Talk:The Lord of the Rings/Archive 2

message: (i.e., The :Category:Birmingham, England or :Category:Literature from Birmingham, England categories should not appear at the foot of the LotR article.)
#[[User:Anárion|] 14:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Too true. Now are we all going to go over to Rip van Winkle and sort out the same mis-categorization there, or nix the category at WP:CFD? I've got a list of twenty similar cases. -- Solipsist 21:43, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no real purpose to the category -- I think literature about Birmingham would be reasonable, but not the too-expansive category that now exists.  WP:CFD is a reasonable action, I think. Jwrosenzweig 15:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, The category does not belong here 

message: I removed the "Answer to Criticism" because the information provided by 130.64.153.13 was better, and because this paragraph looks rather speculative and inaccurate (and not a very good defence is any case). (Isn't Melkor a better fit for the Devil? Doesn't Tolkien dislike allegory? Where does it say Easterlings are athiests? etc.)
:(Answer to criticism) John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was a Catholic which would make a difference Sauron is portrayed as the Devil, Satan, the orcs would not be blacks but demons, and the Easterlings and Southrons are atheists or nonbelievers those who aren't of the elect, the chosen people of God who will get saved are the heroes. The heroes defend what they believe, the villains fight against it. The Ring would be the temptations of the world, and As seen in the book, Frodo is tempted to put it on, be in the world.
Eric119 22:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like we could probably do better with this entire section (perhaps making it a separate article), but I'm not up to the amount of work it would require at the moment. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer to Criticism 

message: Can someone verify the legitimacy of this edit? The summary is "typo" which seems suspicious given the change. Eric119 05:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Principal photography lasted for over fourteen months (from 11 October 1999 to 22 December 2000; , ). Peter Jackson says (in the appendices of the RotK DVD, extended edition) that the last fill-in shot for the DVD was filmed early in 2004, so in that sense the edit isn't completely wrong.  Avenue 12:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An edit 

message: Reuters today said that there will be a musical version opening in Toronto and then moving to London. Can anyone verify this and add it in? Eriathwen 18:06, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
:Yup, that's definitely true.  It'll be at the Princess of Wales theater in Toronto, opening I think sometime next fall, although I'm really not sure as to that.  But as to the existance of the musical: yes, I know for a fact that it exists.  There are ads all over Toronto! Oracleoftruth 23:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
:It’s opening in Toronto next February.  I think London is getting its own production eight months later and New York is getting one eight months after that.  They are really going all out for it, I’ve read that the Toronto version will the most expensive play ever made anywhere.  If no one else adds the musical to the article, I will tomorow.  -Arctic.gnome 02:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical? 

message: The Lord of the rings films I feel even though they don't follow as close as I would like the story line of the books are an incredible achievment and they show just how far movie and computer graphics have come since the starting days of film. The city if Minas Tirith was the most amazing graphics of the whole fim I feel.  
Thomas
I agree. it leaves out a whole lot from the books. even the part about tom Bombadil. Another thing about it is that they even alter some scenes from the book in the movie, such as weathertop.
- Abhorsen123 02:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminder: the talk page is for collaboration on the article, not for film criticism. IMDB has film discussion forums. --Dystopos 19:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what I think of the film 

message: Just to advertise LOTR WIKICITY which is being set up right now. Anyone who is interested in writing Middle-Earth articles head over there now! (My user page is under the name of Darth Mantus)
--81.77.190.25 17:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord of the Rings Wikicity 

message: The book is sometimes wrongly described as a trilogy. The three films are also often described this way. I think it is wrong (and will remove it in the article), but is it possible for the films to be a trilogy even if the book is not? Does, for example, the second film constitute a "complete" story? Jørgen 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trilogy 

message: If one scans the map of Middle Earth and postes it in this article would that be a copyright violation? Mekong Bluesman 06:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I had thought so but just wanted to be sure. "May the Force be with you" in a The Lord of the Rings context? I'll admit that I fail to see the connection. 216.239.65.29 06:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it would depend on the resolution, fair use would apply to a reasonably low res version. Rich Farmbrough 13:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright question 

message: I have removed " New York Times critic Judith Shulevitz said that its prose is so bad that it represents "death to literature itself" . "
The original article can be seen at this site, which, to my mind, des not support the excised section as written.  Rich Farmbrough 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative Critiism

message: I'd like to see some more info about the impact LOTR has made on our culture, especially when it really caught on in the 1960s, at the height of the hippie movement. You know, when "Gandalf for President" pins were omnipresent on college campuses and "Frodo Lives" was scrawled on subway train walls.
Not to mention how the hippies interpreted the books as being pro-marijuana, among other allegories. --Marcg106 05:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Impact during the '60's 

message: The Bakshi version is, in fact, widely regarded by Tolkien fans as something of a flop. (And when I say "Tolkien fans" I do not by any means include "movie groupies", i.e. teenaged girls who think Orlando Bloom is hot and never read the books). The complaints mentioned in the relevant section are actually pretty fair, I think—at least they are the most famous and widely discussed. (For example, the abrupt ending is often cited.) For a lot while after the "early efforts", it was generally believed that a successful film adaptation would be practically impossible.
Anyway, I removed these revisions because my overall impression was that they are from a Bakshi fan point of view. (And I don't think that point of view represents a significant portion of the fan community.) I am open to disagreement, but I thought it would be worth discussing. (In particular, why was the information about the box-off and technical success of the Jackson films removed? Both of those are significant.) If the current version isn't fair to that particular perspective, how can we make it more balanced?  -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted a similar set of revisions. Segments like like "United Artists were stubborn. Wrongly believing the film to be a flop..." are a bit too POV for my tastes. (Who are we to declare that they were wrong to believe the film was a flop? Or that they did believe the film was a flop? Sources?) Were they necessarily being stubborn, or just exercising good business sense? (Or maybe just ignorance?) Generally, the Bakshi version is just not viewed as positively as these edits seem to imply.  -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A $8 million film that makes $30 million is NOT a flop. Also, the film was distributed as "The Lord of the Rings Part 1," so the ending wasn't so abrupt back in 1978. When it was released on DVD, Warner Brothers altered the original ending narration so it would look like it was always intended to be a single film and not a two-part feature as Bakshi had originally intended to make it. (Ibaranoff24 00:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bakshi version 

message: ::A $8 million film that makes $30 million is NOT a flop. Also, the film was distributed as "The Lord of the Rings Part 1," so the ending wasn't so abrupt back in 1978. When it was released on DVD, Warner Brothers altered the original ending narration so it would look like it was always intended to be a single film and not a two-part feature as Bakshi had originally intended to make it. (Ibaranoff24 00:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The facts about the Bakshi version 

message: What do the main characters actually live on? I am not saying that the book should have had an economic tract included, but some background information would have been interesting - Frodo, Pippin and Merry will need money to buy in food and furnishings etc - Sam Gamgee and father probably live off market gardening.
Excellent point.  In 'The Trillion Year Spree' Brian Aldis says the appeal of fantasy to adolescents is in large part due to an absence of constraint in the imagined worlds-including money.  Grand deeds done at the behest of mystical impulse are a wonderful excuse for not doing your homework.  Lord of the Rings is a silly book, and slightly sinister, imo.
Most likely Merry and Pip, as young characters, would be apprenticed to their father's work, like Sam to his old gaffer. Market gardening is probably not their business. They would most likely live off the accounts of Bag End, supplemented by their domestic production. The Baggins fortune was enhanced by Bilbo's adventures and Frodo probably only worked as a valet to Bilbo. When travelling, letters of recommendation or the general hospitality toward travelers would keep them fed and sheltered in society, while those who travel outside those bounds lived off the land or by robbery. Hobbiton appears to have been a very fertile region, and shirkers like Merry & Pip could supplement their appetites by taking crops without too much fear of retribution. As is typical in the pre-industrial age, the livelihood of individuals is sublimated to the survival of the household, clan, or village. Dystopos 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters' finances

message: I notice that the existance of two different editions is mentioned in the article, but there is no reference to the difference between the two. What were the changes? - SoM 17:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions 

message: I've created a new section under the "in film", "in radio", etc. sections, entitled "The Lord of the Rings in art". I think it's incredibly important that folks like Ted Nasmith and The Tolkien Ensemble, whose entire careers are focused around their interpretations of Tolkien, do not get shuffled down among mere "pop culture references" (putting them below a reference to an episode of Friends is absolutely insulting). For example, to me, if a band has one or two Tolkien-related songs, put 'em under "pop culture references" -- if they have a whole album based on Tolkien, then we should put them under this "...in art" section. Mecandes 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lord of the Rings in art 

message: I was wondering if there has been any recent criticism on Tolkien's presentation of love in The Lord of the Rings.  I am currently exploring this issue and plan to write on it very soon.  It is my current observation that the standard in the text is courtly love, although only so long as the Ring survives, for it is the Ring that "draws all desire unto itself" and causes fufillment of a love relationship to become impossible.  However, once the Ring is destroyed, the barrier to love is broken and three marriages occur.  This breaks the standard of courtly love.  I was curious as to the viability of this thesis in the minds of others well-versed in Tolkien's epic. [|    My topic on Tolkiwiki]  S. Brown November 21, 2005, at 01:47 PM
::I am not sure what you are proposing in regards to this article (which is the sole topic of this discussion page). Depending on your source material, this sounds like original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. (WP:NOR). Stepping aside from that, I see little direct connection between the ring and the course of love and any notion of "fulfillment" arising from love. Indirectly, the lust for power embodied in the ring would certainly interfere with the selflessness exhibited by the Fellowship, whose love for each other is developed much more by Tolkein than any of the relationships that end in marriage. Dystopos 05:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lord of the Rings and Love 

message: *This section, which contributes only trivia to the subject at hand, has gotten rather long enough that I would support moving it to a separate article with only a brief introduction about the phenomenon remaining here. Any support or disagreement? Dystopos 05:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Move it to a seperate page. It's too long. (Ibaranoff24 00:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article for pop culture references?

message: On my last edit, I added the part about Walt Disney trying to make a film of LOTR. I don't know why this fact wasn't included in the "early efforts" section of the article. (Ibaranoff24 02:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early efforts 

message: Template:Middle-earth portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Middle-earth portal. Thank you. --Qirex 01:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Middle-earth portal