Talk:The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)/Archive 1

message: I deleted the comment that "the film was considered to be a critical disappointment." It made $30 million at the box office -- who cares what the critics thought of it? (Ibaranoff24 19:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that information is relevant to an encyclopedia entry.  Wikiproject Films reccomends that a film article contain "whether critics liked the film or not (and why)" (see here and here).  I haven't done any research on how Bakshi's Lord of the Rings was received, and I'm not pushing a POV here.  I'm just saying that the critical view should be included in the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Someone added a comment to the "Trivia" section that it was "not a huge financial success." This is wrong -- the film made $30 million. I deleted the comment. It's a troll trying to con people into thinking that the film was a flop. (Ibaranoff24 01:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the "not a huge financial success" bit is misleading, but the rest of that comment (about the BBC radio production, etc.) is relevant.  I'll put it back in, without the false financial bit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critical disappointment" 

message: Are there any screenshots that should be on this page (I.E., example of rotoscoping during the film's finale; character designs)? And what about a detailed description of the film's plot? The pages on Peter Jackson's film adaptation each have one, so why shouldn't Bakshi's film have a plot overview? Post your thoughts and opinions on this matter here. I'd like to hear them. (Ibaranoff24 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there ought to be a section on the plot (per WikiProject Films).  And some more information on the production (rotoscoping and animation techniques, etc.) would be good, too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots? 

message: The film was not a bomb at the box office in its initial release, but it was not a success either.
The original poster and ads for the film stated that this was part one, thus, the abrupt ending was not unexpected. I cannot remember the source (which is why I won't put this edit on the main page) but I did read that Christopher Tolkien was not happy with the film and was another, though not the only, reason that Bakshi was not allowed to film the second part. Maybe some other Wikipedia user will remember the source and add it to this talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 23:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: $30 million isn't a success? The reason a sequel wasn't made has something to do with United Artists...but I'm not exactly sure what (on Ralph Bakshi's message board, he claims that the UA executives didn't think anyone would care if a sequel was made), and, if it is true that Christopher Tolkien was not happy with the film adaptation, I'd hardly think that United Artists cared about what he thought of the film. I do know that Tolkien's daughter (whom Bakshi got the rights to LOTR from) loved Wizards. (Ibaranoff24 02:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It made $30,471,420, NOT $27 million. No, it wasn't as big a hit as some of the other movies of the decade, but $30 million still makes it a huge hit, considering the fact that it's an animated film (animated films didn't make much during the '70s). (Ibaranoff24 05:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Films Box Office and Original Concept

message: The full title is actually "J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings Part 1." (Ibaranoff24 02:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full title 

message: I'm not sure whether the "Crew" section is necessary.  WikiProject Films doesn't include it in their recommendations, and most other animated films don't have it (e.g. The Lion King, Bambi, The Nightmare Before Christmas).  It's all at IMdB anyway, and I doubt that most of the people redlinked in that section will ever have Wikipedia articles about them — in fact, several of the links that are blue are to other people with the same name.  I suggest we cut the whole section.  (Tim Burton's contribution can be mentioned in a note.)  What do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew section 

message: I don't really like the plot summary section. As far as I can tell, it is almost completely redundant with the book itself. Also, it's not accurate: some things mentioned in the summary didn't actually happen in the movie. (For instance, I'm sure there were no Huorns in the movie.) I think it should mostly be cut out, and we should only mentioned important divergences from the book.
Also, if we do cut the summary, should we just delete all the screenshots? Eric119 06:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the plot section is worth keeping.  If it doesn't reflect the movie accurately, it should be changed so that it does.  Perhaps the summary could be condensed a bit (although I'm not keen on trying, myself).  In this case, I lean towards improvement over deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't change a thing. It's perfect. (Ibaranoff24 04:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: Actually, if I'm not mistaken, there's only one reference to "Aruman" in the film, towards the beginning ("I'm going to see my old friend Aruman"). Maybe change it to "one reference to 'Aruman' remains in the finished film"? (Ibaranoff24 04:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  It's been a while since I watched it, and I can't really recall whether there's one or multiple "Aruman" references.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aruman 

message: I added the external link "If at first you don't succeed ... call Peter Jackson." Despite the title, the article is very neutral, and doesn't praise any film attempt at The Lord of the Rings. It features many quotes from Ralph Bakshi about the making of his 1978 film, and I think it's a pretty interesting read for fans. (Ibaranoff24 02:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I moved the page from The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) to The Lord of the Rings Part 1. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: It appears that this summary on imdb is quite similar to parts of the "plot" section our anonymous editor keeps deleting . Lunkwill 07:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the author's name. (Ibaranoff24 21:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plot" section copyvio? 

message: Personally I think this article looks ridiculous with this many images on it.  On top of that I don't think all of these images are really adding to this article.  Can I get some other users opinions as to the number and quality of some of the images on here?   I think there should be about half as many as there are right now and they need to be organized a bit better.   I'd just up and remove them myself, but I think it is better to have some community consenus on the issue first. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 07:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the UK DVD cover image should be deleted, since it's the same painting as the "B" style poster I recently uploaded, but I have absolutely no idea how to delete images. (Ibaranoff24 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you find duplicate images you can typically tag one of them to be speedy deleted, see WP:CSD for details on how.  But I really meant that I think this article has too many images on it right now.  With all that text trying to wrap and bend around these images, it makes it look bad, IMO.  -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the screen captures further down into a small image gallery. (Ibaranoff24 05:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of images on this article 

message: OK, there's a general lack of civility here on all parts.  Let's all just calm down, assume good faith and try to go forward, OK?  Isaac, Bjorn, it's clear that you two have a previous animosity from this Zappa board.  Let's try not to bring it here, shall we?  The important thing is that the article be accurate, and not purvey false information or content of questionable authenticity.  Isaac has done a lot of good work on this article, and should be able to do so in the future.  The image in question will probably be removed soon, and we can put this ugly incident behind us — if the two of you can keep from edit warring and name-calling.  Truce? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm down, everybody!

message: :Well, here we are again. (Ibaranoff24 23:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that's best.  (As I say, I don't know enough about the facts of the matter, really.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved 

message: I found a website () which has a quote from Bakshi who not only says that the film wasn't promoted as Part 1, but explains why. I added the quote and the source link to the "Reception" section. I hope this clears up some of the confusion being caused by this whole series of events, including the forged poster. (Ibaranoff24 01:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't really explain the forged poster, but it is an improvement to the article.  And thanks for finding a better copy of the poster image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I accept that you're not trying to cause trouble, and appreciate the intention behind your warning.  At the same time, I should probably mention that Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks which has been violated several times here in the past few days (as was the three-revert rule).  I'm not mentioning these policies to scold anyone or get anyone in trouble, just to remind both sides that Wikipedia values civility highly.  As I said above, the most important thing here isn't Isaac's behavior, but the article.  I'll take your warning under advisement, and admit that there's a lot about this poster/"Part 1" incident that is suspicious.  However, I'll also remember that Isaac has made some real improvements to this article in the past few months.  As far as I'm concerned, he is welcome to continue to do so — as are you good folk from the Zappa forum.  Everybody's welcome! :D —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know who this "Mr. Nice Guy" is, but I'm guessing from his comments and unwarranted attacks on me that he is a troll. But since I'm such a nice guy (no relation), I'll leave this comment up so other readers can laugh at his laughable attempt to ruin my "image" with outrageously false accusations. (Ibaranoff24 22:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Part 1" mystery solved 

message: I don't want to be confrontational here, Isaac, as you're clearly very passionate about this.  But I just did a Google search for " "Lord of the Rings Part 1" Bakshi", and didn't find any examples of Bakshi actually using the "Part 1" title.  I found several interviews with him, in several of which (, , ) he simply calls the film "Lord of the Rings", and one in which he talks about the film but isn't quoted as using a title for it.  I also did another Google search for " Lord of the Rings Part One" Bakshi" and got similar results — no citations from Bakshi himself.  I did find some references to the film under that title, (including one, at H2G2, that claims that the studio eventually relented and did promote the film as "Part One, against several which disagree (e.g. , ).  Besides postings on various forums (about half of which seemed to be by you!), the only reference I could find to Bakshi calling the film "Part One" was this IGN page, which might be enough to justify the sentence about Bakshi calling it "Part One" — maybe we could say "...sometimes refers to the film The Lord of the Rings Part One"? — but it would be better if we could find an actual interview or quotation of him doing that.  You're much more knowledgeable about this than I am — do you have a source for this?
I don't mean to belabor the point, I just want the article to be accurate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on "Part 1"