Wikipedia

Talk:The Hobbit (film series)/Archive 2

< Talk:The Hobbit (film series)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Cuchullain in topic New page title as its now been confirmed as three films?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move III

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not to move. Regards, KiloT 22:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


The Hobbit (2012 film) → The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – Since it is apparent that there is little support toward moving the page to "The Hobbit film duology," I think that we should at least move the page to the actual title of the first film, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. We should add a section to the bottom of the page outlining the second film, There and Back Again, and then split the page sometime in the future as was done with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2. Adding Hobbit info to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy should still be discussed further.TheLastAmigo (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Anthony Appleyard.. what? I'm not sure I'm following you. Could you please elaborate on what you mean? This is the title of the movie.TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Further comment. As The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a unique title, disambiguation is not required. Please see WP:NCF and WP:NCDAB to see why this move has been suggested. A move should happen at some point, but whether it is this article that gets moved, or whether this article is split into two, or whether this becomes an overview article for the two movies is the real issue here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Budget

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I can't in my wildest imagination believe that the budget for these films will be 620 million USD? That's almost twice the cost of the most expensive movie ever made as of today. The Lotr-trilogy had a relatively small budget considering the size of the project, and a New-Zealand production can't cost this much. The source doesn't seem very reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.79.246 (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've heard from reliable sources (I can't seem to remember where, but I think it was from Peter Jackson or New Line) that the budget was going to run between $300-350 million for both films combined. That source is VERY suspect.TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You're right and I've removed it. The source's "Film Facts" looked like it just mirrored the Wikipedia article's infobox. —Mike Allen 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Overview?

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is this an overview article or meant to represent two films? The cast and production sections are really long and may be served better by being split off into separate articles, either by film or just List of The Hobbit cast and Production of The Hobbit (2012 film). Something along those lines. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it until it hits at least 100k—Avatar is well over that size. Ideally this will become a production article and there will be separate film articles for each part. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion above about what should happen to this article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That discussion is about splitting them off into films, something you can't really do since one of them won't exist for 2 years. This is about the individual sections which are far too long. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
No - it talks about the overview article, cast, and considers splitting this article into three articles along with the possibility of a Middle Earth in film article. If we follow the method above, effectively The Hobbit (film series) would become a "production article". Cast could be considered on that page, or even on Middle Earth in film, or we could have an additional article relating to the cast in all five films, as some are common. But it would be best to keep all discussion together, so we don't get too muddly. Anyway, as Betty says, it's not too long just yet anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit Blog

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As of writing, The Hobbit Blog redirects to an advert for the Blu-ray release of Lord Of The Rings Trilogy: Extended Edition at the Warner Bros website. Does anyone know whether this is permanent? If it is, I'm pretty sure the link no longer belongs in the external links section. --88.104.35.41 (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. I wasn't redirected to an advert for anything, just to the blog.TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dash Confusion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article has a mixture of spaced and unspaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes (at least there aren't any spaced em dashes for a change) but the presence of Saruman and Legolas in the movie has me depressed enough to not want to even see the article any more so I really don't care to read it thoroughly enough to fix it. --Kitsunegami (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nemoy

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

IMDB says that Leanord Nemoy (spelling?) is RUMOURED to be playing Smaug - or voicing I'm assuming. Haven't found anything else that says this, and I'm not sure if rumours belong on wikipedia, so I havent added it myself. Lordloss210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.255.250 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of "Filming" section

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There has been a lot of information released over the past few months regarding the production of these two films which could be used to expand the "Filming" section. I'd like to help expand this section, but since it's going to likely be a very massive undertaking, I'm probably going to need some help. Therefore, if anyone would like to collaborate with me on this, please post a message on my talk page expressing your interest.TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiwi?

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the cast section, the page states that the actor is thrilled to play as Kili, but it says kiwi. I'm not sure if this was the direct quote or a typo, but I think it would be wise to let everyone know before it's changed. Exoworlder (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think someone fixed it because the only occurrence of "kiwi" in the article refers to the nationality of the actor (Kiwi being another way to say "of New Zealand".Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 03:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Requested move IV

Latest comment: 12 years ago30 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Hobbit (2012 film) → The Hobbit film series, leaving the production information on this page, but moving some of the material to an individual film page for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and then when relevant, The Hobbit: There and Back Again; these titles would correspond with that of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Also include a {Not to be confused with The Hobbit (1977 film)}, to ensure no confusion between the 1977 The Hobbit film. -- Michael James 10:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose: It is common practice in WP:FILM to only have films series articles that cover three or more films. Furthermore it is too early to split this article into its separate parts. Most of the sources currently used in this article pertain to the combined film. For example we do not yet know which actors will be in only part 1, part 2 or both. The cast lists you created at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again are based entirely on WP:Original Research. The plots in both article also pertain to the combined film as we do not yet know where and how the film will be divided. Until more information about the unique aspects of each individual part are know, I think it is best to keep the information together here in a single article. Remember there is WP:NORUSH.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: There was a separate suggestion by Mildly Mad to move The Lord of the Rings film trilogy to Middle Earth in film and included this film within its scope that I think we should consider.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: In concern with the cast lists created at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again, these are main characters known to be in both films. Isn't that enough credit to be put on the pages? -- Michael James 00:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
By "known" I think you mean "assumed" which is the essence of original research. As an adaptations, liberties with the source material are commonly taken. That's why we have the policy that all information must verifiable through reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment:Point taken. Though may we at least change the page name as the films are not a "2012 film", but 2012-2013 films. -- Michael James 6:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
A name change might be warranted, but it's still a single film released in two parts. It would have better if a loose concensus on what to call it was established before the request to move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It is no more a single film released in two parts than The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a single film released in three parts. And we (correctly) acknowledge in our title that it is a trilogy, not The Lord of the Rings (2001/02/03 film). Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the ideal model on which to follow but right now is not the time. There simply is not enough reliable information uniquely related to each part to warrant splitting at this time. As Betty Logan pointed out at WT:FILM#The Hobbit, Harry Potter and Deathly Hollows was not split until after the first part was released. When enough sources are available I think we should reconsider splitting but until then they should be kept together. Remember there is no deadline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Support move. The current title is incorrect. Lugnuts (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
No, the title is not incorrect. Although it could be better.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is incorrect. Lugnuts (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Brightgalrs is right, The Hobbit is a single film whose first part is being released in 2012. The proposed title would be incorrect because it is not a film series. However a better title that reflects the two part nature of the film or release years of both parts could be made.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop referring it as "The Hobbit film". It is not a single film with no intention to ever be that way. The book may have been a single story, though its adaptation on film will be done as two separate films. It is a film series and not a single film. This is not my assumption but fact! Like the Star Wars saga, its one story split into six "individual" films; its not the Star Wars film. -- Michael James 14:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, a better analogy would be Kill Bill, Breaking Dawn or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, none of which have "Film series" articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Could the name be better? Yes, but that doesn't mean we should support a move to The Hobbit film series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: A Middle-earth in film has been created. Hopefully that complicates things less. Jhenderson 777 16:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - Even if "it is common practice in WP:FILM to only have films series articles that cover three or more films," few 2 part film series have as much joint information as this one does, so there is good reason to do something different than the "common practice." No one seems to deny that a joint article covering the two films is necessary here, and so an appropriate title is needed. I suppose we could use The Hobbit duology or something like that, but film series makes more sense. While there may not be that much sourced information about the individual films yet, there is enough at least about An Unexpected Journey to create that individual article. And I believe that There and Back Again also meets the film criteria for a separate article already; if not, it is hardly questionable that eventually it will (after all, if at this point it somehow does not get made/released, that will be a notable event in its own right). Rlendog (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A title with no date should be the preferred option. Remember, in some countries the films may not be released in 2012-13, but in 2013-14. Even if "it is common practice in WP:FILM to only have films series articles that cover three or more films," few 2 part film series have as much joint information as this one does, so there is good reason to do something different than the "common practice." No one seems to deny that a joint article covering the two films is necessary here, and so an appropriate title is needed. The Hobbit duology or something like that should be considered, but film series makes more sense. -- Michael James 6:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Duology is not a word. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither is 'Quadrilogy' but that is still what they call box sets (and has it printed on the box) that feature four films, like Terminator, or Alien. Charlr6 (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, but we wouldn't call articles this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I know we wouldn't, but if we had to call the two films something it would have to be the unofficial term, "Duology". It says on the Trilogy page on Wikipedia by "Other numbered series" that there isn't a Greek equivalent for 'two', but '"Duology" (formed by mixing Latin (duo, "two") with Ancient Greek λόγος (logos, "speech", "account", "story")) has been used in some pairs of sci-fi novels.'". It does say "citation needed" on it, and I know it isn't an official term, we all do. But if we can't find anything when individual pages of Part 1 and Part 2 are out, then we could call this main series page "The Hobbit (films)", but that sounds like more of a list of films based upon The Hobbit. It's kind of tricky really as there really isn't anything, it's not really a "film series" as it's two films. We could just keep the year release dates on it, or just delete this page all together and just have very detailed pages for both parts. Charlr6 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I see this page eventually developing into two individual pages for each part with a common sub-article for the production like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows so this page would become obsolete, and more general information as a series can be housed at Middle Earth in film. However I don't see enough specific sources for either individual film article just yet. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows wasn't split until after the release of the first part, Kill Bill wasn't split until a few months ago and Breaking Dawn is still merged together in a single article though that will probably be split soon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New title?

Latest comment: 12 years ago53 comments11 people in discussion

Doesn't having a slash in an article title cause problems? What about The Hobbit (2012–13 film)? Or (2010s film)?
—WWoods (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is covering both films, and the 'slash' wouldn't cause any problems, when people search for the film they should know by now its in two-parts. The slash and the dash would have the exact same effect. The '2012' is about Part 1, and the '/13' is about the second part. It's not saying "the film is undecided to be released in 2012 or 2013", it would say the film if it was "2012-13", like it's undecided whether it would be released in 2012 or 2013, even if people do think that then once they start to read the article they will easily catch on. Its better than "The Hobbit (2012 film)", as that title would only be relevant to the first film. Charlr6 (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Not what I meant. Human readers can understand "2012/13", but computers may parse "The Hobbit (2012/13 film)" as a subpage of "The Hobbit (2012", the way "Talk:Foo/Archive 1" is a subpage of "Talk:Foo". I remember some discussion of what to do about ships with names like "M/V Jones"; I can't find it, but the result was that all such articles are named "MV Jones".
According to Wikipedia:Subpages#Articles do not have sub-pages (main namespace), this is not a problem for the article itself, but may be for the talk page:

The main (article) namespace does not have this feature turned on, as strictly hierarchical organisation of articles is discouraged, and other distinctions are better made by placing pages in other namespaces (e.g. discussions go in "Talk:", and templates in "Template:").

Slashes in article titles

Some topics have a slash in the name, and should be named accordingly—e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy or OS/2. Care should be taken with the corresponding talk pages, though, as subpages are enabled in talk space—for example, Talk:OS/2 is treated by the software as a subpage of Talk:OS.

—WWoods (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Well then if computers would do that, then maybe there is someone who can edit slight details and it won't think it's a sub-page. But if it's only the computers that might be confused then there should be a way to slightly edit something so they would understand. But as Humans would understand, then there isn't really a main problem. Charlr6 (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This was a very bold move that was done without any kind of discussion or consensus. It should be changed back immediately. I would do it myself, but there seems to be some sort of conflict preventing me from doing it. TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well whoever agreed for it to be called just "The Hobbit (2012 film)", even though it's split into two parts being released in 2012 and 2013. Someone wasn't very bold on letting that happen. "The Hobbit (2012/13 film)" is much more suitable that "The Hobbit (2012)" which implies it is being released in 2012 as one film. I tried to do it as "The Hobbit (2012/13 films)" with an 's' at the end but it automatically got rid of it. If you want to risk people getting confused by the title then so be it, but Part 1 is released in 2012, and Part 2 in 2013. Until later this year when they is enough information on both films then we can create pages for both of them and delete this page or just make it very basic and literally link it to the two other pages for the films.
And so much for 'without any kind of discussion or consensus' and you are trying to change it back immediately without any 'discussion or consensus'. You should wait until at least 4-6 posters come on here and decide what should happen and whether "The Hobbit (2012)" or "The Hobbit (2012/13)" is more suitable and which one could be less confusing. People by now know its split into two parts, and would think that it both might be released in 2012 if we have it in the title, but the "2012/13" helps people to understand better. Charlr6 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You can't make moves like this without first getting consensus from other editors. Don't just take it upon yourself to make page title moves like this. If you'd bothered to read the rest of the talk page, you would see that this topic has been brought up multiple times, including this time.TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And you won't need to change it back anytime soon until more people come onto it complaining at the move. But that still doesn't explain who changed it to "The Hobbit (2012 film)", even though that implies one film even though its two parts released within one year of each other. It's not my fault someone stupidly changed it to "The Hobbit (2012 film)", the new current one is more suitable and accept as they are being released in 2012 and 2013. So the discussions must not have been good enough for whatever group of editors happily let it be moved to "The Hobbit (2012 film)". Maybe THEY should have bothered to remember that it's a two-part film being released within one year of each other and that "2012 film" would and should only apply to "An Unexpected Journey". Charlr6 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you understand how this works.TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I noted this as well. And the move occurred during the middle of a discussion on what to rename the page! This was not one of the proposed changes. Lost on Belmont (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Three things need to be cleared up just in case this kind of conversation gets a little out of hand. 1: It's always safer to do a consensus on the name change first. I didn't have a problem with your name change of the title and obviously a lot didn't because there was no revert but a consensus would have been gone a lot smoother 2: It's been a while so I can't remember but the reveal that the film(s) was a two-parter being released in two different years was probably not revealed when it was first filmed or when the consensus was to change. I know it was not a sudden reveal when it was actually filmed and if so that was why it was just (2012 film) at the time. 3: We shouldn't need to worry because we still got a active requested move going on that will be open to many suggestions including yours on what to name it. Remember there is no rush. I hope I cleared some things up. Jhenderson 777 02:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If 'duology' was a proper word I would suggest that to be in the brackets. I would suggest 'film series' but as it's only two films it doesn't fully feel like it can be called that. Charlr6 (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Do we have to keep having this discussion? Consensus was that it should have been where it was - see the numerous discussions above. This should not have been moved without prior discussion, and there are ongoing discussions on how to structure the articles for the whole series. And again - duology is not a word, so this should never be considered. "Film series" is infinitely preferable as per WP:NCF, but it is rare that a film series article exists when it consists only two films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It should keep on being discussed until the films are out so then individual pages can be created for both films. I looked through the page and didn't see anyone at all mention the page being moved to "The Hobbit (2012 film)", which was a stupid change as it's two-parts being released within a year of each other, you can't change that fact in the title. The unofficial word 'duology' would be more suitable than "The Hobbit (2012 film)".
And why did you say "duology is not a word" like I didn't understand it wasn't a word. I said "If 'duology' WAS a proper word then I would suggest that to be in the brackets". Didn't you see the 'was'? I know its not a proper word and I was saying that if it was then it would be the suitable word to use, but I said that it wasn't. I never said it was an official real word. I NEVER said it should be considered, I said that if it WAS a real word. So much for you telling me to see discussions above, why don't you read what I said properly? Charlr6 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see Requested move I above. Please also see Requested move II and Requested move III for oppositions to moving away from this. Despite you agreeing that "duology " isn't a word, still you're suggesting "duology" is more appropriate then "2012 film". It isn't. Because it isn't a word. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You are looking way too much into what I said. I did suggest it would be more appropriate but only if it was actually a word. If you aren't happy with the word then the definition of the unofficial word would be more suitable as 'duology' WOULD mean a two-film series IF it WAS REAL. That's all that I was saying. And before you come back and look WAY too deeply again, I'll repeat myself. We know what the definition of 'duology' would be IF it WAS a REAL word. It WOULD mean a series of two films. IF 'duology' WAS a REAL word, then the DEFINITION WOULD be 'a series of two films'. Might as well not add my opinion in as apparently because duology isn't a real word, my opinion would be invalid because of it not being a word, even though I was trying to show an example. I know what I was trying to say, don't change my words around. And the links you sent me went to discussions above where you started saying that 'duology' wasn't a word. Practically like you are throwing all of your opinions at me like fact. "See the above discussion I had when I talked about this earlier and how it isn't a word because I was the first on the discussion to say so". That's practically what you were saying. Charlr6 (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm - I don't see the point of arguing for the hypothetical use of a neologism that you think would be a good fit if the word did exist. It's muddying the issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't muddying anything, stop changing my words around and thinking I'm doing the complete opposite of what I am doing. Charlr6 (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The argument (and I paraphrase) "I wish we could use duology but we can't", and the lengthy response detracts from the point and is completely superfluous to the issue at hand. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"I wish we could use duology but we can't" isn't written anywhere on this page. What I said was "If 'duology' was a proper word I would suggest that to be in the brackets. I would suggest 'film series' but as it's only two films it doesn't fully feel like it can be called that.", I never said "I wish we could use duology but we can't." It's not even written anywhere on the page except where you said it. Charlr6 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That's what "paraphrase" means. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that practically confirms you were changing my words around. Charlr6 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Google finds no lack of prior usage of 'duology', and for anyone unfamiliar with the word, meaning should be obvious from related words like trilogy, tetralogy, duopoly, etc.
—WWoods (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
When I read the word duology (oops, I mean 'unofficial' word before I get told off, oops I said word again. Might as well just beep out the word.) I knew what I meant, because it does sound similar to trilogy, tetralogy, duopoly, etc. So I knew it was something to do with film series, and as 'duo' means 'two' I could see that it means two films or two books or two games. If someone came up with the idea for the word, (and it is a word as we know how to spell it, what it means. It actually being unofficial and not in the dictionary doesn't make it not a word. There can be unofficial words. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about it). The new Coldplay album which title I can't remember. That actually isn't a word, they just made it up. So then maybe whoever doesn't agree 'duology' isn't a word should go over to that page and get rid of the title as it isn't a word and won't be in the dictionary. But as it's an album by a famous band, how does that make it a more acceptable word that 'duology'. And don't anyone come back saying how I'm moving away from the discussion, sometimes you've got to make examples to make people understand and to do that you occasionally have to go off topic. Charlr6 (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've moved the page back to its original title. There was no consensus for this move so it has been moved back as per policy regarding controversial page moves. The Hobbit (2012/13 film) film goes against film article naming conventions for a start. When disambiguation using years, the convention is to use the debut year. The only two valid disambiguation terms here are (2012 film) and (film series), unless a non-ambiguous title is chosen. It's probably wise not to move it again though until a final title is chosen though, because it could create a double redirect problem if it is moved more than once. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If it is supposed to show the debut year then "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" page should actually be called "The Lord of the Rings (2001)", unless there is some major contradictions around. The 'trilogy' started in 2001, the origin for that film series. Or how about if the Lord of the Rings films and The Hobbit merge into one article entitled "The Lord of the Rings (movie franchise)"? The Hobbit is a prequel to Lord of the Rings (even though the book was written first), not a spin-off like Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It's a prequel so it should be in a main over-all page shouldn't it? Covering all of the five films made by Peter Jackson. Charlr6 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
A disambiguation year is only required when other articles with the same title exist. See WP:NCF. As far as your "movie franchise" article goes, please see Middle-earth in film. This has all been discussed previously above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant a "movie franchise" for the Peter Jackson film, once again you think the opposite of what I'm saying. And stop saying 'this has all been discussed before', yes it has, but I'm talking about it now and asking questions and we are having another discussion. You must have gotten annoyed when there was a "Request Move II" and "Request Move III" and "Request Move IV", you might as well have said there "it's been discussed before in "Request I"". But the "Middle-earth in film" is about every single piece of film for Lord of the Rings, its practically anything about any official movie or fan film for Lord of the Rings. I was on about one specifically for the Peter Jackson series, and I think you knew that. If you are getting fed up of saying "this has been discussed before", then stop coming back to discuss if it annoys you. I'm allowed to be part of the discussion, I'm so sorry that I wasn't here when the other discussions were taking place. Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not "annoyed" about anything, but if you are going to open up issues that have already been discussed, then it might be beneficial to read them first, and mention what you agree or disagree with from previous editors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If there was more than one Lord of the Rings trilogy, then it would be disambiguated as The Lord of the Rings (2001 film series). Technically an article about two films such as this would be called The Hobbit (film series); however, the argument against moving it to that name is that this article will mostly develop as an article about the 2012 film, since upon its release a plot, a release and reception section will be added. There may be some production content and speculation about the second film, but about 90% of the article will be about the first film. A vast majority of the links to the article will be linking to it as the article about the first film. Once there is enough content about the second film to sustain an article then that can be split out of this article into its own article, leaving this article entirely about the first film. The other approach, which is more complicated in my view, would be to move to something like The Hobbit (film series) or Production of The Hobbit, develop that, and then create a new article to cover the release of the first film. That is an entirely legitimate approach—and sounds more logical—but in practice it may be more complicated: most of the links to it will really be links to the first film, so those would all have to be manually corrected if a new article is created; also, cutting the part 1 content out of the film series article would be a much bigger job than cutting the part 2 content out of the part 1 article, sinc ethere will be more of it, and approaches that minimise cut and paste moves are usually preferred. Either approach is legitimate and in keeping with naming conventions, but moving it to an article disambiguated as "2012/13 film" isn't the correct approach, because which ever approach we take we are never going to end up with an article called The Hobbit (2012/13 film) so it's a short term measure. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Except that most of the material in this article as it stands now pertains to both the 2012 film and the 2013 film jointly - the premise, the pre-production, everything with Del Toro, even some of the filming/marketing/etc. as well as the cast (although the latter can be split up appropriately when the time comes). So either lots of this information is going to have to be copied to both the 2012 film article and the 2013 film article, or we will need something like The Hobbit (film series) or Production of The Hobbit, which this article actually is, since very little is specific to the 2012 film alone. Rlendog (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It pertains to both films presently because at the moment it only covers production content. But if this article continues to be developed as just one article then once the first film comes out you've got a plot, box office date and critical reception so it will be heavily weighted towards the first film. Either way, whether you develop it as an umbrella film series article or as single film article with a view of splitting out the part 2 content, the disambiguation terms are still "film series" or "2012 film" according to NCF, not "2012/13 film". Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, except that even if this article develops as the 2012 film article, all the information in the current article about the pre-production and much of the production will still apply equally to the 2013 film, and so it will still need to be copied into that film's article once there is enough information to develop that one. The only way to avoid that massive duplication would be to have an umbrella article - which right now this article basically is. So it might as well be given a title that reflects that. As far as I am concerned film series is fine. As is duology, for that matter. Or 2012/13. Or another title that adequately reflects the fact that the content covers two related films and not just a single one. After all, if film series is unacceptable for whatever reason (since there is no valid definition of a series that excludes groups of 2 elements) then we still need to remember that even though WP:NCF is a guideline, guidelines "are best treated with common sense" and "occasional exceptions may apply" without a need to rewrite the guideline itself. Rlendog (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Exceptions are for cases when the guidelines aren't applicable, but there is no reason to dream up new disambiguation terms when the NCF can easily accommodate it with existing and technically correct terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TheLastAmigo that the move to The Hobbit (2012/13 film) was a controversial move and needed consensus first because it was likely to be contested per WP:RM. However I didn't say anything because I thought it was decent compromise between The Hobbit (2012 film) and The Hobbit (film series), although I prefer The Hobbit (2012 film) over The Hobbit (film series) (see above discussion). Besides any move would likely be only temporary because the article is likely to be split between The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again once there are enough specific reliable sources available to each individual part.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is the most likely outcome, then it is best to keep it as it is. Once the time comes for splitting, the part 2 stuff can be split into a new article, and this article can be simply moved to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. That way we only need to do copy attribution for the part 2 article, and the links will automatically redirect to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey without any broken double redirects. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Then call the Lord of the Rings trilogy page, "Lord of the Rings (film trilogy)", but an article on the 2012 film should be a new page called "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey", and the same would go for Part 2. This is the over-all page for both films. If it's just going to be for the first film, then move all of the details for Part 2 to a section near the bottom of the page about Part 2, and then when there is more information, create a new page for that and then delete it from this page. And also if it's for the first film, then get rid of "upcoming two-part epic fantasy film" and change it to "upcoming epic fantasy film in a two-part series" or something similar and also get rid of the release date on the info box for the second film. If like you said, this page is more about Part 1 than Part 2, then don't design it to look like an overall page for both films. Maybe if anything, split the page instead of having information merged together, split it similar to what the Kill Bill page used to be like, when the top half was about Volume 1 and the bottom half was about Volume 2, then THAT would be more acceptable. Even if the info on Part 2 is about which actors will be in the second film, continuing from the first and some plans for where the second part will be picked up. And I repeat, like you said the article is more about Part 1, if it's more about Part 1, then treat the article like it is Part 1 instead of a page for BOTH films. Split it down, because it's kind of confusing with it seemingly being about both films, but mostly about Part 1. As like you said there was very little info on Part 2, then just move that down to a different section lower on the page. And actually we would end up with an article called "The Hobbit (2012/13)" when both films are out as that would be more suitable for a article focusing on both films. Duology isn't an official word and film series seems to great a value to call a two-part series. But because The Hobbit is split into two films, the "2012" would only be necessary if it was actually one film, not two parts. There was an animated film of The Hobbit I believe, but that was one part so it should contain the year it is released. But as this is a two-part project, it should contain both years. If Part 2 was a typical sequel then it would be understandable, but it's Part 2 and the second half of the story. "The Hobbit (2012/13)" title would refer to the two films as a whole, and then the 2012 information about be about Part 1, and the /13 information would be about Part 2. Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
There are three choices as I see it:
  1. Movie the article to The Hobbit (film series) or Production of The Hobbit, and formally develop the article about two films. This seems logical, but will lead to more work once you have to split out the film articles, with two lots of copy attribution, and two lots of wikilinks to correct.
  2. Split the articles now into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again and develop them independently. The problem here though is that most of the production information is relevant to both films, and there might not be enough information to develop the articles independently i.e. they might just look like duplicates of each other, and you risk an afd.
  3. Leave as it is, and once the article forms into enough content for two distinct articles then split the part 2 content into The Hobbit: There and Back Again, and move this article to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Leaving this article as The Hobbit (2012 film) isn't a big problem, because the title of the article isn't The Hobbit (2012 film), it is The Hobbit and the disambiguation term is just a qualifier to identify to readers which version the article is about.
These are the only three viable approaches that I can see. It's down to consensus which one is pursued, but the important thing is that is is a communal decision, and not just one editor forcing the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
With the many previous conversations and discussions, I assumed implied consensus to go along with option 3 until such time we needed to split into two (or, if necessary, three) separate articles. It seems that a new editor has joined the party late, and opened up the issue again without reading what has gone before (not to mention moving without consensus whilst a move discussion was still taking place). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is what happened with Harry Potter, and then as the part 2 release date approached it became very obvious that the part 2 content had to split into its own article; the solution presented itself because the article started to look like two articles jammed together. It was ultimately a natural process. Personally I think that is the best approach here, but ultimately it is up to the regular editors how they develop the article, provided they observe the NCF. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't have any problem with the split being done already. There is no guideline saying when we have to do it. Reading through WP:Split I don't see any reason why not. Sure Harry Potter was split after the first film was out but that's just because a consensus was done at that time. And also let's face it that there is another inaccuracy with the page title that it uses "film" instead of "films". It's obvious that a two parter is two films. With the Twilight title we never had to worry about that but I am pretty sure that we should all be in agreement that it is two films. Also I need to put this out of the way, film series articles talking about two films are not rare anymore (definitely in animated films). Check Cars (franchise), Kung Fu Panda (franchise), Madagascar (franchise)(not counting that there is going to be a film this year) and Fantastic Four in film. Jhenderson 777 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not "obvious that a two parter is two films", there is an argument that it could be perceived as one film in two parts, like Kill Bill, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, or Ivan the Terrible (film) (which had its "part two" released 14 years after "part one"). --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Che (film) , would be another example.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not obvious that the film is in two parts any more. But actually, those films you mentioned, if people know about them and when I say that I mean KNOW, not 'heard of', then they would know it's in two parts.
The problem isn't that there is a policy saying we can't have two film articles now (the film notability guidelines say we can create film articles once filming has commenced, so in theory we are allowed to create an article for each film), it's more the case of what they cover. If the article is split, how exactly would it be split? What would go into the part 1 article and what would go into the part 2 article? It's not the legitimacy of a split that's the problem, it's the practical side of what would be split. This article primarily covers the production of both films, so I don't really see how that can be divided up between two articles. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. However we could have a sub-article for the production, but then we would also need a sub-article for the cast (sources dont identify which part they would involved or both), and there is no information where the plot is to be split. So the articles would be pretty bare bones. Its better that we keep them together for the time being.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You don't really see how they did it? They managed it with Kill Bill before the films were split on Wikipedia onto two articles, before it was one article on each with the first volume at the top and second volume at the bottom of the page. That was done well. So maybe go onto the history on that page and look at how they did it before it was split. Charlr6 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the history of the Kill Bill article, there was a bit of sarcasm in my post. The point is we should wait and allow the article to develop together then split it after more specifics of each part are made available.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I seeme to recall Kill Bill was split because it was badly done. It even had two infoboxes, it looked like two articles pushed together. Anyway, no-one actually seems to be arguing for splitting, there just seems to be some discontent over the disambiguation term. Under the current naming conventions, there are only two valid types (2012 film)/(film series), so if there really is a genuine feeling that these are not adequate then the appropriate course of action would be to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Film series would be fine. I never heard of a requirement that a series must have more than 2 elements. Even Wikipedia's own article on film series contains a link to List of film series with two entries. Rlendog (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually you're right it's not obvious it's debatable. And obviously we have article titles to put prose that maybe using (film) in a two parter is acceptable. The opinions of the creators probably matter because it is so debatable. In my opinion a two parter is two films that most likely share the same production. Also I know dividing the article is not easy. Trust me I am the one who started at divided the Harry Potter article and I am the one who came up with the idea of dividing the production section. At the end it really took good editors to make it all work out. On other note I think the article looks fine to stay even though the title of it is not accurate. But it's obvious that it's going to be really big eventually. Jhenderson 777 16:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I am of the opinion that it's probably about time that we at least started discussing splitting the article again. It has already gotten extremely huge, the marketing for An Unexpected Journey is starting to get in full-swing, and we now have pretty good evidence that the first film will split with "Barrel out of Bonds". Also, production on both films has officially ended as of last week. There is probably enough material on the production in various places around the Internet that we could write a pretty detailed "Production" section, or even an entirely separate article on the production of the films. Thoughts?TheLastAmigo (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Throwing my two cents in for the article name (if this article continues to be about both films). I had three suggestions being, The Hobbit (2012 and 2013 films), The Hobbit (Part 1 and Part 2), or The Hobbit (Peter Jackson films). JDC808 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It's quite simple really, originally The Hobbit (book) was going to be made into two separate films, with some material added, now it is one film split into two halves. As such, it should really be one film with it's first date of release as its year. They filmed it and started finalising the first half for release while the second half was still being filmed (last shots only a few weeks ago). Lets not get each others knickers in a twist over something so simple ppl, there are more serious issues to deal with here and lots of work to do still :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Budget.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

$150 million. Hohoho thats moved from $500 for both parts. This seems fishy. Anyone fixes it? Deadagain33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

We don't know the budget. People need to stop putting speculative bollocks in. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia not a crystal ball or gossip column in a low rent newspaper. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

redirects?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An Unexpected Journey should redirect here, shouldn't it? We have a dismabiguation page for There and Back Again (disambiguation)... so that's a search term that's plausible, but so is the first undertitle. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Elvenking

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've seen it asserted repeatedly, as here, that Thranduil is the Elvenking of the Hobbit; but as far as I'm aware, that's not asserted anwhere in Tolkien. We know that Thranduil is King at the time of the Council of Elrond; but how do we know that the King of The Hobbit hasn't been killed off, or gone over the Sea? Thranduil could be his son, or even grandson. I see nothing in the Thranduil entry. Or have I missed something? Paul Magnussen (talk)

It's stated in Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age that Thranduil was king when Sauron came to Mirkwood; this was close to two thousand years earlier than The Hobbit. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Thank you. Paul Magnussen (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Page name

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since it appears that both films will be represented on the page, it seems to be misleading to title the page The Hobbit (2012 film) since the second part will be released in 2013. I think it should be moved to either The Hobbit (2012 and 2013 films), The Hobbit (Part 1 and Part 2), or The Hobbit (Peter Jackson films). If a second article is made for Part 2, then this page should be named with its subtitle, and the same for Part 2. JDC808 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a lengthy discussion on this above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
lol woops JDC808 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There seem to be quite a few quotes that need correcting (done a few already)

Quotes should be as they were in the sources, with [additions] for explanation or missing words, and [sic] (He took {{sic|the|re}} money) used for misspelled words.

While I appreciate there are attempts to try and better the spelling, it is imperative that phrases are left as is. If this article ever goes to GA or FA, Wikilinks in quotes are also suspect and would be better removed - in other words try and avoid them if possible. Use a second mention of the linkable word that is not in the quote, for example. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

New page title as its now been confirmed as three films?

Latest comment: 12 years ago86 comments22 people in discussion

As it has been confirmed, and already established on this page, that "The Hobbit" will become three films, thus, a trilogy. Should we change the title of the page to; "The Hobbit (film trilogy)" or "The Hobbit (film series)", because now it should have the same treatment as any other film trilogy should have in its name for the 'over-all' page.

What do you think? We could change it, like "The Lord of the Rings" film page to, "The Hobbit film trilogy". Charlr6 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be okay with that, also hopefully it might help to curb over zealous editors from creating the individual film articles prematurely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I vote yes. The current title sounds like it describes a single film. As more information surfaces about each individual film (and as they are released), we can add links to separate film articles. This should become the trilogy page. --MattMauler (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Now that it is three films, the complaints about using terms like "duology" or "film series" are no longer issues. Rlendog (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like someone attempted and failed the page-move. We'll have to wait until the copy is speedy-deleted. --MattMauler (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that "Jackson confirmed plans to make a third film" is a sufficiently good reason to believe that this will definitely be done. I view changing this title as premature. Anyway, I have deleted the cut&paste at The Hobbit film trilogy, so any editor can move it there if they have sufficient reason to do so. —Kusma (t·c) 17:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest waiting to develop a consensus before attempting another move. Mephtalk 17:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC).
On his actual Facebook page, which Peter Jackson runs, he does say "... on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.". I know it's his Facebook page, and according to Wikipedia it can't really be a reliable source, but because it actually COMES from him, himself, it should be an exception, if I mean it would be included as a actual 'original source'. Peter Jackson's Facebook page Charlr6 (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The film series in no longer a two part movie therefore the title shouldn't only refer to the first premiere year. I think moving this page to The Hobbit film series would be appropriate and maybe later to The Hobbit film trilogy if the media and film studios styles it that way. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support a change in name to The Hobbit film series, as per WP:NCF. -- User:2nyte 2:14, 31 July 2011 (AEST)
Actually, three films in a series is not necessarily a trilogy. It could just be a series of three. A "trilogy" implies a greater artistic/thematic connection between the three films, and also a pre-meditated master plan. I'm not saying that this isn't the case here, but it's something to bear in mind. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Also per WP:COMMONNAME, an unscientific google search show more hits for "The Hobbit trilogy" than "The Hobbit series".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems a problem with genre fiction, etc., where everything needs to have a label, and I guess the news reports are following suit. "Quadrilogy" anyone? WP:NCF seems to advocate that "film trilogy" is only occasionally used, and I don't see a reason to go along with it in this instance. There are very few film series articles left with "film trilogy" in the title these days, with "trilogy" being used for more thematic trilogies like BRD Trilogy and The Three Colours Trilogy, and most film series are disambiguated by "(film series)". In fact, The Lord of the Rings film trilogy may be the only one left that isn't, and I can see a special case in that instance. I don't think so here though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
True. Trilogy does not appear very often. More often 'series' or 'franchise' (the latter would not work in this case). Just to be clear, though, WP:NCF does allow for the use of "Series name trilogy" if the label has 'often' been used by outside sources. --MattMauler (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does, but seeing as this is breaking news, has there been time for it to "often" be called a "trilogy"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to either one of the two names proposed. The current title is misleading.
    Either option would be suitable, but if given the choice, I'd go with The Hobbit film trilogy. While Jackson himself has not yet used "trilogy" to my knowledge, the majority of secondary sources already refer to the series as a 'trilogy.' That doesn't mean it should definitely be called a trilogy, but we would certainly have sufficient basis for labeling it as such. --MattMauler (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy, there are many parallels with this and the LOTR film trilogy, ie. it was all filmed at once, and though it was never envisioned as 3 films, its being expanded into such. I don't like the use of "The Hobbit is a 3-part film" (or 2-part when it was), because the Lord of the Rings could be considered a 3-part film.  The Windler talk  12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You see, I only think that something is a bona fide "trilogy" if it was conceived as such. This was filmed as two films (or a two-part film), and the third is an afterthought. The non-controversial approach would be "film series", as whilst it may or may not constitute a "trilogy", it is definitely a "series". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I see your point about the non-controversial approach.
I would support whichever name on which we can reach a consensus; I suggest operating thus until one of the two appellations clearly predominates in other media. Whichever name we choose, I think we should keep an eye on what Peter Jackson calls it in the future as well as its characterization by firmly established secondary sources. At this early stage, we have little to go on, but as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCF, we should be attentive to how the films are popularly known. --MattMauler (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy. How is this even a debate? A trilogy is, by definition, a series of 3 films, books, etc. whether it was envisioned that way or not. Wikipedia's own definition of trilogy is "a set of three works of art that are connected, and that can be seen either as a single work or as three individual works." This certainly fits the definition of a trilogy by Wikipedia's own standards. If there were the possibility of more than 3 films, then fine, but there aren't going to be more than 3 so it is a trilogy. You can rest assured that Warner Bros. is going to market and release the box set under the moniker of "The Hobbit trilogy". Also, it would just feel weird if it was called anything but The Hobbit film trilogy. Don't you think that being uncomfortable calling it a trilogy is getting just a little too technical? Nobody is going to be confused if we were to call this page "The Hobbit film trilogy". Furthermore, I'm quite perplexed that we're even having this debate. After all these months of debating what the title of this page should be, the perfect solution just falls into our lap and we still can't agree on what to call it, lol.TheLastAmigo (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No, a series of three films, books, etc., are not automatically a trilogy. You are incorrect with your "definition" of "trilogy". That's a series of three. A trilogy is more than just a series of three, and as you're quoting the Wikipedia definition, it remains to be seen whether these three films can be "seen as a single work". It seems these days anything is marketed as a "trilogy", or "quadrilogy" [sic], or even "pentology" [sic]. And incidentally, a week or so ago, we'd have said that there was no possibility of a third film. Anyway, as I mentioned above, there is some controversy as to whether this will constitute a "trilogy", but it is incontrovertible as to whether or not it forms a series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, then what would you consider a trilogy? 'A series of three interconnected works' seems like a fitting definition to me. Cktt13 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's more tricky than that simple definition. The Beverly Hills Cop films are "a series of three interconnected works" and have been called a "trilogy" for marketing purposes, but they are not a bona fide "trilogy". Obviously that's an extreme example and there is more to be considered in this instance, but still we should go for the non-controversial option and disambiguate with "(film series)". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Its not what we call a trilogy but what others call a trilogy. If there are reliable sources that label it a trilogy then I have no problem labeling it as one as well. Which The Hollywood Reporter and Variety do.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the opposition to "film series". It's unambiguous and non-controversial. These three films will, without a doubt form a film series. They may or may not form a trilogy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as reliable sources go, we should consider that the film has been referred to being a trilogy "often", and in a critical analysis rather than just in news reports and for marketing purposes before we can call it one. Only then will we meet the guideline at WP:NCF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The guideline states "When trilogies are often referred to as such by outside sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy." It does not differentiate between what kind of sources, and both THR and Variety are highly reputable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
As we've had 24 hours since the third film was confirmed, it's a little soon to have been "often". And yeah, maybe that guideline does need tightening up a bit. To me, it implies its use should be for conceptual trilogies that have been discussed as trilogies critically (Three Colours, BRD, etc) or have been conceived as a trilogy from the outset as The Lord of the Rings was. For me, The Godfather (for example) fails the second criteria, but passes the first. With The Hobbit, I think it's at best borderline right now, and as someone quite sensibly suggests above, we should move it to "(film series)" until its "trilogy" status can be verified. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, considering that this is going to be one continuous story split into 3 parts, it's pretty much a trilogy in my book. I mean, by your definition, the original Star Wars trilogy wouldn't be a bona fide trilogy since it was not originally envisioned that way.TheLastAmigo (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right. Star Wars isn't a trilogy in the true sense of the word (just like The Godfather in my example above), but as it has been discussed as a trilogy critically and at great length over time, then it is accepted as such. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy, with The Hobbit (film series) an acceptable 2nd choice. Reliable sources are calling it a trilogy, and even if we go to first principles and apply some OR it is pretty obvious that the 3 films will have to form a single work in at least some sense, given that they were shot together with the same cast and crew based primarily on the same book. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for The Hobbit (film series). It's not a trilogy really, three independent works bound together by a larger arc, it's one film split into separate parts because heaven forbid you make a really long movie. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for The Hobbit (film series) per the disambiguation guideline. I also agree that it is not a trilogy, even if released in three parts. The Hobbit like The Lord of the Rings is one single novel. But for editorial reasons the latter book was originally published in three parts which gave each of them a sort of stand-alone status. Therefore calling Jackson's LotR films a trilogy is justified and has actually found widespread usage. The Hobbit films should however be referred to as a series. De728631 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, we should not be applying our own interpretations of what constitutes a trilogy. Reliable sources have labeled it trilogy, so we can too.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Naming conventions are based on expectations. Would most people expect trilogy or series? Either really, therefore series is better because not all sources label them a trilogy. It also might not happen yet anyway GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
And don't forget, the first sentence of the guideline mentions that "(film series)" should be used. It mentions trilogies as an afterthought, that they may be used if sources often refer as such. It's not OR to say it's a series. It might be OR to say it's a trilogy. "Trilogy" is clearly controversial, series isn't. Therefore we should use "(film series)" as then there is no doubt. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly we do not know how the three films will be referred in the future but as of right now it appears that trilogy is being used more than series. If this changes we can always revisit the issue in the future.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that it isn't a series? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with TriiipleThreat here. We evidently cannot agree on an objective definition of 'trilogy,' so, as I've said, we should appeal to the films' characterization in secondary sources. --MattMauler (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
We already have guidelines on this. Trilogy is the controversial choice. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Trilogy is an acceptable choice by the same guideline.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Acceptable, yes, but as I mentioned above, the first sentence of the guideline mentions that "(film series)" should be used. It mentions trilogies as an afterthought, that they may be used if sources often refer as such. It's not OR to say it's a series. It might be OR to say it's a trilogy. "Trilogy" is clearly controversial, series isn't. Therefore we should use "(film series)" as then there is no doubt --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The order of the sentencing in the guideline is of no consequence, the meaning is what is important. Also its not OR to call it a trilogy because we have reliable sources to back it up. And as of right now, trilogy is more in line with WP:COMMONNAME than series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not really. A trilogy is always a series, a series of three isn't always a trilogy. Series is more generic, but no less correct. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to The Hobbit film trilogy, since most reliable sources (Condé Nast, Associated Press, Reuters, AFP) now commonly refer it as a trilogy, along The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Also, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think naming "Trilogy" is controversial. It actually makes it more precise in scope. WP:NCF also suggests "When trilogies are often referred to as such by outside sources, their articles may be titled Series name trilogy." If the films will be extended beyond three, I will support the other one. But the thing is, it's currently referred to as a trilogy by the majority of the sources. (In my perspective or opinion, it's like the page move of Victoria of the United Kingdom > Queen Victoria article, there are more than one of Queen Victorias who had their own respective articles but the common knowledge is that the commonly referred to as the Queen Victoria is the Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom.) Nevertheless, I think the page should be moved immediately as it makes the page misleading and outdated. Woofygoodbird (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me if I digress a bit:
A reminder: We are discussing the title of the page. Within the page, the two terms should be used interchangeably, whichever title we choose. I think this should be aired because at least one edit has been reverted because it used the word 'trilogy.'
Before we go in circles again, let me explain. I understand the discussion: 'Trilogy' is allowed by WP:NCF but it's controversial (as this discussion shows), so 'series' is certainly sufficiently descriptive; it IS a series. However, should this discussion result in 'film series' being the title, we cannot police the article removing uses of 'trilogy' if they are drawn from secondary sources and cited. The article will be built on these same sources; future editors (and some current editors) will be unfamiliar with the discussion taking place here. They cannot be held to a rule decided here because we consider the term used in secondary sources to be 'controversial' according to our definition. If a source uses it, so can an editor (provided the source is reliable). Let me reiterate: either title is serviceable, but in the article both should be allowed because we rely on sources. --MattMauler (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling "trilogy" controversial is also misleading, I have yet to see a reliable source stating that such a label is incorrect. Its however contested by some editors. Wikipedia is based on the idea of verifiability in reliable secondary sources, not the personal opinions of its editors. So unless contested by secondary sources, "trilogy" is not only non-controversial, it is both acceptable and accurate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that 'trilogy' would be perfectly accurate, and I don't really understand the objections. I was just summing up the arguments of both sides ...and stating that even if it's not ideal, 'series' would still work in my opinion.
I'm not trying to play both sides, but I do want it to be known that I'll go along happily with whichever title is chosen. The sooner we reach a consensus, the sooner we can change this thing! --MattMauler (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you'd like to see a source that says it isn't a trilogy, I'd like to see one that says it isn't a series. "Trilogy" is controversial, as this debate evidences. Most people are saying that either is fine, some are saying that we shouldn't use "trilogy", but only one is inexplicably saying that it isn't a series. As I said before, it may or may not be a trilogy, but it is definitely a series. "Series" is non-controvertible and recommended at WP:NCF. To deconstruct the guideline once more, surely we should only be using "trilogy" if there is no opposition to its use. Bear in mind the guideline says the "series" should be used, and "trilogy" may be used. See the difference? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to The Hobbit (film series); there's clear consensus the article needs to be moved; this option has the most support. Cúchullain t/c 15:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Hobbit (2012 film) → The Hobbit film trilogy – Similar naming practice like The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Move this page to "The Hobbit film trilogy", articles for separate films (The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, The Hobbit: There and Back Again) will be created later, when they are released. Support me. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 14:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. WP:NCF#Film series states we should only use trilogy when outside sources refer to films in that manner, otherwise they should be disambiguated with (film series). Move proposal has not established that sources refer to the adaptation as a "trilogy", so disambiguating in this way is not consistent with the naming conventions for film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment reliable sources for trilogy have been presented in the preceding discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I dispute that "film trilogy" is even applicable here, since it is essentially a disambiguation term. It seems to me the two alternatives are The Hobbit trilogy and The Hobbit (film series). Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment We're supposed to get consensus on controversial moves, regardless of whether or not you think it is controversial. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I hope that wasn't directed at me, becuase I agree a consensus is needed for any move likely to be contested.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it is just a general comment, since you did not undertake the move. A move should not be initiated just one day after a formal move request is placed. The move template stipulates that 7 days must elapse before the discussion can be formally closed. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Twas a comment aimed at the original mover of the article, not TriiipleThreat. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support there's overwhelming consensus above. And a dose of common sense would go a long way here, considering other trilogies have similar articles. If reliable sources use another term in the future, it can be moved then. Hot Stop 14:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Overwhelming consensus? Can you show me where? If there is a consensus it is on series, not trilogy GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine, then move it to that. Either way, there's overwhelming consensus against the current title. Hot Stop 14:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


  • Oppose - I change my mind and I'd personably like it as 'film series', because the Hobbit is one book, not a trilogy. And in my eyes it would seem out of place if we suddenly changed it into a trilogy, just because its three films. And also because most films have 'film series' in their name anyway, it also seems like a more professional wording. Charlr6 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strange that someone started a new discussion, when one has already been taking place. Anyway, as I stated above, oppose The Hobbit film trilogy, as it remains to be seen whether this is a trilogy per all the reasons stated in the above section, but support The Hobbit (film series), which is per WP:NCF and incontrovertible. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Rob Sinden is correct, a trilogy is a series and both are acceptable per naming conventions. Although we should strive to be as accurate as possible when we can. Still I am deeply concerned about the amount of POV being interjected into this discussion. The only prerequisite required to name a series a trilogy is that it be referred as one by outside sources (which in this case, they do). As editors it is our job to remain neutral, regardless of our personal opinions. Per guidelines, it does not matter if the source material is one book. The artistic connectivity of the films do not matter. We are not judges of art. And regarding if it may or may not become a trilogy, by our standards of proof, it already is.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hear, Hear! --MattMauler (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  •   Administrator note The page is now move-protected to prevent further move warring. Please not that this is not an endorsement of the current name but it does mean an admin will be needed to close this discussion and take the appropriate action. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Can this please be resolved already. It is an annoyance that we have to go on about this change in name; can we stop procrastinating and come to an agreement already. The fact is that as per WP:NCF the name The Hobbit (film series) is suitable for the page, unlike the current name, and so we should change it. In the future if we see fit to change the name again we will do so then when the time comes. Though now is the time to change to The Hobbit (film series), what more discussion is necessary? Please just change it and be done with it, please! (agree) -- User:2nyte 11:33, 7 August 2012 (AEST)
  • So can we agree on The Hobbit (film series)? I think most people who preferred "trilogy" opted for "(film series)" as a close second choice, and this is as per the WP:NCF guideline. This discussion has been going on for a couple of weeks now, so it should really be wrapped up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please also note that while this discussion has been taking place, there has been recent consensus to move The Lord of the Rings film trilogy to The Lord of the Rings (film series), as it was felt that the wording "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" did not correctly apply the rules or spirit of WP:NCF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for The Hobbit film trilogy. We're not actually talking about the book itself or how Tolkien envisions the whole Middle-Earth/Arda literature, we're discussing the adaptation, which isn't exactly bound to how exactly the literature works. I understand (somehow, I hope.) what User:Robsinden wants to say about The Hobbit or LOTR films/books not being a bona-fide/official trilogy, but most common-people refer to it as such anyway. But I also think it's wrong to deprive them of the knowledge of what a trilogy really is. As I see it, the vision that del Toro sees the adaptation as single film but in many parts might be outdated since he's not the director anymore. I'm not saying that The Hobbit (film series) is wrong, it is also a right choice, but it presents a vague approach to the subject as viewed by the common reader. What's happening now in the real world is that people today have in their common knowledge that Jackson's adaptation is now a trilogy. I personally don't know why Warner Bros. did that, (maybe because of marketing purposes?) but the thing is it's now a trilogy as most reliable sources refer to it as such. If we don't have a lot of sources to back this up, or if the adaptation is to be extended to 4 or more, or retracted to 2 again, then The Hobbit (film series) will be the right choice. I'm just saying. Woofygoodbird (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
As was recently pointed out to me, the use of "film trilogy" is a misapplication of WP:NCF, which suggests either "trilogy" or "(film series)" as the correct disambiguator. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alternate Idea

With the Marvel Cinematic Universe, each film apart from The Avengers is stand-alone and focused on the origin story of that character, even though all of them, are in the same universe. My idea I just had, is what if, and this will be way in the future, but before anyone says 'we'll discuss this then', I have just written the idea down to partly be discussed now for future reference, but we merge "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Hobbit" pages together, but have each film have its own separate pages obviously, like like "Iron Man", "The Incredible Hulk", "Thor", etc have their own pages, but over-all page is the "Marvel Cinematic Universe". What if, we create an entire new page that has information on both Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit together in a, for example "Middle Earth Cinematic Universe" page, not the title we would probably end up with, I know that there is a "Middle Earth in Film" page I believe, but that contains EVERYTHING about any Lord of the Rings related media such as radio, tv or film. But this page would be strictly a page focusing on Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" now three-parter and The Lord of the Rings films. Like I said, I wrote this down before I forgot so it can be partially discussed now and might also help us with an idea on what to do currently, but will be mostly for future reference.

In basic, just like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, all of its separate films have their own pages, but the MCU is it's own page. There isn't a "Iron Man (film series) page", so should we in the future merge the Peter Jackson "Lord of the Rings" and Peter Jackson "The Hobbit" into one page, just like the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Charlr6 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A Middle Earth in film page already exists. We're debating now what to call this page. Also as stated earlier the long term goal is for each film to have their own articles, once each achieves their own notability.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you not read what I said? I said I know that page exists, but I clearly said a page JUST for the Peter Jackson films. The Marvel Cinematic Universe page doesn't list the old 1990 Captain America on it.
And I know that each film will have its own page, just like the Lord of the Rings films do, and The Hobbit will, but that still doesn't stop a page being dedicated to just Peter Jackson's films.
And like I said, I bought up the idea before I forgot so it could be briefly discussed, not a new huge discussion entirely. Charlr6 (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I guess I was just thrown by the fact that this included in the name change proposal. While this proposal has merit, it should be handled separately.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I was going to have it as a new 'discussion', but thought it would at the moment be sort of relevant on here at the moment. Charlr6 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Star Wars is a pretty good example of that type of set up, strange you didn't mention it. My concern with this proposal is that we don't know what The Hobbit+The Lord of the Rings is called yet. When all 3 movies are finished and someone gives the whole series a name then we should move and merge articles. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 02:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Star Wars is a good example. But you are right, we don't know what a) this final page will be called or the last two Hobbit films and b) if The Hobbit will be "The Hobbit film trilogy" or "The Hobbit (film series)".
In a few years, I'm pretty sure most of us will come back and possibly see this discussion and we can continue it then obviously, but like I said wrote the idea down before I forgot. Charlr6 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hobbit_(film_series)/Archive_2&oldid=1141557541"