. A discussion concerning the ripeness of the topic is perfectly germane to the article's talk page, but not a move request. Xoloz (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


The Hobbit (film series) → The Hobbit: There and Back Again – I recently logged on to a page which was formerly titled "Development of Star Wars Episode VII". AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As said above this article acts like The Lord of the Rings (film series) or Star Wars sequel trilogy and should not be moved.--2nyte (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

If I'm not mistaken, what the nominator wants is a standalone article on the third film. It could start from this version from the end of March. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, if that's what we're discussing. --BDD (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: The trailer and the film itself, along with the accompanying press coverage, are both inevitable. That's not WP:CRYSTAL at all. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 23:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why is they such urgency for an article on There and Back Again? I've even heard film reviewers on YouTube and on message boards on IMDB questioning why no article exists. Is this expected, should we leave a brief message on the article? There is simply no reason to make an article, all the information any reader would want on the film is on this article. Further more, there is no specific information on the film (marketing, or any announcements) - let's just wait until a trailer or ComicCon maybe.--2nyte (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: I agree with 2nyte. We have no hard facts about the third film except for what is already discussed in this "film series" article (cast, soundtrack, 48fps). Once we can include some new information, then we should put the article up. From a fan's perspective, I can understand the excitement and the desire to put the article up first, adding information as it is released, but I think we should keep it (that old version perhaps) in the incubator until we have new info. True, it's not WP:CRYSTAL to say that the marketing, trailer, etc. will eventually come, but we know nothing about the information they will contain or even when such things will finally appear. My opposition remains "weak" because I suppose there'd be nothing wrong with it if consensus goes that way. It would be unnecessary, but hey, there's repetitive info all over WP.--MattMauler (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2014 (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.

The Battle of the Five Armies separate article

When will there be an article on The Battle of the Five Armies? It is releasing this very year, and if 2015/2016 films already have articles, why doesn't this? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It will be created when we have more specific information about the film. Although it does release later this year, there isn't much information that pertains specifically to this film. If you look at the article history of The Desolation of Smaug, it was created relatively late as well. In the meantime, I suggest developing it at Draft:The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies for now.--TriiipleThreat (talk * comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films FL nomination) 10:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Budget

Has the budget of '$425 million' been confirmed? As I remember there begin speculative budgets of the over-all trilogy that I myself, and other editors posted around a year ago, and it was deleted from deciding that a final budget won't be known until after the final film is released, because of taking into case marketing and any other production costs, etc. So should this be mentioned? Or shall we get rid of it for a few months until we know for definite, or even have a very reliable source that the $425 million is the over-all trilogy budget? Charlr6 (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think a budget should be put up without a citation and reliable source. 2.98.162.55 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. I think if we can't find a reliable source we should better not mention the budget at all. De728631 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015

rotten tomatoes 60% (209 votes) 49.206.150.174 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015

Please change "$222,379,434" to "$236,517,000". Please change "$502,100,000" to "$545,300,000". Please change "$724,479,434" to "$781,817,000". These are the updated and most recent box office numbers for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=hobbit3.htm 142.134.97.197 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Done  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Article uses "the trilogy" without identifying LotR trilogy or Hobbit trilogy

There are several points where the article just uses "the trilogy" instead of specifically identifying which trilogy is meant. I presume much of the text was written when the first Hobbit film had yet to be released, so that "the trilogy" was understood to be the LotR trilogy. Now that the Hobbit films are also a trilogy, those references need changed.

Example: from the Development with del Toro section: For his part, Jackson had kept the Rivendell scale model and the Bag End set (which he has used as a guest house) from the trilogy.98.162.209.39 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

'voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch'

Surely with all the evidence of motion capture work describing Cumberbatch as voicing Smaug is unjust, untrue, and crude. Frogkermit (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

broken sentence or bad punctuation?

In the first paragraph describing the directorial handoff, there's the line 'and offered to help as second unit director. del Toro planned on shooting the film in the'. Either the . after director is wrong, or del Toro should be capitalized as a new line? I'm not familiar enough with the context there to make the decision SeanBrockest (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Chocolate Hobbits, Bahlsen website
  2. ^ German Hobbits come to UK as movie paves way for biscuit brand​, The Grocer, 22 September 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hobbit_(film_series)/Archive_3&oldid=1224451185"