Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title

I think the title for this article is incorrect.

The movie's title is The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - as it says at the top of the article. That page exists and the text here has come from that page (making it a disambiguation page). I think that it might be beneficial to:

1. Create a new page The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (movie),
2. Make this page a redirect page,
3. Put this article there, and
4. Direct all the links to the movie there.
5. Links that refer to the book only, should go to the book's page, and,
6. Anything that is unclear goes to disambiguating pages.

One must be careful with the different editions of the book(s) The Lord of the Rings, the same story is told in different publications split up in different ways by different publishers, all the way from a single book to 4 books in a slip case. It is the same issue with the movie.kiwiinapanic 07:32 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

See also Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Now Actioned - kiwiinapanic 09:07 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Was there any consensus to do this? I argued against this idea below, and no-one has replied to my objections. -- Oliver P. 21:34 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

In defense of the article title being The Fellowship of the Ring (movie): There are at least four separate entries on Wikipedia for this subject: The Lord of the Rings, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Fellowship of the Ring, and even Fellowship of the Ring. Three of them deal primarily with the book, and it is unclear at a glance which of these entries is meant to discuss the movie. While talk about the movie has been scattered throughout each of these articles, someone looking for information specifically about the movie has trouble finding the correct entry.

Furthermore, the tag (movie) is used consistently throughout Wikipedia for nearly every other entry where the title of the movie can be confused with something else: Metropolis (1927 movie), Airport (movie), Armageddon (movie), Dogma (movie), Hamlet (1990 movie), Hamlet (1996 movie), and many others. Even the entry for List of movies includes an entry for The Fellowship Of The Ring (movie) (which I did not edit in myself, it was already there). Including (movie) in the title of this entry makes it explicitly clear that this entry is meant for information about the movie first. -- Modemac

One further point: My intention is simply to put the tag (movie) in the article entry, because I feel it is necessary for the reasons stated above. As for whether it should be The Fellowship of the Ring Being The First Part Of The Lord Of The Rings (movie) or any other title of that sort, I have no objections and will cede to the majority.

I think the convention to have articles named Blah (movie) is only meant to apply when there is also a separate article just named Blah. I believe that the full title of the film is The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, and, as far as I am aware, the book is never referred to by that title. So the film should go under that title, and has no need to be a disambiguation page. The opening line of the article should make it clear whether the book or the film is being discussed, and where to go from one to find the other. If it's not clear from the opening line, I think that the line should be reworded, rather than the title. -- Oliver P. 03:53 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

Lensing

Has anyone watched the LOTR DVD commentary or seen any of the millions of specials on the making-of? Don't the filmmakers make extensive use of wide angle lenses to help achieve the various effects (hobbit vs. elf height etc.) Koyaanis Qatsi

Wide angle lenses, bluescreen, forced perspective, big animatronic figures, scale doubles, sometimes using digital face replacement - as Jackson describes it, the key to making it all work is to keep switching between techniques so the audience doesn't have time to keep up.

Ridiculous nit-picking

I swear, some of the haggling over the "differences" between the book and the movie is downright ridiculous. For example, the current list of differences includes:

• Odo Proudfoot, Bilbo's cousin, is named Everard and not Odo.
• In the film, Sam Gamgee and Rosie Cotton (who only appears at the end of the third book in truth) dance together at the party. In the book, it was actually Everard Took and Melilot Brandybuck (who are cut from the movie) who danced together.
• Boromir dies at the end, but he really died at the beginning of the second book.
• In the film, Galadriel is shown alone when she meets with the Fellowship. In the book, she was with her husband Celeborn.

Who cares?!? -- Modemac 19:50, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To answer your question, die-hard fans. There's certainly a case to be made for moving this detailed information to another page, perhaps keeping major differences (Arwen, Bambadil, etc) here. Lupin 22:46, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into it, but these differences here don't seem accurate or even meaningful. Eric119 16:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have an extremely informal and unscientific rule-of-thumb regarding most things Tolkien-related: If I, of all people, simply do not care, then it is not worth including.*

And I just don't care about the Proudfoots. (Or Proudfeet, if you prefer.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

(*This is hyperbole. It is not meant to be interpreted literally. The universe does not actually revolve around me.)

Here's one more bit to add to your list (although I personally think its pretty big.) Gandalf loses his staff in a fight with Saruman, yet later on in the movie he somehow got it back. How the hell did that happen? Sonicboom2007 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely a film continuity item not explained by deleted scenes. (In many cases, such continuity issues are the result of scenes that have reappeared in the Extended Versions). However since Saruman does not even appear in The Fellowship of the Ring (nor does the fight scene), there can be no Tolkien explanation. Some of Gandalf's side journey can be found in draft materials in The History of Middle Earth, but as it stands in the final published revision, the journey to Isengard is a Gandalf narative at the Council of Elrond. LijPatrol. edwpat

Reopening old issues

Because reopening year and a half old debates is fun, I've redone the article naming. The Fellowship of the Ring is now a disambiguation page leading to separate pages on the movie, book, and characters, all of which are listed as The Fellowship of the Ring (movie) or whatever. The disambiguation headers have been removed from those individual pages. If anyone wants to complain, I can explain in detail why I did this. Snowspinner 19:17, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, let's have your explanation. Eric119 23:10, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

The initial problem came because Fellowship of the Ring and The Fellowship of the Ring were totally different articles, and there was no particualr logic to why which one was where it was. On top of that, the disambiguation notice at the top of The Fellowship of the Ring incorrectly listed the location of the article on the movie, although it was correctly linked. This required disentangling. Hence The Fellowship of the Ring becoming a disambiguation page. For the sake of symmetry, then, since The Fellowship of the Ring (book) and The Fellowship of the Ring (characters) were obvious, I went with this article title for symmetry's sake. Especially because I don't think that anyone actually refers to the film as "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings." They call it The Fellowship of the Ring. As they also call the book this, the way to disambiguate the two is to note "(movie)" or "(book)" following that, then. For precedent, note that the article is at North Korea and not Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Snowspinner 23:48, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasoning for calling this article just The Fellowship of the Ring (movie). The article's name should be the same as the full official title of the movie: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (movie). It doesn't matter that people don't call it by the full title in common conversation. Taking that argument further, I don't think anyone actually refers to it as "The Fellowship of the Ring" -- they call it "Fellowship." That doesn't mean the article should be named Fellowship (movie). Jason One 19:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's standard Wikipedia convention to use the most common name, which I think is the one that drops "The Lord of the Rings" from the title. Snowspinner 21:17, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I want to bring to attention the fact that an anonymous user has requested a move for this article, as well as every other article pertaining to the trilogy (books and movies). I think that this article (and the other movie articles) should be named according to the full US release title (which includes the 'TLOTR:'), the books should stay at 'title (book)' and 'title' should remain a disambig. page to point people to the other articles. That way, anyone searching for 'The Fellowship of the Ring', book or movie, can find the article they want, and the articles can be at the most accurate title possible. Lachatdelarue (talk) 18:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tengwar

will people here agree to give this section a home on this article (possibly under "deviations")? I'm trying to get rid of it from the tengwar article as offtopic. dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)

you know, I just did it :p I'm not endorsing the text, and it seems rather devoid of information. rephrase or delete, I'm only saying that it belongs here rather than on the tengwar article. dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)

Bad characterization

My main concern with the LotR film trilogy was the poor depiction of several characters. Most importantly, and germane to the first part of the trilogy, I think that the films do little justice to the character of Saruman. Saruman is not a lackey of Sauron, he is an independent actor who wishes to seize the ring and use it for his own gain and against Sauron. In a way, he represents the ultimate expression of the temptation that caused Boromir and Denethor to stray from the straight and narrow. He deserves a more subtle rendering. I also don't like the youth of Frodo. It is appropriate for him to be played by a young actor because the ring keeps its possessors "unchanged", but the actor playing him has none of the _gravitas_ you'd expect of a man of fifty. Finally, Elrond seems rather peevish and even hasty for a person some thousands of years old. I expected wisdom and self-control like Gandalf's and instead he acts like an insulted teenager.

Wow, insightful, but put this somewhere it belongs. Like IMDB, which has a section for movie reviews and isn't an encyclopedia that is supposed to show facts, not opinions.68.73.166.213

---

what is up with this page and the template? is this even the real page? --Jingofetts 19:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

error in the page's photo

the description below the photo showing arwen confronting the ringwraiths, mentions that the river is called anduin. that is wrong, because the river arwen faces the ringwraiths is called Bruinen, thus, the Ford of Bruinen (bruinen=loud/noisy water)

Movie screenshot

Why are the DVD screenshots for all of the LOTR film articles so small? Yes, I know some of you will say "Copyright reasons", but look at this image for Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith [[1]] , it's at 2126 x 905 resolution!!!

Warner Brothers

This page (along with The Two Towers and Return of the King) claims that Warner Brothers distributed the live action Lord of the Rings movies - except in the USA. Is this really true? Can anyone anywhere in the world find a mention of Warner Brothers associated with this project?

Extended Edition

Should information about scenes that were cut out of the theatrical release be put into the article?

Film location needs checking

See Talk:The Pinnacles. Can anyone help? Carcharoth 12:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes Link

The page linked in the Changes section seems to have its links dead. The page itself appears to be dated before the movies were released. CFLeon 08:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis on deviations

The section that details deviations from the book takes up almost half the page. This page refers to the movie: while I understand mentions of the book and how the movie compares to it, there really shouldn't be so much emphasis on it. --84.86.23.99 15:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I put a clean-up tag and removed the nitpickier changes. Parapraphs should focus on a significant change and focus on how it affects everything. Films overall should stand alone from it's source. Wiki-newbie 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New cast section

I've added a new cast section, designed after the Star Wars prequel articles, as well as added a picture of the main members of the cast. I moved up the special effects and synopsis section, as that freakishly huge infobox was screwing up the image. I've also deleted the synopsis photo, because of the aforementioned infobox. Feel free to edit the cast section for accuracy. -Dark Kubrick 06:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the added (film)?

To my knowledge, the book is never marketed separately as The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, just The Two Towers. This goes for the other two too. While meant to be helpful, (see above) the title just adds misinformation and confusion. I've asked this for the other two films' talk pages. Uthanc 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking more closely, there is a split in the page history. This edit in January 2003 added text to the '(film)' page that was removed with this edit to the 'no-(film)' page. Not much page history, but enough for some GFDL concerns. It could be simple enough for a page history merge, or maybe not. Probably the same for the other two articles, though each one will need to be checked to be sure. The 'non-(film)' page swung between being a disambiguation page (example) and a redirect, and has been a redirect now since August 2005. The current disambiguation page for this sort of stuff is now at The Lord of the Rings (disambiguation), which I created in June 2006, though I also see that The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (disambiguation), The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (disambiguation), and The Return of the King (disambiguation) exist, all created in April 2005. The latter is actually a redirect to The Return of the King (disambiguation), but The Fellowship of the Ring (disambiguation) and The Two Towers (disambiguation) don't yet exist. Hmm. A bit of tidying up needed here! Carcharoth 13:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the various disambigs I also see that the video games were also named The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (video game)... presumably leading to the '(film)' and '(video game)' disambiguations. However, I think the films are clearly more likely to be linked / searched on than the games and thus it might make sense to have them at the direct links with hatnotes to disambig pages that include the games. As to disambiguation... I think there should be one for all 'Lord of the Rings' and one for each of the sub-titles (FotR, TT, RotK). Or even just one page with section redirects for the sub-titles on that page. I think history merges can be performed to clean up various moves. --CBD 14:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Importance assessment?

There was recently a little revert-war over the importance assessment of this film. The four levels are Top, High, Med, and Low. We should probably have a discussion on the issue. In my opinion, the proper importance assessment for this film should probably by "Top". It is arguably the most important film of its year, certainly one of the top five, given its many Oscar nominations and its box-office success. Also, a comparison with the other films in Category:Top-importance film articles shows many films of similar overall significance such as Titanic (1997 film), The Terminator, Halloween (1978 film), et cetera. Certainly this film should not be considered of less importance than The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), which is rated as "High." Mangojuice^talk 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been a recent upturn from an anon affecting other pages like T2, Halloween, Platoon, Pulp Fiction, Jurassic Park and other top ranked articles the user seemingly has disdain for. Anyway, apart from this anon no one gives a hissy fit. Wiki-newbie 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hop down to the Wikiproject Film discussion: I'm going to get rid of the importance scale. Wiki-newbie 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, its the words "in my opinion" that cause the problem with this tag - everyone will have different opinions as there is no objective criteria. The comparison with other articles in the "Top" category shows the problems of "grade-inflation" inherent in the system - once one fan decides to put their favourite film in the "Top" category, everybody else must follow suit to avoid getting left behind. In fact, the Top category should only be used for subjects of importance to the understanding of "film" itself i.e. Film, Special effects etc.

Then you may want to rename it, to (say) "General". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion of the Tolkien family

I vaguely remember that J.R.R Tolkien once said he didn't want his books to be turned into a film. Does anyone know of any official statement made by his descendents relating to the film? (other than probably "$$$" :-))

JRRT sold the film rights to The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings during his lifetime. His thoughts of this, his insistence to avoid 'Disneyfication' and the general dislike of what screen writers do to books are recorded on Letters. The film rights to all the other works are still held by the Estate and are unlikely to be sold. Thu 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fellowship-River.jpg

Image:Fellowship-River.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fellowship-River.jpg

Image:Fellowship-River.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved article

Hallo! I did a little cleanup by moving this article from "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film)" to "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring"--that is to say, I simply removed the unnecessary "film" parenthetical from the end. The version without it was simply a redirect, so there was no need for any disambiguation. I have also repaired the double redirects. --Masamage ♫ 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

Apparently this film received near-unanimous praise from critics. But why isn't this mentioned in the article?? All good film articles mention the critics' opinions, and this page should be no exception...92.12.164.47 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the 235-minute "full version"??

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

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 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Followed by

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

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

Country of origin of the films

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

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

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)

---

• The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring → ?
• The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers → ?
• The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King → ?

– 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

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?

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

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611084313/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/667/667848p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/667/667848p1.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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