Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is the 235-minute "full version"??[edit]

I cannot find any information elsewhere online to support the existence of a third version of this film distinct from the theatrical cut and extended edition, and I have never heard of a longer version than the extended edition (208 min.) having been created, much less made commercially available. Nowhere in the body of the article is this explained or substantiated in any way.

- 99.240.231.142 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracy Regarding the Comparison Between Book & Movie[edit]

In the section comparing the book and the movie, there was an inaccuracy. Prior, it implied that Aragorn chased after the Orcs under fear that they had taken Frodo. This is not the case; In the book, Aragorn deduces that Frodo has left by noticing that there is a missing boat and that Sam's pack is gone, and chases after the Orcs due to a compassion for Merry and Pippin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargazer7121 (talkcontribs) 18:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Followed by[edit]

does anyone know why the followed by and preceded by things arn't working for the whole trillogy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.55.160 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

They have been removied from the template; see Template talk:Infobox film#Preceded By/Followed By. Glimmer721 talk 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GOCE[edit]

  • All redirected & disambiguation links fixed. Also all navboxes
    Mlpearc powwow 03:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Country of origin of the films[edit]

United States should be listed as a country of origin of The Lord of the Rings films alongside New Zealand because they are US-New Zealand co-productions. Moreover, the American Film Institute (AFI) awards which honours the best "American" movies has included The Lord of the Rings in various best movie lists. See AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) and AFI's 10 Top 10.

--Najazjalal (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

Please list any potential sources for the article here.

Making Of The Fellowship Of The Ring Great article from Empire magazine. Count de Ville (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested multi-page move[edit]

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.ΛΧΣ21 06:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)



– Should these titles be the same in addition to "(film)", like The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film), or abandon "The Lord of the Rings"? WP:NCF did not say anything about this situation. The whole film trilogy makes bigger numbers than the original novel trilogy. However, I would not deem the film trilogy as primary topics based on usage. If moved, then the current titles must be redirected to novels. George Ho (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support the three books are also presented in this manner in some printings, so "film" should be added. In some releases of the films, "Lord of the Rings" is also de-emphasized. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment There is some debate as to whether the films are a trilogy, infact the trilogy article was moved to film series as more accurate description GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 11:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: My first instinct is to drop "The Lord of the Rings" per WP:COMMONNAME. Obviously this means the addition of "(film)", but I think it would be an improvement per WP:PRECISION. It would be less verbose, and it is still clear where the reader is located. However, I do see that the "staple" external links all write the full title. Would like to see if there are any compelling arguments in opposition of truncation. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment – How will the proposed move affect the articles for the related Hobbit films? I don't think their subtitles have permeated the popular consciousness enough for the articles to be moved to An Unexpected Journey, The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again (film), but if the Hobbit article titles have a wraparound and the Lord of the Rings ones don't, it will seem very inconsistent to readers. —Flax5 22:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You don't have to vote for shorter title; just propose an addition of "(film)" for each, and that's it. --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I fail to see any problem that this move fixes. Apteva (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is titling of live-action adaptation trilogy. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the similar result for Narnia. As Apteva says, this only makes things more difficult for readers. Use WP:NATURAL disambiguation. I'll tweak the hatnotes so the films more explicitly point to their sources. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild support of The Fellowship of the Ring (film). Current title is insanely unwieldy. Red Slash 00:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unwieldy or not, overly verbose or not, the titles are and have always been "The Lord of the Rings:~yada~." We are just the transcribers of those titles, not the creators. LOTR is, essentially, one book that Tolkien himself (and his publishers, and eventually the TV and film industries) broke up into sections to keep from going nuts due to its inherent complexities. If anything should be subordinated, it's the three parts of the trilogy (Fellowship; Two; Return). Case in point, the second edition I read as a child was, indeed, published in one book which was divided into "Parts" (a fairly common practice in the writing of longer novels back in the day). There are certainly no move(s) necessary here. I also, Support that the "(film)" suffix be added as necessary to differentiate the books (originals which need no suffixes) from the films. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose No justifiable reason for moving/changing of names of the films. -- MisterShiney 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose According to WP:TITLE, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." The vast majority of third-party reliable sources use "The Lord of the Rings" in the films' titles. Hula Hup (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an unprepared request. Have a discussion first, and then when issues and suggestions have already been on the table, and it is not already an obvious consensus, list at RM. I have no opposition to suffixing with "(film)", or even "(2001 film)" if the cartoon was considered a film, if there is a possibility of ambiguity with readers looking for the book or something else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC). Oppose removal of "The Lord of the Rings", as it is an important part of the title, and the title of the single binding of the three books. Instead, consider merging the three articles as a path to improvement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is absolutely no justifiable reason for moving or replacing the films' names. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That's what the films are called... -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2013 (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.

sound dialogues[edit]

does anyone have a proper copy of the movie the current sound is extremely bad, for instance, the dialogues are so soft one has to turn up the volume to full and then the music is so loud that we cannot watch with family due to the bad sound recording, im sure peter j knows the difference of bad sound recording

Pl let me know if i can get a copy of good recording, the current one i have is a DVD and would like to watch the movie with good and audible dialogues and not have to raise the volume every time for dialogues and turn down for music. Its very irritating

Thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.44.78.133 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

COSTS?[edit]

How much did it cost to produce? --HawkFest (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What's your address? do you want me to pop round and read the article to you? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@IdreamofJeanie: Please be civil. HawkFest, the infobox says the budget was $93 million, though the budget is not really discussed in the article body. The Lord of the Rings (film series) details the budgets a little more (since the films were produced as one). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Erik. And yes IdreamofJeanie, please do so, record your reading, format it adequatly, and post it on Youtube. A 100 times, that will teach you.. ;-P. btw I saw that info after posting the question, but I forgot to remove this post --HawkFest (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Running time[edit]

I remeber not so long ago, the infobox on the right hand side of the page used to list the running times of the theatrical release as well as the extended release. This seems to have been removed for some reason. Could we get that put back in? It's useful and relevant information. --Sauronjim (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Length of Plot Section[edit]

I just came to this page, having seen all three of the movies, to get some questions answered. I found the plot to be just the right length to include the key details of this complex story, However, I don't wish to act rashly and remove the tag suggesting the plot be shortened without getting some input. Opinions? Peacedance (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It is currently 744 words and therefore too long. Why not spend some time editing it down instead of removing tags for a problem that still exists? Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Elizium23, I appreciate that someone put the tag out there for a reason - but I am not sure precisely what it is. The suggested length for film is 400-700 words, so 744 is 6 % over; the MoS says the policy can be excepted or if "the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." The plot was difficult to understand if one hasn't caught every line of dialogue or read the books. Therefore I am trying to "Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range." On your talk page, you seem like a pleasant person but your comment above did not come across as having any interest in consensus. If I had been in agreement with you, I would have already edited the plot.Peacedance (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)