Talk:The Hobbit (film series)
Dudes, this is awesome news! Dwarf lord
Hyarion wrote: "Unfortunately due to disputes between the distributing rights and the filming rights progress is slow." Is this correctly worded? It reads rather odd! --Earendilyon 13:42, 1 September 2006 (EDT)
- It sounds better if we add a few commas in there: "Unfortunately, due to disputes between the distributing rights and the filming rights, progress is slow." --Narfil Palùrfalas 16:03, 1 September 2006 (EDT)
PJ not doing The Hobbit? At least we'll be spared of his revisionism. Sorry, Ringers! Rog 16:06, 20 November 2006 (EST)
- Peter Jackson was actually confirmed last year to be producing/writing/etc for the film, however Guillermo del Toro, as of today, will be directing the film. As the other articles on films use the director's name I moved the article to keep with the standard. --Hyarion 22:24, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
Tolkien Estate litigation
Is there still litigation with the Tolkien estate that might slow progress? --Plant doc
- New Line is currently resolving the situation with the Tolkien Estate and my guess is if they are already announcing GDT as the director they must have confidence it will be resolved shortly. --Hyarion 17:50, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
It's speculated that Christopher Lee will be voicing Smaug instead of appearing as Saruman. http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2008/07/13/29211-christopher-lee-offers-his-voice-for-smaug-wont-go-back-to-nz/ —Unsigned comment by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs).
- Stress "speculating", unstress "will be". Nothing's in the bag, in fact, there isn't even a bag yet. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Naming of film articles
At the moment the naming is in a bit of a muddle, with lots of relics still in existence from all the different name changes. We need to establish what articles we want. For instance, should we have one page for the Hobbit motion picture duology and then an article for each film? Just as the LOTR films has The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy and then an article for each film. -- 17:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do think we will need a disambiguation article to be used when referencing someone/something that will be in both films. I'm assuming a unique name will be announced for each part of The Hobbit films, at which point we can move the current article to its proper page. As soon as we start getting information on the second film we can separate that content out to its own article. --Hyarion 18:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I sort of agree with Hyarion. We're in a muddle because at the moment the films are. We don't know the actual name of the first film, second film or the both together. I think I would prefer "The Hobbit films" as a combined article for now, which is, at least, descriptively accurate if nothing else. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. We should have one article for now, and then diffuse later when we know the names of the films. 'The Hobbit Films' would be good. -- 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Move to 'The Hobbit Films', yes? -- 10:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Did we ever come to a decision re: capital letters; I think it should probably be "The Hobbit films".
- As a title I think it should be "The Hobbit Films"; in saying that, I don't really care - particularly as I anticipate that other editors will favour the lower case 'f'. -- 12:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Already put it down to discuss at this Sunday's meeting. :) -- 22:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- In case I won't be able to make it on Sunday, I agree with Hyarion on the naming and splitting of the article.--Morgan 05:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite pleased with this page from ==People involved== down. However, I think that we need to rewrite everything above that. We could probably make the introduction a bit better, but it's not too bad at the moment. The infobox is fine, although there are things on there that I think should be sourced (like the budget). I'm unsure about ==Plot==; it should probably just quote the official press release (like Wikipedia's premise section does) as the real plot information will go on the pages for the respective films. =="Film Two"== should just be deleted. I think ==Issues concerning production== should stay. However, it needs to be beefed up. It especially needs some more information on the industrial dispute in New Zealand that preceded the production. I think we should completely remove ==Plot details==; it's not very good and the information is based on the words of the previous director.
Additionally, we should include information on the filming of the two films. So I propose a ==Filming== section. Therein we should include information about how the filming proceeded and perhaps have a sub heading, ===Technical details=== (?), where we can put information about how it is filmed (i.e. in 3D, what cameras they use, 48 FPS etc.).
Thoughts?--10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- People involved - although I don't have a problem with how we've done this, I sort of like how Wikipedia adds a little bit of detail after each confirmed cast member.
- I agree infobox needs a bit more sources but isn't a priority.
- Plot, agree that we don't actually know the plot and aren't yet qualified to comment on it. I would also quote the press release but add a link to "The Hobbit#Synopsis" and mention how things not included in The Hobbit are going to be in the film. For instance, we have Galadriel in the trailer.
- Leading on from that, some kind of Differences between the book and films section which, I expect, will deserve its own article at some point.
- I agree Film Two needs to go, as we currently have no information on where/how the films are divided, the distinction is currently irrelevant. (The info in this section can go into "Development".
- I agree re. Production issues. I'm tempted to say that the industrial dispute should be a specific section, so critical it was.
- I think the Plot details section should also go, as it doesn't contain any! It contains development/production information.
- I'm also happy re. Filming and Technical details.
- I'd like to see "Music", "Special Effects" and "Design" (Lee and Howe stuff) sections when we have enough information. A "Marketing" section would be good, whilst "Response" would also be nice as we've already had lots of acclaim and criticism. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree. There's a lot of good ideas here.-- 21:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've been wasting my time trying to find the initial source of the press release from WB. Do you know where it is? You'll note that before Christmas I made sure that everything I listed had an 'official' source - in all instances where PJ (or Ian McKellen in one case) himself confirms it (i.e. his FB page and news articles - from real news organisations - which quote PJ directly). I've been trying to maintain that high standard. I'm also not convinced that we should list someone when we don't know who they'll play.-- 12:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm with Ederchil on this. --Amroth 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you all.-- 21:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)