Jump to content

Talk:The Hobbit (film series)/Archive 1

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

Tolkien's son

I seriously doubt the reliability of this source; "The second will cover the 50 years between his return home and the events of The Lord of the Rings. That period is described in The Silmarillion." And Chris Tolkien has had a biography? Alientraveller (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted it more to show that Tolkien's son continues to contest the making of the films. Seems worth including if only briefly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"The Times" is most certainly reliable. Yes the Sil. does have some material in this time period. CT doesn't have a published biography, but may well have a biographer working on it. More to the point, this is still the same court case as is already reported in the article. --Davémon (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[1] Just a note, they noted CT was merely setting on a date, and it was a relative who said he was on a "crusade". Alientraveller (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

move?

Since "duology" is neither a real word, nor does it appear to be part of the official title, can we please move this to The Hobbit (del Toro)? dab (𒁳) 19:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude! Duology. Alientraveller (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The article you linked to has “dilogy” instead of “duology” in the body. Since “-logy” is greek, “duo-” is latin and “di-” is also greek, I'd probably back “dilogy” over “duology” (mixing languages, I.E. “television,” is a major no-no.) 76.126.134.152 (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Duology" is a word, it appears to be interchangable with "dilogy". (Source) Blackngold29 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But the definition on reference.com you link to is from Wikipedia! If you look on dictionary.com there is no definition for duology (Source) and dilogy means the following: (Source)
Dil"o*gy\, n.; pl. Dilogies. [L. dilogia, Gr. ?, fr. ? doubtful; di- = di`s- twice + ? to speak.] (Rhet.) An ambiguous speech; a figure in which a word is used an equivocal sense. [R.]
As the OP proposes, "duology" is not a word. Neither is "Quadrilogy" for that matter, but as it is sometimes used (in the case of the Alien films) as part of the official promotion of the series, it could be allowed. However, until we see promotional material saying "Guillermo del Toro's The Hobbit Duology" then I agree this non-word should not be used.
Also - as far as I'm aware, Television is the only word in the English language to mix Greek and Latin. Others are not allowed. Robsinden (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Got any suggestion as to what to call it then? The couplet? In any case there's a lot more Google hits for duology than dilogy. Alientraveller (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't propose dilogy - as my example above, this means something completely different. if you look up 'quadrilogy' (another invented word along the same lines as 'duology'), wikipedia reverts to the correct word - 'tetralogy'. there doesn't seem to be a word for a cycle of two movies, but I don't think that we should invent one! to my mind it is simply 'the hobbit' and an 'untitled hobbit sequel' at the moment. a pair of movies, a duet even, but please - not 'duology' the wikipedia page for duology should be deleted too - the examples on there are simply shocking. milton and homer would be turning in their graves to hear their works described as 'duologies' Robsinden (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"I hate all that stuff"

I'm not sure if the quote from Del Toro should be removed from this article (I've removed it from The Hobbit, tho), but right now it's clearly not presented in a neutral way ("Del Toro was signed to do the movie, he said he hates all that stuff"). In this chat he elaborates on that quote (search for "My question is, when Del Toro has acknowledged his disdain for Hobbits"), but I'm not sure how to adequately word the issue without taking up too much space. Any suggestions? --Conti|✉ 21:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote is presented in a completely neutral way, it makes no value judgements on the statement, or the person making it, and is completely verifiable. We could quote from the WETA interview and make sure the date and source is included and the sequence of events (i.e. quote "I hate hobbits", gets job, quote "I reread it and I liked the war bits") is clear and accurate. Note that Del Toro never says "that's a misquote" nor does he imply that he "loved hobbits" all along or anything, he's very honest. It's important that any new quotations retain this neutrality on what is clearly a sensitive subject. --Davémon (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You can make a value judgement by simply quoting the right (or wrong) words. In this case, the quote creates a rather strong impression that Del Toro doesn't like The Hobbit, especially since "I don't like sword and sorcery" was conveniently omitted. He doesn't hate hobbits, he hates sword and sorcery in general. That's probably not much better, but it's different. I don't want to say that we should remove the quote, tho, since it is relevant. And I agree that we should note that his elaboration on the quote happened after he was signed to do the movie. What about a small paragraph about the whole issue?
Del Toro was quoted in a 2006 interview as saying "I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits -- I've never been into that at all. I don't like sword and sorcery, I hate all that stuff." However, in May(?) 2008 he commented on that quote in a chat with fans: "When that statement was made (...), many a time I made the distinctive call to say that althought I had not read Tolkien outside The Hobbit I had been fascinated by the Trilogy films." and that he's "NOT a 'Sword and Sorcery' guy or a 'Fantasy' guy- By the same token, I'm not a sci-fi guy but I would make a film based on Ellison in a second- or on Sturgeon or Bradbury or Matheson."
Might be a bit long, so the "sword and sorcery" quote could be removed for brevity, I think. --Conti|✉ 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The quotes need to be placed in their proper historical context to make any sense to the general reader. The comments about willingness to adapt several science-fiction authors work or about divisions of genre isn't really about Del Toro's relationship with The Hobbit.
  • Del Toro meets PJ (2005?)
  • In a 2006 interview with Salon, Del Toro stated "I don't like little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits. I've never been into that at all. I don't like sword and sorcery, I hate all that stuff."
  • Del Toro gets job directing The Hobbit
  • In 2008 in a WETA-hosted internet-chat session, Del Toro claimed "...many a time I made the distinctive call to say that althought (sic) I had not read Tolkien outside The Hobbit, I had been fascinated by the Trilogy films."
  • Del Toro also stated "In re-reading THE HOBBIT just recently I was quite moved by discovering, through Bilbo's eyes the illusory nature of possession, the sins of hoarding and the banality of war- whether in the Western Front or at a Valley in Middle Earth."
2006 statement is a statement of opinion whilst 1st 2008 statement is an attempt to posit certain historical events. We should question Del Toro's reliability as a source, he's clearly got a versted interest in appearing to be a 'fan', and if it cannot be verified by secondary sources, we should not include it. I would prefer to use the final quote, as it's also a statement of opinion. Davémon (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
LOTR isn't Conan or He-Man or any of that stuff, so one can consider that old quote irrelevant. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither He-Man nor Conan could be described as 'little guys and dragons, hairy feet, hobbits'. The quote is verifiable and from a very reliable source and is presented in a completely neutral manner. When quizzed about it (in 2008) Del Toro does not refute it, nor claim it was taken out of context.WP:BLP is not a reason to remove the quote as given in the edit. Davémon (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that my paragraph does put the quote into the right context. Del Toro explicitly does not say that the 2006 quote was in any way wrong. Instead he explained later what he meant by that, and I think the last quote in my proposed paragraph covers that best. Davémon, would you oppose adding that paragraph to the article? --Conti|✉ 15:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So you mean to say we've removed the fact Del Toro admitted to not being a fan of Tolkien until he was an adult, bar The Hobbit? All statements must be presented. Alientraveller (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No, see my proposed paragraph above. The initial statement of him is included there. --Conti|✉ 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
All done: all the info about Del Toro only reading The Hobbit as a child and becoming an actual fan via Jackson's trilogy and befriending the director himself to the point of becoming his Irvin Kershner is in the article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine by me. --Conti|✉ 16:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
TORN and other forum posts are not generally considered reliable. Del Toro's comments really must not be presented as fact, and dates must be allocated to the statements for them to make sense. It is a fact that he said certain things at certain times, so we can say that! Try to keep it neutral. --Davémon (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well duh, he used to dislike epic fantasy but liked the Rings films and now appreciates Tolkien. And it's now in the article. Now if this is about some ridiculous old-fashioned "all forums and blogs are not allowed" rule, then that's just censorship. Filmmakers chatting in forums and having blogs is nothing new. Alientraveller (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well duh, self-promotion, advertising and propaganda aren't good sources of verifiable information. The point is that these need to be clearly sourced as such. The 'loved the hobbit as a child' misrepresented what the source actually said, and presented it as fact without putting it into proper context. --Davémon (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just hate the word "claimed". It reads fine now, and without the bizarre removal of the fact PJ and GDT met in 2005 over the Halo series. Alientraveller (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The 'Halo' dropping was a slip, it's a key event in the story. I'd really like an external source for that meeting. It's definately getting closer. Two critical points - that the chronology of events is told straight, and it's critical for NPOV that the word 'hobbit' appears in the quote. --Davémon (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interview with Guillermo del Toro

For those with time to work through it: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37428

This should be a fine source, as it's a direct interview with Guillermo del Toro and covers the Hobbit films. rootology (T) 06:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a reliable source. It's self-promotion on an unreliable, low-quality web site. --Davémon (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is a reliable source, for interviews and primary sourcing. It's no different than if del Toro gave an interview on television. Aintitcool by design looks "rough" (thats its kitsch) but it's a major Hollywood "authority" with access to half of the industry. Studios routinely fly it's authors all over the country for private screenings and interviews. Further, as director of the Hobbit films, anything del Toro says on them is fine to use. rootology (T) 13:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The website is purposely low-quality (unfortunate for presentation on Wikipedia), but it is actually very sound in terms of interviews. There's no reason that AICN's interview would be questionable; faking an interview is unheard of. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure "AintItCoolNews" is a well known organ of publicity, used by many Hollywood studios to promote their movies. This is not the same as it being a reputable news source. What I'm saying is that this is not a reliable source - to put it in the same category as a proper journalistic or academic, editorially rigorous source is just ludicrous. The idea that the studios are paying the writers travel expenses is a mark against their independence, and points to low-quality journalism, which really shouldn't be parroted by an encyclopedia. The veracity of the interview isn't really relevant. The use of what amounts to self-publicity at the worst, and trivial gossip at best, as a source for content in an encyclopedia article is a problem. --Davémon (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not think anyone disagrees with Ain't It Cool News not being the highest standard in the film industry. In my experience, we do not cite websites like AICN unless their information comes from the "lion's mouth" (as opposed to anonymous scoopers). However, I do not think it is important to question their independence when the content at hand is basic production information coming straight from the director. We are not incorporating statements from the director or the website that "This will be the greatest duology ever made!" If we can find similar detail in this AICN interview covered elsewhere, then great, we can replace it. I honestly do not find it a blight on Wikipedia if we are only including details about the pre-production process with neutral language. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You have to judge on a case-by-case basis a lot of the time. Many newspapers of repute I'd be happy to cite for a lot of things, but they wouldn't get a pass from me on others (for example, reporting a film rumour without backing it up). Aint it Cool News is the same. They're all "reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" for some things, but not others. I wouldn't quote AICN for unsourced production or casting information from an anonymous "scooper", in the same way I wouldn't quote the Los Angeles Times for parroting the same. In the area of direct cast and crew interviews, however, AICN does have that reputation for legitimate sourcing; they'd have been debunked years ago if that wasn't the case. Now, accepting that, carefully quoting direct production interviews from the site shouldn't be a problem, and no different than if we sourced an interview with del Toro from the LA Times. As long as we follow the same procedures we do when citing anything (no hyperbole, as Erik says above), then we're OK. Steve T • C 19:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
These cast and crew 'interviews' are just promotional activities, part of the public relations machines of the studio. An interview with professional journalists published in the LA or London Times is a completely different matter - questions may be tougher, more searching, more focused, and not purely trying to get the interviewee to 'talk-up' their latest project. The question of the reliability of the source isn't "is this a fake interview or not", but "is this a serious journalistic interview, or meerly a puff piece in the shape of an interview". In the case of AICN, it is obviously the latter. Treating public relations and self-promotion as a reliable source on any subject is falling far short of the standards. Just apply the same lapse of standards you are advocating to medicine, politics or military history. The editorial selection of hyperbolic vs. mundane information misses the point - the mundane isn't encyclopedia worthy either - it hasn't been published by a reliable source. --Davémon (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If the interviewee is giving across mere factual information ("I intend to shoot it in digital, with a Panasonic [X] camera"), why does it matter if it's in an otherwise promotional piece? Secondly, I find the argument that the AICN interviews are puff pieces, whereas an interview with a more mainstream newspaper or magazine is not, a little out of touch with the reality of the situation. Plenty of interviews with the mainstream press, indeed probably all in the run up to a film's release, are of the same "promotional" nature. It's how the whole industry operates; any direct cast or crew interaction is going to come with strict conditions attached, no matter who the interviewer. If we don't cite AICN, then we don't cite an interview with Empire for the exact same reasons. Steve T • C 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What Steve said. Using an interview on AICN is absolutely the same as using an interview from the New York Times, Comicbookresources.com, People, USA Today, or any number of other more "indy" media sources. If the source is known for having actual interviews (AICN and all the examples I gave are) then it's perfectly fine to use as any primary statement is. We don't hold these entertainment things to any special standard different than others. A primary source is a primary source. rootology (T) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
AICN has no editorial standards, they publish trivia and advertising as 'news'. NYT and other legitimate, reputable news sources have standards, both in terms of editorial policy, and professionalism, and they deservedly have a reputation for such. AICN doesn't. An interview in AICN is not just a "primary source" it is self-promotion. It's exactly the same as quoting advertising as "mere factual information". --Davémon (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting "advertising" (be it a poster, trailer, or in your slightly more loose interpretation, an interview) for factual information. Release dates and cast and crew information are examples of things that you might go to a trailer for. AICN's interview is a primary source, sure, and a secondary might be preferred, but doesn't something officially-sanctioned like this actually go towards the accuracy of the information? To restate, no-one wants to include a statement saying, "del Toro said his Hobbit is going to be the best film of all time", just whatever pure, uncontroversial facts might be gleaned from the interview. Unfortunately, this particular one might be a bad example, as there isn't a great deal of useful info in it, but the principal stands: AICN is a reliable source for primary information that isn't available elsewhere, or in a reliable secondary source. NYT et all are reliable secondary sources, far more so than AICN, but as primary sources there is little to chose between them. Steve T • C 08:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That is merely your own personal opinion that they have no editorial standards, and is noted. They do, but again, we're not talking about using general news articles on AICN here, we're talking about using it for interviews specifically and comments from principle creators in films. If a major Hollywood director like del Toro or Spielberg says, "We're filming exclusively with our new 'Cool Brand Cameras in IMAX format with 3D'", what exactly does it matter if it's sourced to an interview in AICON or the New York Times? AICN is a reliable source for interviews. Are they more chatty in interviews than say the London Times? Of course. So is Charlie Rose and Inside the Actors Studio and comments made on either of those are perfectly valid for sourcing. rootology (T) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't know if it is worth noting, but perhaps the layout of the website is too off-putting at first glance. Try to imagine this website with a sleeker design and understand its long history with the film industry; perhaps with that perspective, it would seem more acceptable. Unfortunately, it has a crass design on purpose, so it's easy to shun it. I also agree with Steve with the notion that the number of articles covering a film ramps up closer to its release. If we think too hard about it, we realize that all sources may write about a film because such a story would capture audiences who want to know more. Thus, these sources would favorably expand their readership. Basically, there is no "innocent" party when it comes to the intent of film coverage.

I have to say, though, I think that we are talking at each other and are not going to change any minds. In fact, we haven't even tried to see if there is any content worth implementing into the Wikipedia article or if the source could be laterally replaced with one that satisfies everyone. Just trying to offer some alternative paths out of this back-and-forth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. As I say, I was just advocating the principle of the thing. In reality, the interview contains very little that's of actual use in this article beyond a snippet or two, and if people are dead against using AICN, I can't see any harm in holding off including those couple of points until they appear elsewhere. Steve T • C 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, on the principle. The logic of excluding 'smaller' homegrown sites like AICN would ironically exclude stuff like onering.net, a major valid info source for the original trilogy. The interview having reread it is actually much for use for del Toro's own article, but there's a great quote about mimicing the original trilogy that I integrated. rootology (T) 15:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not in citation given

He compared Bilbo Baggins' loss of innocence to the soldiers who were disillusioned in World War I, and stated that he thought Smaug and Thorin Oakenshield represent greed.

This sentence has been contested as not being in the citation, so I'm initiating discussion to see if there was a misinterpretation or a citing mix-up. I've looked at the citation, and these seem to be the relevant sentences:

  • "...but the book, I believe, in echoing the 'loss of innocence' England experienced after WWI, is a passage form innocence to a darker, more somber state- The visual / thematic progression should reflect that in the camera style, color palette, textural choices, etc." -del Toro
  • "The shadow [Smaug] cast and the greed he comes to embody, the 'need to own' casts its long shadow and creates a thematic / dramatic continuity of sorts that articulates the story throughout..."
  • "In fact, Thorin's greed is a thematic extension of this and Bilbo's 'Letting go' and his noble switching of sides when the dwarves prove to be in the wrong is its conceptual counterpart (that is a hard one to get through, Bilbo's heroism is a quiet, moral one) and the thematic thread reaches its climax in the Bilbo / Thorin death bed scene."

Perhaps there needs to be a rewrite of the sentence... I think the WWI content is not quite accurate, but the theme of greed seem to be more appropriate. Feel free to weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the stupid edit summary, but I fail to see how that doesn't come across as verifiable at all. Del Toro did compare the story to Tolkien's own loss of innocence to WWI and emphasised the greed theme. Alientraveller (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it may be more accurate to refer to the book than explicitly say Bilbo Baggins -- while I don't disagree (who else could it be?), it may be considered a step too far. Davemon, with this content at hand, are there any pressing issues regarding the sentence? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's my copyedit. To elaborate, I didn't like Davemon's version as it suffered from redundancies: if this entire section is about Del Toro's direction, why does it need stuff like "plans to", "he thought", "he considered that" etc. "Del Toro on directing prequels to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies" was also informal and far too vague. Alientraveller (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Del Toro hasn't done anything yet, so yes, he "plans to", not "he feels" and such wishy-washy nonsense. Also, we're reporting the opinions of a primary source, these must be put forward with the proper attribution - meaning we state it as being an opinion - not putting it forward as 'fact', so these need to be qualified. I can see no mention of Tolkiens service record being made by Del toro, so the comparison is made up (unless I missed it). --Davémon (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Further copyedit. At the end of the day, this is all Del Toro's opinion of the novel. Alientraveller (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Del Toro is a film director, not a literature critic. When he says The Hobbit he could be meaning "my understanding of the book" or "my current planned version of the film" - these are not the same thing. This is especially the case when he is describing themes. As the section is "Direction", not "Del Toro's opinions of the book", we should really expect it to discuss that.Davémon (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

I don't get how they're making a sequel of the Hobbit. How is that going to work in regard to canon??? 68.50.107.144 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remember this is not a forum for general discussion. Just go read the books: there's plenty of story within in the sixty years between the book and the trilogy to make another film. Alientraveller (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE on structuring of films

wasnt sure how to categorize this in the page so if sum1 could do it the way they see fit for me i would apprecate it

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/10/07/hobbit-films-will-be-one-continuous-journey-promises-guillermo-del-toro/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.188.44 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


that seems fine thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.188.44 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Ordesky?

I know, Ordesky will be involved, but isn't PJ a producer of the movies? Why isn't he in the list of producers? --62.168.170.155 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

John Howe's Smaug

The article does not how much Del Toro loves dragons and how much attention he shall lavish upon Smaug. As cited, his vision of Smaug is "encaspulated" by Howe's illustrations and like he said, it doesn't have a "simian" mouth. I know it's very early, but this article is unique because the production will be notable regardless if it gets made or not. If no one objects I shall add one. Alientraveller (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Film 1 not delayed to 2012

So says Guillermo; http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2008/12/19/30806-rumors-abound-hobbit-delayed-until-2012/ Alientraveller (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Music

Any word on who is composing the score? I hope to god that they use the same score as the original trilogy. 210.50.99.100 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

duology

I remember this page once called the films "The Hobbit film duology. Why has the word "duology" been removed since then? What's wrong with it, especially in light of the Lord of the Rings films always being called "the Lord of the Rings trilogy"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

See the top section under “move?”, “duology” isn't a real word, and we here at Wikipedia must be careful not to poison the English language with original neologisms, especially linguistic miscegenations like that. 72.235.10.142 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I find that argument highly dubious since it requires that English is a prescribed language with a central clearing house for words (like German or French), which it isn't. Google Books Google News Google Scholar ; the word is used in literally hundreds of descriptions for books in reputable journals and newspapers. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit has been settled

Could someone add something on the following to the article?

Probably more details out there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

2 Films

In the article at the top:

comparing the hobbit to kill bill is almost sickening.. comparing one of the greatest writers of all time to some kiddie slasher flik???? can someone please fix that.. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.88.182 (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"The first film would adapts most The Hobbit, while the second finishes the book and in its latter part fills in the gap between it and The Lord of the Rings itself."

???

The statement of Del Toro being:

"[...] we are thinking of the TWO INSTALLMENTS as parts of a single NARRATIVE. That's why I keep putting down the use of a "bridge" film (posited initially). I think the concept as such is not relevant anymore. I believe that the narrative and characters are rich enough to fit in TWO films." - Del Toro [[2]]

So there will be neither bridge nor gap, and the two films will represent the storyline of The Hobbit only.

Took the liberty of removing above line from the article, hope that's fine.

xymx 77.119.56.47 (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

2012 omg!

Please don't create articels on nonexistant films!

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball!

  • If you don't like the article, take it to WP:AFD - don't just redirect it. I agree it doesn't meet the normal requirements for a future film article, but I think it could be defended on the ground that the material is well sourced and the degree of public interest makes it notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that this article is justified because of the depth of material about the history of the project. Also, WP:CRYSTAL says, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Normally, I would prefer to merge this to a section of a broader article, but this is too dense to merge. It could possibly be edited to be less like a film article and more like an article about a planned project and the related events. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Since it is now the director's intention to make this a singular film expanded over two parts, the title of this article should reflect this sentiment. For example, the Kill Bill article is not entitled Kill Bill films.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore The Hobbit films suggests that this article is about every adaptation of The Hobbit on film.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is fine, but you're not making any suggestion. The Hobbit (2011 film) or The Hobbit (2012 film), The Hobbit (film)? What are you suggesting it is moved to? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping that could be agreed upon here with input from other editors. The Hobbit (2011 film) is a reasonible suggestion (as it corresponds to the first release date). -TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support. Doniago (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
According to Variety the first part is currently scheduled to be released in December 2011. If this does change as films often do, then we can simply move it to The Hobbit (2012 film) or The Hobbit (2013 film). -TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - When I wrote the above I wasn't very concise. Based on the fact that The Hobbit (film) points here anyway, I think that as per WP:NCF and WP:PT we can move this page to The Hobbit (film) without the need to add the year. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I think The Hobbit (2011 film) is more precise and doesn't make the The Hobbit (1977 film) feel any less notable per WP:NPOV. However I would support a move to The Hobbit (film) if that is the concensus here, i.e. its better than The Hobbit films. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes - I feel a little sorry for the 1977 film too, but assumed that it had already been decided that this was the primary topic. In which case, I support changing the The Hobbit (film) to a disambiguation page, showing The Hobbit (1977 film) and this film (entitled The Hobbit (2011 film)). Rob Sinden (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah - scrap that as per WP:TV-NC, it states the following:
  • For Made-for-TV movies whose names conflict with other uses, but do not conflict with other films, use (film) (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films))
  • For Made-for-TV movies whose names conflict with other films, use (year film), where year corresponds to the year in which the film first aired on TV (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films))
Therefore, as per naming conventions, I think this page should just be The Hobbit (film). Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2009

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to The Hobbit (2011 film). Consensus was to move the issue was to what. We already have one film listed in the dab page, so moving this to The Hobbit (film) does not seem right. One point that was missed in this discussion was the very early name which was The Hobbit film duology which might in hindsight be the solution if renamed to The Hobbit (film duology). So for now, this seems to be the best solution. If the earlier film is renamed. this can be revised, but at that time The Hobbit (film duology) should be strongly considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Hobbit films → The Hobbit (film) — The film is intended to be a singular film with multiple parts and name was agreed upon in disscussion. TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose (A) there are several films called "The Hobbit" , such as the one from the 70's, per film naming conventions, they are to be distinguished by date, so the requested name does not comply. (B) there's more than one film discussed here, "The Lord of the Rings" is also conceived as a single film split into three, but that article is not at The Lord of the Rings (film), it is at The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (C) "The Hobbit (film)" should be a dab page because of multiple films. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It depends on how you interpret the naming conventions for TV movies. Please see my posts above and see what you think. We can go either way with it. In any case, I'm sure you support a move as per NC, just maybe not the proposed move. (Incidentally, are there really "several" films called The Hobbit? Or just the 1977 TV movie and this one?). You may also be interested to learn that at the moment, The Hobbit (film) points to this page. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Response to (A) see above discussion as name was chosen per WP:TV-NC as the 1970's film is made for tv movie which leaves this open to The Hobbit (film). (B) This is a single film with multiple parts more like Kill Bill not The Lord of the Rings which is name given to a trilogy of three different films; The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. (C) Again this a singular film, also The Hobbit films should be the dab page becuase the name better fits all adapations of The Hobbit on film not just the Del Torro film. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that point (A) is open to interpretation regarding TV movies (I've changed my mind back and forth on this point), so maybe to keep everything simple and everyone happy, we should go with the option of the year. Of course, until release date is set, can't be 100% sure of the correct year. It maybe when the films are released they will have an extended title, so the year might not prove necessary. But for the time being, to satisfy WP:NCF, we need to change to something.
With regard to point (C), it all depends on your point of view as to whether this should be seen as one film in two parts, or two entries in the same series. If the former, then only one page needed: This one (with a new name). If the latter, then we need three The Hobbit (film series), The Hobbit part one and The Hobbit part two or whatever the films end up being called. How do we satisfy WP:NCF and everybody else. Or should we wait until the film is close to being released before making a decision? For the meantime, we need to change this page to satisfy WP:NCF. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Duology" should be avoided

Just a couple of comments regarding Vegaswikian's suggestion of The Hobbit (film duology).

  1. Falls foul of WP:NCF which states that Name of film (film series) should always be used except in the case (sometimes) of trilogies.
  2. There is contention (see above) as to whether "duology" is actually a word.

Unless this is marketed as The Hobbit Film Duology by the producers, and it becomes part of the official title, then I think that use of "duology" should strongly be avoided to avert any controversy.

Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good name for the page as was originally suggested and should only be moved again if the release of the film is changed to a different year or the title itself changes. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sentence out of place

I recommend that the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Direction page be changed. "The Elves will also be less solemn.[16]" As it stands, it is a single sentence tacked on to a paragraph that doesn't mention the idea before. 24.158.30.63 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Preceded by..."

...I'm not sure what we should put in that place, but it sure isn't "The Return of the King". HighbulpIII (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


You're right HighbulpIII, The Fellowship of the Ring is preceded by The Hobbit instead. Just as the article describes, the second The Hobbit movie will be a bridge between The Hobbit and The Fellowship (The Hobbit was only one book, though). Dear people, I am changing this line to 'Followed by The Fellowship of the Ring '. [User:Paddotk|Paddotk]] (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2010 (GMT)

Actually i think preceded by or followed by is done according to the film productions, not the timeline of story. Gman124 talk 22:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Bilbo Baggins Revealed!

Hi everyone. I just wanted to bring to the attention of the author[s] that a new piece of information may be added to the "Cast" portioin of the article. The role of Bilbo Baggins has been confirmed at: <http://the-hobbit-movie.com/2009/04/01/rowan-atkinson-lands-bilbo-baggins-role/> and is to be played by actor Rowan Atkinson. Since I am new to the Wikipedia authorship scene, I gladly leave the installation of this new information to the author[s] of this article. Hope this helps. Veritasopedia (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an April Fool from last year! Rob Sinden (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh.  :( You're right!  :( I'm so disappointed! I apologize for the false alarm. I was so excited that I didn't carefully read the comments below the article which revealed the hoax. Hopefully, the true cast will be revealed soon. Keep up the good work!  :) Veritasopedia (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – No clear evidence yet on the release date. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


The Hobbit (2011 film) → The Hobbit (2012 film) — The film is now stated to be released begining in 2012. The Hobbit (2012 film) points here anyway so I suggest a move over redirect. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

When disambiguating films of the same name, add the year of its first public release (this excludes film festival screenings). Where a film does not screen outside of film festivals, use the year of its first festival screening. For examples of disambiguating, see Titanic (1943 film), Titanic (1953 film), and Titanic (1997 film).
Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Really 2 parts or simply 2 different films?

According to this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8573948.stm), published a few hours ago by BBC News, only the first film will be based on The Hobbit. The second is referred to merely as a "proposed sequel", not a second part, and the plot of the second film is described as being "an original story focusing on the 60 years between the book and the beginning of the Rings trilogy." What does everyone make of this? It seems to infer that The Hobbit will not really be a two part film as this article describes, and that the second film isn't set in stone nor really based on the book. —divus 14:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I also saw that BBC article, but I think it's a case of the journalist not having up to date facts. If I recall correctly, this was the original plan, which was then changed. There are various references on the article to this. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yea, I knew originally they were planning one film but decided to split it into two parts, but then I saw this article and thought that maybe that plan had fallen through; this is after all the most recent news story I've seen in the major press in a while. —divus 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree Rob Sinden's take, sounds like the journalist is reporting old news. If this is true I'm sure more reports will follow. There is no rush. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

the hobbit well be in 3d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.124.70 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

the hobbit in 3d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.241.28 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WSJ reports December 2013 date for hobbit

We should probably wait to see if other sources back this up, but in an article about a Warner Brothers/IMAX deal, The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that The Hobbit is to be released in December 2013. The full text of the article is behind a paywall but the first part, including the Hobbit bit, can be seen here.The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Heres another source [3]. The next obvious questions is, should we begin discussions to open another requested move discussion? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should wait for a few more sources, and also confirmation whether it is Part 1 or Part 2 coming out in December 2013, but yeah - I guess there will be a move due on the back of this. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah - I see someone moved it anyway, ignoring any discussions we were having here... Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the page back while we discuss it... Rob Sinden (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Here we go - 2012 - [4] & [5] Rob Sinden (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

2011 film

If the first part doesn't come out until 2012, how, pray tell, is this a 2011 film? Zazaban (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See above discussion. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Change in focus

As this film has yet to enter production and with its current status unknown, it is best not to treat this as a film article but rather an article about the project progress. There are enough reliable sources here to meet WP:GNG but it still fails WP:NFF. A similar appraoch is currently being tried out at The Avengers film project.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

preparations for direction

This whole section is written as though Del Toro is still directing. john k (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hobbit director Del Toro quits

Hobbit director Del Toro quits: "Guillermo Del Toro has quit as director of the two The Hobbit movies, but will still help write the screenplays for the Lord of the Rings prequels."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/3758073/Hobbit-director-Del-Toro-quits

Page will be needing an edit sometime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.84.1.71 (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


It seems to me that based on Del Toro leaving the project, the whole of the "direction" section should be deleted and redone to reflect Jackson's vision for the film...Bradby (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted? No, just updated.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Should be changed to past tense for that director now. Gman124 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Jackson as director?

Many websites like MTV have claimed that Peter Jackson had signed to direct the films. Is this true? If so, add it to the article. A New Zealand website explains

Jackson signs Hobbit deal report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.187.119 (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'Reflist' bug

The Reference list is not showing, even when there is a reflist cite on it already. Someone fix this as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.181.97 (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Del Toro's departure

The second para of this section details the union troubles the film has recently had (October 2010). But while it cites a news source, what it in fact does is essentially steal that source, that is, it doesn't so much quote from the source as reproduce large chunks of it verbatim. The article is attributed to Will Leitch; how will he feel about having his work stolen and posted to Wikipedia? Needs to be re-written to avoid charge of theft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonemacduff (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In production soon!

I don't know how much is in the article, but I've found some new sources. Will start production in February (2011?). Sources:

--Glimmer721 talk 19:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Appreciate it. − Jhenderson 777 21:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
There is still some turmoil, as evidenced here. While there is a greenlight, things are far from settled. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If it ever does come out, we're going to have to have a whole article on how the movie actually got to be made, and then have a separate one for each movie! I haven't gotten my hopes up yet. --Glimmer721 talk 21:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Hobbit is a rather ridiculous childrens' novel and they want to make it less like a fairytale and more like the LOTR series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.63.117 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Main cast confirmed

Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Richard Armitage as Thorin. Australian actor Stephen Hunter as Bombur. New Zealand actors John Callen and Peter Hambleton and Oin and Gloin. British actors Aidan Turner and Rob Kazinsky as Fili and Kili. Graham McTavish as Dwalin. [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Page Title

The Hobbit film project seems a bit strange. Why not take precedent from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (also a book made into a two part film) and just name it The Hobbit (film)? Then just explain that it will be cut into two parts (which the article already does). Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See #Change in focus, there are a number of measures being employed here to distinguish this as an article on a planned film's progress and not a film article. There are none of the usual film identifiers such as the name, infobox and categories. Once filming begins the article can be restructured and moved to the more appropriate namespace.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This movie should have been completed 5 years ago

the article doesnt explain enough about why in the world it has taken them so many years since the release of "return of the king" to get started on this movie. there is obviously a huge fan base for this series and this genere in general. Im still puzzled as to why there hasnt been a flood of movies in this genere made by other writers and directionrs, to come out when everyone saw their popularity and much money they make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for bashing. End of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.103.203 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it a forum for telling you to go screw, Mr. Cranky? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.84 (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
"Bashing" is putting it a little strongly. The comment seems reasonable and does make a specific, good-faith criticism of the article. (For the record, IP 86.165.103.203 removed this section; I restored it and advised them against doing so again.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I really think this can only be answered when the DVD bonus material is released and Jackson reveals the production details. (Me) (Talk to me) 00:47, 14 June 2011

While making a valid point in his first sentence the rest of the comment " there is obviously a huge fan base for this series and this genere in general. Im still puzzled as to why there hasnt been a flood of movies in this genere made by other writers and directionrs, to come out when everyone saw their popularity and much money they make." Is clearly just a fan of a genre complaining that he doesn't see more movies like this that he loves, which is exactly something you would see in a forum,its irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.7.203 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Still Two Films?

Since Jackson replaced Del Toro, has there been any mention of if they're still going with the two movie apporach, and if it'll still be split in half the way Del Toro wanted, or if they'd maybe go back to Jackson's original concept of a "bridge" film? The Great Morgil (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the current news is that it will be two movies, no talk of a bridge film. The One Ring.net Hobbit Movie FAQ --Msilverstar (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there any possibility of more movies in the LOTR universe? Maybe The Silmarillion?108.23.147.17 (talk)

Christopher Lee

- In an interview with Rushprint.no Christopher Lee has also expressed interest in playing the voice of Smaug.

Please do not remove this from the talk page as well..... this interview was performed by rushprint.no and reported on TheOneRing.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.32.210 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thranduil

Deadline said in October that David Tennant is in talks for a part, but didn't specify which one. Then a few months later after much fan speculation, "Thranduil" was added on IMDb for Tennant and now everyone seems to be repeating it. Is there a reliable source? If not, it shouldn't be here... --Tabya (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/01/11/41641-david-tennant-joins-the-hobbit/ The cited source seems to confirm Thranduil. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"[...] David Tennant is once again being mentioned as possibly playing Thranduil [...]". That sounds to me like they are just repeating rumours. No source mentioned at all. --Tabya (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a297333/david-tennant-joins-the-hobbit.html “David Tennant has been linked to the role of Thranduil the Elvenking in the forthcoming Hobbit movie." plus the table has him down for "in talks". Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Official Website

The Official Website that is linked to the article doesn't look like an Official Website at all. Please take a look at it and comment below. Planning to remove it but I need a consensus. Vinayaka Halemane (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The site doesn't claim to be official, merely the "number one Hobbit fansite on facebook". I believe that fansites are largely discouraged by the guidelines on external links.
I also note that the current state of the "External links" section was due to this 15 Feb edit, which removed all but said fansite. While I'm not suggesting all the links should be restored, it does seem that the IMDb links and the Official Movie Blog might be candidates for reinclusion. --88.104.39.55 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fansite removed. IMDB added. thehobbitblog.com not added because it appears to be the official blog for the defunct Del Toro version of The Hobbit. It has not been updated since 2008. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

thehobbitblog.com has been updated. They have also put promo-photos of PJ. The administrator has commented in one of blog's posts - 'Our apologies. We needed to upgrade the infrastructure for the site as the old version was no longer being supported' (answering the question of deleting old accounts). Seems like the blog is now official one. And here are the whois results. --Floydgeo (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Saoirse Ronan

Has Saoirse Ronan been confirmed as A) Itaril, B) being in the films at all? --79.68.237.87 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no. She hasn't even been approached about it. She's just heard that Peter Jackson's adding extra roles. Link. DarthBotto talk•cont 01:36, 04 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move I

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per unanimous consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit (film project) → The Hobbit (2012 film) — The project page is now ready to be moved to the film name space with the start of principal photography in accordance with WP:NFF. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Part 1 will be in 2012, but what about Part 2? Will it have a separate article? Glimmer721 talk 14:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
As of now no, it is a singular film released in two separate parts similar to Kill Bill. As far as the name space is concerned we should go with the earliest release year.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Support & Suggestion - As per nomination and Shift to The Hobbit (film) instead, that page is currently a redirect.KiasuKiasiMan 14:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that The Hobbit (1977 film) exists and naming this page The Hobbit (film) conflicts with the notability of that article per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - as per WP:NFF. Filming has commenced. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - as per WP:NFF for The Hobbit (2012 film), including year so as not to conflict with 1977 film. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - for obvious reasons already being stated. It having two parts right now is in no concern just yet. Kill Bill, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn are examples of that. Jhenderson 777 20:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Follow precedents set by these films.Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Hobbit

I think this article has become very unbalanced: the parts about Del Toro, who has no involvement in the project anymore are huge. Isn't it a bit strange that we have longer sections about Del Toro's interpretation, than the interpretation of the current director. It doesn't stop with those sections: in another part (like Structure) Del Toro get's more mentioning then nescesary. I'm not suggesting deleting valid information of course: I just don't think it belongs (as big as now) on this particular page. Perhaps it could be moved to a new page for 'the history of the film-project' or something like that. -87.209.91.20 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Del Torro worked on developing the project for over two years, Jackson only resumed control five months ago. The problem is without a reliable source telling us, we have no idea what parts of Del Torro's development Jackson scraped upon his return. Furthermore Del Torro's work on the project is still a part of the project's history therefore is still valid. However if the production section becomes too large, it can be split into its own article, similar to Production of Watchmen.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Two different articles, one page?

For some reason [11] and [12] appear to be two different (although very similar) articles. Why? --86.162.98.14 (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit Film is not a created page. Did you mean something else?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Added character descriptions

I took the time to write character descriptions for the cast so far, but a lot of the information has been taken from the casting section toward the bottom. There are a lot of links that are identical in both sections. As much of the information is identical, I think that the casting section is obsolete now, but I don't want to delete it just yet because some of the citations could be lost as they are linked to ones in the top section. Could someone please help with double checking and transferring links from the casting section to the cast list?TheLastAmigo (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Overlap with Cast and Casting sections

Much of the Casting section is repeating information the reader has already been told in Cast; in some cases (Sylvester McCoy, Christopher Lee), for several sentences. I'd urge the editors of this article to choose one section for the content. Personally, I'd suggest keeping the descriptions in Cast purely about the characters, and leaving the hiring and firing and background on actors for Casting. Skomorokh 21:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this in my above post. I am asking for help in moving links in the Casting section. I spent about 5-6 hours over two days filling out the cast list. I'm aware that much of the information in both sections are the same, but some of the links are only in the bottom section and removing them would cause a bunch of dead links to occur. I did this because think that the Casting section at the bottom is 1) disorganized, 2) confusing, and 3) out of date in some circumstances. I simply organized the information in the casting section and added it to the character descriptions. If you look at similar movie pages (ie. ones that are deemed to be of Good Article status quality), you will see that the layout and nature of information is identical. Clearly both sections do not need to exist. I say get rid of the Casting section and just keep the Cast list.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

how do you edit a pages title

  • as i edited the dates in the info box to dec. 2012 and dec. 2013 i tried to edit the title of the page to say The Hobbit (2012/2013 film) but i couldnt find out how to do it.... shouldnt the page say 2012/2013 film? the intro section on the film page for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows lists it as a 2010/2011 film 03:06, 5 May 2011 User:96.28.64.94
The title is fine how it is. I would recommend that you study grammar and Wiki coding before you make many edits on Wikipedia. We want to keep the site looking as professional as possible, as sometimes it can look like crap (no offense, just giving advice). --Arkatox (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

confirmed subtitles

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=78224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.64.94 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move II

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Note that this was a title that received consensus for another move less then 3 months ago. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit (2012 film) → The Hobbit film duology – Since we now have two confirmed titles (neither of which is "Part 1" or "Part 2", as is the case with films such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or Kill Bill), I believe that the title of the page is no longer appropriate. I suggest that we change the title to "The Hobbit film duology" to fit alongside the page "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy". I also suggest starting new articles for each individual film sometime in the near future, as each of the films in The Lord of the Rings trilogy have their own pages, as well as Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (and The Matrix Reloaded / The Matrix Revolutions), which were also shot back to back and shared one continuous plot.TheLastAmigo (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. "Duology" is not a real word. However, there should be a debate as to whether we should have individual pages for each film. If there is support for this, it would cause a problem with what to do here, as traditionally Wikipedia does not have "film series" articles for series with two entries (and there will be debate as to whether two entries constitute a series). Given the vast amount of information here, there could well be support for an exception in this case. If this was to happen, then I think that I favour The Hobbit (film series) as per WP:NCF for now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, there is at least once instance that I know of in which the word "duology" is used in reference to a series of two on Wikipedia (The Hand of Thrawn duology), but I can see your point that it is not a "real word," although it is a word that is often used to describe a series of two. That said, would it be better to merge this page with The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and re-name that page The Lord of the Rings (film series) in order to avoid having two series within the same franchise having separate pages? After all, the Star Wars original and prequel trilogies don't have separate pages. That option might help get around the problem of creating separate pages for An Unexpected Journey and There and Back Again and having a "film series" page for two movies.TheLastAmigo (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as well. I think it would be better to follow the example that the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows films are setting. See Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1. There was consensus to split the two-part film article into two articles for each part of the film. Since production will overlap in part (filming but not post-production), we could have a sub-article that provides the details for both films. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment perhaps there should be a LOTR/H "film universe" article to cover it? While each Hobbit film will get a regular film article. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; parallelism with the LotR trilogy article. Oppose individual articles until such time as there is significant information that differs between the two films (namely release schedule, reception, and box office performance). Powers T 14:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Whilst I respect your opinion regarding parallelism, do you really support a move to "duology" or just the move in principle? We really shouldn't be using the word "duology", which isn't a proper word, but the accepted disambiguation at WP:NCF of "film series". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      • After reading your arguments, I feel that you have a valid point and I no longer support my original motion to use the word "duology". I am actually more in favor of merging some of the information into The Lord of the Rings film trilogy article and creating separate pages for the two films. But I also feel that Powers makes a valid argument that we should hold off on doing so until there is a significant amount of information available. My main concern is the use of the title The Hobbit (2012 film) as it does not reflect both films, which now have completely different subtitles. I am contemplating a request to change the name of the article to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and creating a section at the bottom of the page for There and Back Again, which can get its own separate article when more information becomes available.TheLastAmigo (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
        • This seems reasonable for the time being. It does look like there would be support for the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows route eventually, so this would be a good place to start. Whether any information is added at The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, and that is moved to a "film series" article would need to gather consensus, but this also seems reasonable to me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - although I think "film series" is a better term than "duology", even if it is atypical of usual Wikipedia practice. This is an unusually notably 2 part film series. As for waiting until there is more information that differs between the two films, they already have release schedules in the US at least. I am not sure waiting any longer serves much purpose. Rlendog (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that the main issue of waiting is because we have no idea where the split is going to occur, which would affect which actors would be listed, as well as the plot summary. If the split occurs before the party is captured by the Mirkwood elves, then Lee Pace and Orlando Bloom wouldn't need to be listed on the cast list. Also, will the White Council's attack on Dol Goldur occur in the first film, the second film, or be spread between the two films? This affects which cast list Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, and Sylvester McCoy should be listed in. Will Andy Serkis be in only the first film? This information might be revealed later on, but we might not even know until after the first film comes out. If we hold off on creating a page for the second film but create a section at the bottom of the page for the first film for it, this would help to overcome these issues until more information becomes available in the future.TheLastAmigo (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "Duology" is one of those useful neologisms for which there's really no alternative. Two films is not a "series". Powers T 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, that's not strictly true now is it? There's no reason why you can't have a series with two entries. "Duology" is a clumsy made-up word along the lines of "quadrilogy". We really shouldn't be using this "neologism" - we should find a way to use a more neutral term. As you can see - many editors including myself are objecting to "duology" - therefore the most sensible option (if this is the decision we come to) is to use "film series", which also follows WP:NCF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: The Hobbit film duology is an arbitrary name, I suggest leave it as is or split between The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again similarly to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 with the sub-article Production of The Hobbit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the article should be split between the two films and also agree with the sub-article idea, but I also think that there should be an article for the entire franchise. Would anyone be opposed to someone creating an article that takes material from this article and the Lord of the Rings film trilogy article that covers the entire franchise? Or should The Hobbit films and the Lord of the Rings trilogy be treated as two separate franchises? I would be willing to undertake this project or collaborate with someone on it.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Duology" is a neologism that does not follow the Greek form of "trilogy" and is not generally accepted. That said, I agree that as it is more than one film it should not be disambiguated as "(2012 film)". Perhaps "The Hobbit (film series)" or something. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I do feel that in the future we are going to split the article to the parts much like I demonstrated with HP7 part one and two while creating a publication article of the film (which would make a good one by the way). I think it might be a healthy alternative to upcoming two part films like this one and the next Twilight film(s). Jhenderson 777 23:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging The Hobbit (series) with LotR trilogy

Transplanted from Move discussion above Mildly MadTC 18:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I agree that the article should be split between the two films and also agree with the sub-article idea, but I also think that there should be an article for the entire franchise. Would anyone be opposed to someone creating an article that takes material from this article and the Lord of the Rings film trilogy article that covers the entire franchise? Or should The Hobbit films and the Lord of the Rings trilogy be treated as two separate franchises? I would be willing to undertake this project or collaborate with someone on it.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly seem to have some merit to have an over-arching article for all five films - comparisons of box-office, casts, crews, etc, etc spring to mind. But I'm not necessarily against merging two series articles, as I wonder whether we're going to end up with too many articles essentially on the same subject. Looking at it, I guess Star Wars maybe the format to follow. Now - what do we call it? I think the way most people are going is something like this (titles subject to debate!):
  • (the three individual LOTR films)
--Rob Sinden (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I like this format, although I am not sure that there is a need for both a "trilogy" and a "film series" page for LOTR. I think that all we need is a film series page that covers both the LOTR trilogy and The Hobbit "duology" (sorry for the wording, lol). I think it should be like what you outlined, but remove the trilogy and Hobbit (film series) pages and just have one all encompassing film series page that covers all 5 films.TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll paraphrase my comment at Talk:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy here--I think it's very appropriate for the trilogy to have its own page, because it represents a single contiguous production effort/film project--keeping it in its own page allows the article to generalize about the trilogy as a whole, without having to exclude The Hobbit films--having a "(film series)" article without a "(trilogy)" article would result in far too many clumsy writing situations. Mildly MadTC 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem adding to the trilogy article. Talk about The Hobbit started almost immediately after everything was completed on the trilogy and the lawsuit Peter Jackson filed against New Line Cinema over proceeds from the trilogy was one of the earliest causes for delays on production of The Hobbit and prompted CEO Robert Shaye to announce that Jackson would never direct another film for New Line ever again. The story of the production of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is interconnected. You could even say that the story of The Hobbit is a continuation/extension of the story of The Lord of the Rings.TheLastAmigo (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that they are still two separate (albeit related) projects. Yes, there are of course going to be many overlaps and connections, but there is/will be just as much, if not more information exclusive to either the Hobbit series or the LotR trilogy, such as The Lord of the Rings film trilogy#Development, that would be presented in a very haphazard manner (i.e. jumping back and forth between Hobbit and LotR) if the articles were to be completely merged. Further, I would venture a guess that most sources (at least currently) do not discuss the combined franchise--merging the articles would probably lead to a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYN being introduced. Mildly MadTC 18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that there is a way to continue the article without damaging its integrity. We could easily begin a 7th section covering The Hobbit development after the Post-Production section of LOTR. We wouldn't even need to touch any of the LOTR information except in the "Releases," "Home Media," and "Reception" sections, and even then we wouldn't change anything except to add Hobbit info. And adding that info would not damage the integrity of LOTR. We could even have separate cast lists where applicable if we needed to.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning that the Lord of the Rings films and The Hobbit films are more closely related than the two Star Wars trilogies, yet the latter share a common article. I don't see why we can't follow that method here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps there is some validity in creating a "film series" page separate from The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. I say this because it just occurred to me that "The Lord of the Rings film series" would constitute more than just Peter Jackson's 5 films, but would also include the Rankin/Bass films The Hobbit (1977) and The Return of the King (1980), and Ralph Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings (1978). We would also need to cover failed attempts at filming The Lord of the Rings, such as the 1950s attempt by Forrest J. Ackerman, United Artist's attempt in the 1960s starring the Beatles and directed by Stanley Kubrick, and UA's second failed attempt by John Boorman in the 1970s. I also recall that UA tried to adapt The Hobbit in the 1970s, but after many failed attempts ended up selling all their rights to Tolkien's work to Saul Zaentz (I need to research this a little better, though). So therefore, it would need to look something more like this...
  • Past failed attempts
  • Animated films
Does anyone agree? Disagree? TheLastAmigo (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea really - and there would be room to compare the cast lists etc. Not sure if The Lord of the Rings (film series) is quite right for this article though, when you consider titles like Batman in film, Superman in film, etc., which take a similar form to what you propose. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, The Lord of the Rings in film might be a good article to write (note that we already have Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings). I think Amigo's proposed structure is preferable to merging the Trilogy and Hobbit articles. Perhaps it would help to clarify things if we re-frame this discussion in terms of notability (i.e. which topics deserve a devoted article):
  • "LotR Trilogy" and "Hobbit Series" are definitely independently notable (lots of sources that discuss one or the other)
  • "LotR/Middle Earth in film" is probably notable, but fits nicely in to "Adaptions" (can fork if there gets to be too much content there)
  • "LotR (Peter Jackson franchise)" IMO is of questionable notability (doubtful there are many sources that discuss the franchise as a whole--at least for the time being)
We're getting towards consensus, yay! Mildly MadTC 17:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that Middle-earth in film is the best route because The Hobbit is not part of The Lord of the Rings, but both are part of a Middle-earth "franchise". It should be noted that the events of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings both make up the fictional Red Book of Westmarch, but I think that we should not go that route at all because most casual film-goers would not have any idea what that is, only the most dedicated LOTR fans, lol.TheLastAmigo (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This all seems fairly sensible - maybe Middle Earth in film is the most appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I support Middle Earth in film as the choice of title for the umbrella article and the basic three tier approach put forward by Last Amigo above. Maybe the Lord of the Rings film trilogy should be moved to Lord of the Rings (film series) to be consistent with film article naming guidelines too, but I guess that can be discussed another time. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this was briefly discussed over at the film project a couple of months ago, and the above approach is more or less identical to what was suggested there: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_35#The_Hobbit. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As Mildly Mad says, we do seem to be approaching consensus here. Which is nice :) I also prefer using "film series" over "trilogy" at all times, but WP:NCF is (purposely?) vague as to the use of trilogy. I don't like it personally - as you say, it's more consistent to use "film series" in all cases. Too many times "trilogy" is used to describe any series of three films, but I'm not going to complain about The Lord of the Rings - in this case it is a bona fide film trilogy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and perhaps we should consider moving Template:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy to Template:Middle Earth in film too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is really something that should be done when both Hobbit films are completed.Sir Brightypup II 03:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hobbit_(film_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1137234977"