Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim

Third not second animated film

This article calles this the 2nd animated film based on the novel, but there's the 1980 animated Return of the King by Rankin and Bass. Making this the third animated film. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6A02:6E7E:FDBA:C82C:8E4B:98E (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Anime or not?

I've seen many articles refer to this film as an "anime". But is that accurate? It's being produced and funded by an American studio, and written by an American staff. The only significant Japanese factor is the director himself. And while it's true the animation is being outsourced to a Japanese studio, that doesn't make it a Japanese film; The Simpsons is animated in Korea, but we don't think of it as a Korean series. So all things being equal, I think it's best to consider this an American film that just happens to have a Japanese director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.166.188 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It has been reported as an anime by reliable sources, and it is being directed, produced, and animated by a team that previously made anime films/TV series, including a Japanese studio. For now I think anime is correct per what we know, but if the situation develops and we get reliable sources with a different take then we can update. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not an anime because it's an American production. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support that claim? - adamstom97 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: What claim? The series is produced by Warner and New Line, American companies. The animation is made in Japan, but that doesn't mean anything, because Avatar: The Last Airbender, Castlevania and even The Simpsons were/are animated in South Korea, but they are still American productions. The nationality of the directors, animators writers etc. is irrelevant too, as it's for films. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not include information because an editor claims it to be true at the talk page, you need a reliable source to support this position. We have very reliable sources reporting on the film's announcement listed in this article and they refer to the film as anime, so if we are going to change it we will need another reliable source with updated information. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What we call it is besides the point. After all, there are a number of animated works that are often referred to as anime despite not being entirely Japanese in origin. However, if one is to be pedantic and restrict the term "anime" to works that are of Japanese origin, that raises further questions. I'm not suggesting we change the page. But we do need to consider how we define anime. If a work has to be both Japanese-owned and Japanese-produced to be classified as anime, then this movie wouldn't qualify. It's owned by Warner Bros., and is co-produced by Warner Bros. Animation and New Line Cinema. The director is Japanese, and so is one of the studios involved in the co-production, but the rest of the creative input is American. Regardless of what we decide to call it, that much is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.166.188 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

how we define anime is we go with what reliable sources say. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: From the "Anime" page here on Wikipedia: "Anime is hand-drawn and computer animation originating from Japan. In Japan and in Japanese, anime (a term derived from the English word animation) describes all animated works, regardless of style or origin. However, outside of Japan and in English, anime is colloquial for Japanese animation and refers specifically to animation produced in Japan. Animation produced outside of Japan with similar style to Japanese animation is referred to as anime-influenced animation."

Is this film produced by a Japanese company? No, therefore it's not an anime, it's anime-influenced animation. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 11:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

My previous comments still stand re: needing a source, but if this is your logic then I would reiterate that the animation for the film is being made by a Japanese studio which would satisfy the anime is colloquial for Japanese animation and refers specifically to animation produced in Japan part of our definition. This is not the case of a non-Japanese studio (US, Korean, etc.) making anime-influenced animation. In fact, the studio's website specifically states that they make anime. The fact that they have been hired by US studios to do it doesn't change the fact that they are an anime studio working in Japan. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Based on the novel 'The Lord of the Rings'"

The article's introduction says "[...] based on the novel The Lord of the Rings" which is very misleading and should be changed. - 195.92.38.22 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

That is correct per the reliable sources that are in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately it is both correct and misleading. Correct as it is based on the appendices to LOTR; misleading as of course it's not part of the quest to destroy the Ring. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The article should specify, as the sources do, that the material in question is Appendix A of LOTR.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? When we say the original movies are based on The Lord of the Rings we don't specify which chapters. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you are insisting on putting non-plot information in the premise that is already appropriately covered in the production section. When the premise is replaced by a plot summary after the film is released, any non-plot information will be removed from that section. So clearly that is not an appropriate place to put it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We know what the premise is, it is a 2-page section of Appendix A in Return of the King. There is absolutely no reason to embargo that information from an encyclopedic article. And for the record, the only edit warring has been done by you, as specified on your talk page. I have tried to address your concerns with every edit I've made. You keep reverting for reasons that don't really make sense. For example, the Internet Archive, just like Google Books, is an online library from which people can borrow and read texts. Directly linking to the page where the information is found is a helpful resource for Wikipedia users. Editors use this method in countless articles all over Wikipedia with links to books, academic articles, periodicals, etc.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The premise of this film is not equivalent to the contents of Appendix A, the writers have taken details from the appendices and then expanded on them to create a new story. Suggesting that there is no difference between the two is very incorrect. And once again, I am clearly not against mentioning the appendices and how they are being adapted because I put a bunch of information about that in the writing section where it belongs. It does not belong in the premise section, which is about plot details for this film. You might want to read WP:BRD for why your repeated inserting of information despite it being reverted is not how things are done here. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because other articles link to archived versions of books does not make it right to do it here. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The source cited in the Writing section specifically tosses aside the appendices as a source and lasers in on Appendix A, "The actual story, then, draws (like much of recent Tolkien adaptations) from the appendices, specifically three key paragraphs in Appendix A..." (Slashfilm). The appendices in Return of the King are nearly 150 pages long. A decent Wikipedia article does not cite a 150-page source and just shrug about the page numbers. We know where Hammerhand's story comes from. We should direct readers to it.

It's unclear what you think the "Premise" section should be. The premise is clearly Appendix A as per the cited source. That seems to be the best place for that information. The discussion of why they were chosen is fodder for the Writing section.

It is not a copyright violation to link to a copyrighted source. By that logic, no article should ever link to articles on JSTOR, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal. In today's featured article, there are 129 citations which are all copyrighted material. They are all linked to directly, even the ones behind paywalls.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not list the specific page numbers that have been adapted from a book, that is ridiculous. We can point to the specific part of the book that is being adapted if that makes sense, which it does in this case since we are specifically discussing the story of Helm Hammerhand from the history of Rohan's rulers within the appendices. That is why this is clearly noted in the article already.

What I think the premise section should be is the premise, just like any other film article. It should be a brief overview of the story that will be replaced with a more detailed plot summary once the film is released. The text that the film is based on is not the premise of the film.

Using a copyrighted work as a source for information on Wikipedia, with appropriate reference details and in-line citations, is perfectly fine. Linking to a pirated version of a copyrighted work is not. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So, it sounds like we are in agreement about the fact that usage of "appendices" is incorrect, and the article should say "Appendix A". I hope you'll also agree that, within a 50-page appendix, pointing people to the specific place they can find the three paragraphs referenced in the Slashfilm article would be useful.

"The text that the film is based on is not the premise of the film" is gibberish. The producers have specifically said the premise of the film is the three paragraphs in Appendix A that summarize the story of Helm Hammerhand. It is perfectly appropriate to say the film will be based on material found in Appendix A to Return of the King.

Books on the Internet Archive and Google Books are not pirated. Both organizations have been sued and defended their practices in court. The IA has removed thousands of books due to those court actions. It operates a digital lending library and is an invaluable resource. In order to borrow a book from the IA, one has to register with the site, and it is free to all. The IA is a registered member of the American Library Association.Trumpetrep (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I am opposed to replacing the current "appendices" wording with "Appendix A" as you attempted to do. I am more open to adjusting the wording which specifies where in the appendices the key details can be found.

You keep confusing what the film is adapting with the premise. They are two separate things. An overview of what happens in the film is a premise and belongs in the premise section. What the film is adapting is source material and does not belong in the premise section. Not only is it out of place, but it implies to readers that things will play out in the film exactly as written in the source material which is not true.

When I initially opened the link that you provided I saw that the first few pages were freely available, I did not realise that if you keep scrolling it blocks you from reading unless you "borrow" it as if from a real library. So, I apologise for the misunderstanding there. However, I still don't believe it is appropriate to send our readers directly to a library copy of the source material for this film. We definitely should not be doing so as an in-line citation, there is an actual citation template that should be used for sourcing information from books. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the wording in the writing section to include where in the appendices Helm's story appears. We can discuss if you still have concerns about the wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)