Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey/Archive 1

Performances
Looking to find one source for performances that stood out, rather than sourcing every review

— Preceding unsigned comment 21:08, 9 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Budget
It seems the $270 million figure is attributed to MGM's bankruptcy filing as of 2010, as half of the cost of producing two films. As reported here, since splitting the footage into three films it is now not clear how much the series will cost in total, nor is it clear how much will be spent on each individual film. I don't think the budget should be included from a source this old and before the 3-film split. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviews
There need to be more example of movie reviews. For a film that is receiving mixed reviews right now, 4/5 of the reviews listed are all over 4 stars while there is only one 2 star review there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.121.89 (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The review section still overemphasizes the positive, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.13.94 (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Review Section is slanted in an attempt to prove the film is great despite critical reviews
I read the review section and it feels like a fanboy or marketer put it together slanting more positive reviews weigh out the critical reception received. I know this comment is going to be erased by some fanboy or munchkin marketer trying to promote the movie, oh well.--24.19.230.53 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wormow (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)I agree. A lot of bad, bad edits by the fans of the film to promote this film.

Comparison with the source materials
In time, a section comparing the movie adaptation to the original source materials would make an interesting and valuable addition to the page. This would grow organically at first, as the obvious anachronisms and simplifications of back-history will write itself, but there are more interesting and complex issues to be wrestled with, such as the discrepancies between the Hobbit and Appendix A, and Jackson's attempts to reconcile these with each other. The FOTR page has such a section. --Mja58 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Such sections are discouraged as per Manual_of_Style_(film). Betty Logan (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Er... to quote from the section you link to: "Details from secondary sources about such changes, such as why they took place, how they affected production, and how outside parties reacted to them, can be included in the respective sections of the article body. Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." So it's saying, yes, do that, so long as you discuss the context and reasons for such differences. Which seems to me to be exactly what Mja was advocating, and which I would very much like to see as well. 00:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

Edit request on 16 December 2012
Add 2010s action films category. supports it.

Althemise (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ De728631 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gollum- " Hobbit Like " ?
He really is a Hobbit .. so that should be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.141.174 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In the film The Two Towers Frodo mentions that he wasn't too different from a Hobbit once, but doesn't mention exactly what he was.Charlr6 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A section in Unfinished Tales called "The Hunt for the Ring" identifies Smeagol as a Stoor Hobbit, who lived nigh to the Gladden Fields, which is where the halfling folk first 'appeared' before crossing the misty mountains to inhabit their little corner of Eriador. So that's the answer, but is it relevant? --Mja58 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it's not relevant. The information about Gollum's origin can be found in the main article Gollum. Gollum being a former Hobbit is not part of An Unexpected Journey nor is it essential for understanding an article about this particular film. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Mja58 (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Records breaker?
Did this movie break any records and if so can you add it to the article please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan khalil (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it has. I work at a cinema and The Hobbit isn't doing very well. I saw it myself last week in a big screen but there was less than 20 people there.
 * But I don't believe it has beaten any records, if it has I think there would be something already. Charlr6 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is breaking records . BECK's  20:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is. Specifically, the longest red carpet at a World Premier (400 and something yards) beating the ROTK of 300 and something yards, cited in this video though written confirmation is yet to filter onto the web. Also, various national box office records for an opening week. A wealth of information can be cited from theonering.net should anybody wish to add any information--Mja58 (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception
This section needs to be locked for editing by unedited users. A lot of fanboys are tryin to pimp up this film to promote it with bullshit information and removing all the negative reviews, replacing it with huge chunks of negatives. I'm not home to correct all these edits made, so can someone please fix the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.6.72 (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree; we could even semi-protect the article for the meantime if vandalism and objective material continues to to be added by IP Contributions.--2nyte (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am planning to put an WP:RFPP on this article's section if possible. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan has already filed a request. I would protect the page but I'm too involved with editing to be of any use as a neutral observer. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has bow been protected via pending changes. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I see a consult-the-talk-page note on the Reception Section, so I'm going to suggest this. For the sake of accuracy, "mixed" ought to be "mixed to mildly favorable." RT has a pretty large sample size of professional reviewers (a field that includes the reviewers that Metacritic cites) giving it a 2:1 favorable to unfavorable review ratio. Do others have thoughts here? I think citing 2 sources, one geared towards the more prominent reviewers (which Metacritic is) and one geared toward the larger field of reviewers (the RT source used in the intro paragraph) is ideal here as the former consensus is mixed, and the latter is generally favorable. Dcash36 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word 'epic' for genres
I keep seeing on the edit history tab for the article people going back and forth, back and forth saying 'its an epic', 'no its not', 'yes it is'. Blah blah blah. Over 3RR must have happened by these people now, if it hasn't I'm surprised. But if you people who are arguing about it see this message, talk here instead and discuss why. If you think it is an 'epic' find an article for it that we could use as a reference. Charlr6 (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see the argument for. What's the argument against? The Hobbit novel is children's fantasy. The LOTR is an epic fantasy novel. I think it's clear to most viewers that the film is far from a one-dimensional rendering of the novel; it is a concerted attempt to tell the Bilbo story within the greater framework of the LOTR films by drawing on additional Middle-earth written material (the Appendices). So it's an epic fantasy movie drawing on a children's fantasy novel and a significant body of epic (or high) fantasy literature. Is this a question of context? Which is epic, the film or the book? Because I'd say yay to the former and nay to the latter. Does that help?--Mja58 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources call it an epic film? If so, we should too.  If not, it would be OR to call it that.    Hot Stop     (Talk)   13:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I can find, the use of "epic" by reliable critics is actually quite widespread and diverse. The Star Tribune thinks it is an outright "epic fail". But there are in fact those that refer to it as a sort of epic tale: The Globe and Mail calls it "an epic adventure that’s hard on the eyes", and Dawn writes that "critics give epic ‘Hobbit’ middle marks". The Toronto Star calls it "an unexpected epic". De728631 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not every overlong film is by definition an "epic". In the opening sentence we are are supposed to summarise the main genre of the film. Allmovie refer to Return of the King as a "fantasy epic" while they only refer to An Unexpected Journey as just "fantasy" . On that basis I don't think "epic" should be included; The Hobbit just doesn't have the scope of Lord of the Rings, so to describe it as "epic" is most likely incorrect. If the term is to be included editors should find a source that clearly places the film in the "epic" genre, just as Allmovie does with ROTK. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The version which a couple of editors keep removing (with  might I say some pretty nonsensical reasons in the edit summary, eg: "this isn't an epic fantasy film, it's part of one") doesn't say that this film is "an epic".  It says that it is "an epic fantasy film".  Epic is an adjective here modifying "fantasy".  Epic fantasy is the genre this film belongs to, irrespective of the book's size or the fact it's only a first part.  (Epic Fantasy is a genre for which by the way, the definition is pretty much "Tolkien stuff".)  If a film about imaginary creatures going on a quest against a dragon isn't epic fantasy, I really don't know what is. Mezigue (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really care much for it, but in my opinion (I'm not saying we should follow this at all before any of you annoyingly say that what I'm saying is OR, I know it is, I am just giving my opinion) it should also be linked in with the story and grand scale of it. For example, the love story and disaster part of Titanic fits well I think because of the sudden change to disaster film. If I had a choice, I don't think that the Fellowship of the Ring would be classed as an epic, but even though a good deal of stuff happens in it, it isn't as big as the next two films. And with The Hobbit, the story is very very mild and basic, but fit into a 169 minute film. But like I said, this is my opinion and I'm not saying we should follow it and I know this would be OR, but this is just my opinion on it.Charlr6 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As Charlr6, my comments are also opinion, not recommendation. I agree with Mezigue. Provided the context is clear, the term 'epic' is modifying 'fantasy' and describing the genre of the film. In that sense, the running time is irrelevant, as is the genre of the original novel. The film is fantasy in nature, and its reliance on - and allusion to - fabricated histories, characters and events outside the basic narrative (things which stand on their own in a greater legendarium, rather than acting as one-dimensional supporting devices to the central narrative) place the adaptation of the film (but not the book) squarely in the genre of High Fantasy. If we, supported by sources, can agree that 'High Fantasy' is to all intents and purposes synonymous with 'Epic Fantasy', then there is no reason to exclude the term, should supporting sources arise. Critically however, the context would need to be right. It is not an epic film (referring to length), the Hobbit is not an epic fantasy novel, but the adaptation is "an epic fantasy film adaptation of JRR Tolkien's 1937 novel, 'The Hobbit'."--Mja58 (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not that it is epic or not, it's that: Do we have source listing this film as epic film? Althemise (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The film is an epic film, and it is a fantasy film. The term "epic fantasy" also applies, but it is not what the opening sentence currently implies, nor should it be. Reliable sources (linked above) refer to it as an epic film. Arguments that it is not an epic because it is less "epic" than its sequel are ridiculous; it's like saying that because LotR doesn't have any dragons but The Hobbit has one on the cover, The Hobbit is more "fantasy" than LotR. The fact is that the film is three hours long, portrays large-scale battles that took place over several centuries (the time-frame is different from the books, but it's specifically stated that Smaug hasn't been seen for sixty years, and the frame-narrative takes place another sixty years after that), as well as an epic journey that takes place over ... I think several months. It is also part of a tightly-knit trilogy that will probably climax with an enormous battle of five armies. But all of this speculating on my part is as meaningless as the speculation that this is not an epic film because The Hobbit is a children's book; reliable sources call this film an epic, and no reliable sources contradict that classification, so we are obliged to use the word in the opening sentence. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Elvenscount, although I would prefer a distinction to be drawn to apply the term 'epic' to the film's genre, not its length: ie: "...is an epic fantasy film" as opposed to "... is an epic fantasy film.". The elephant in the room of course is the 'parent' article, which makes no bones of the 'epic' attribution and doesn't cite any sources in support....--Mja58 (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The oliphaunt in the room.  (Sorry).  On a more serious note, I am not sure that this sort of question is a matter best solved by comparing newspaper sources.  A newspaper can be a good source for facts and reports, but this is more a matter of style, and this is where newspapers, pressed for time as they always are, tend to be weak and use one word for another. Mezigue (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oliphaunt! - too quick for me!! Well done. I agree with you comments, Mezigue. This was the reasoning (which you have expressed far more succinctly!) behind my previous petitioning for the use of epic fantasy as opposed to epic fantasy. The former is widely attributed to Tolkien's work, and it seems reasonable that closely inspired film adaptations should also receive the same attribution. Plenty of sources will attest this. The latter is a matter of newspaper/magazine editorial style which - whilst not universally true - often has tendency to lean towards hyperbole. Imagine, for example: "The Hobbit is an amazing[ref][ref][ref] film trilogy from director, Peter Jackson." No number of "The Hobbit is Amazing!" newspaper headlines from "reliable critics" would justify that, and the same (I feel) is true of the "epic film" attribution.... I appreciate this is a small issue in the greater scheme of things. Don't think me a monomaniac!--Mja58 (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that perhaps the reason for this micro-controversy is that the word epic has become overused popularly and so people are weary of using it here. But this is its true sense rather than the all-purpose compliment so it's appropriate here.  Mezigue (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot on. I agree.--Mja58 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot bloat
I'm not saying unregistered users can't add information, but there are a lot of unregistered users who are adding tons of unnecessary detail to the plot section and it is causing a plot bloat. I keep deleting unnecessary detail again and again and I'm tempted to just cut down half of the plot because the main points in the story do not need to be lingered upon in huge sentences like they currently are. The main plot necessary plot could fit easily into between 100-200 words. I propose a possible protection on the 'plot' section if you can. Charlr6 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't lock individual sections, so your best option is to request semi-protection to keep the IPs off, but it may not be accepted since violating a project guideline is not technically vandalism, it is just unconstructive editing. This kept happening on the Harry Potter articles, I cut one of them down to 800 words from 1500 and came back a couple of days later and found a 3000 word plot in its place. Plot sections are supposed to be 400–700 words long, but it's virtually impossible to keep it at that in the first few weeks of release. It's probably best to wait for the activity to die a down a bit and then completely re-write the section. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll do that. I'll wait, I'll do small edits for anything unnecessary but won't go over-it every day. Hopefully will calm down by end of month. But like I said, the films plot could easily fit in between 100-200 words. It may be 169 minutes long, but its plot isn't huge. Charlr6 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I know this section is still being monitored and redacted as necessary, but an error I noticed recently is contained in the penultimate sentence: "...by Eagles, who fly them to safety on the Carrock". Taking aside the fact that landing site is not named in the film, it seemed obvious to me that their location was the eyries of the Eagles where Bilbo famously "awoke with the sun in his eyes". The high vantage point showing Mirkwood far below and Erebor in the distance all seem to point to the eyries being the location, so this should either replace the Carrock reference or, more reliably, the location be omitted altogether from that sentence.--Mja58 (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know who added that in, but I looked the Carrock up and thats the location they land to in the book apparently, but it isn't mentioned in the film to be that, and you could argue both ways saying that it is supposed to be the same place even if it isn't mentioned. I don't mind if you want to get rid of the mention of it. When I originally wrote the plot I put it as 'hillside' as it sort of is. Charlr6 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Budget/Marketing
I disagree with lumping the Budget and Marketing together, as it gives a skewed view, making it seemed more expensive than it is in a sense. I believe there should be two lines, one for budget, then another below it for marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:253C:F4C9:54F9:5455:B88A:FC6D (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. No other film pages on Wikipedia include the two together.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot filler
Not mentioned in the plot (and I daresay anywhere else including the book but I'm not sure) is that scene in the Misty Mountains where giant rock formations come alive and start fighting one another. This scene didn't seem to advance the plot at all, it didn't involve the story's characters except to be caught in the middle of a battle that had nothing to do with them, and the incident was soon forgotten and never mentioned again by anyone. It's been a while since I read the book, but I don't recall this scene happening there either. It seemed like unnecessary filler; the film would have been just as good without it, instead showing the party taking refuge from the rain in a cave without being interrupted by a battle between stone giants.

It would be nice if this article had a section that described departures from Tolkien's original story. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Amatulic, if you or anyone else who wishes to do so can create a reliably-sourced section for this article, than WP:Be bold and add it. However, I wonder whether or not this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So did I, that's why I proposed it here. Any section about differences would have to include only things that were documented in reliable sources rather than original research. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fighting stone-giants are described in the book. Mpov (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. I can't find my copy of the book at the moment. However, in the film, nobody was fighting the stone giants. They were fighting each other, with the party sort of just trying to survive being caught in the middle. I felt that this was a scene that could have easily been cut without subtracting from the story, which made me wonder if it was even in the book. I mean, if Peter Jackson felt it was OK to omit Tom Bombadil in the LOTR films, omitting this scene would have been even less controversial.
 * Getting back to the purpose of this talk page, I will add a short phrase about the encounter with stone giants in the Plot section of this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, sorry for my misleading English, in the book stone-giants were also fighting each other only. Actually, now I looked at the book, they were not fighting, but playing: "[..] stone-giants were out, and were hurling rocks at one another for a game [..]" Mpov (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it was in the book, though they were trowing rocks I think, and the Tom Bombadail scene was planned to be film in the fellowship, but the set was washed away during heavy rain, so they decided to leave it, because in the end it didn't serve any plot development as they end up in bree all the same. While the stone giants fight is what made them decided to take cover in the cave where the goblins get them in the film and book as far as I rememeber, which those advance the plot.- Jak Fisher (talk • contribs)   21:21, 6 January, 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Having just finished re reading the book after being inspired by the movie, they group dont meet Tom Bombadil till after they have met the eagles. Someone just added a differences from the book section, is this suitable here? Or should it be over on The Hobbit (film series) page? MisterShiney    ✉    19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the book, there is no Tom Bombadil whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Touche. I am getting him mixed up with Beorn. MisterShiney    ✉    19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Film score
Now that the score album has been in multiple international record charts and has received two nominations at notable movie awards, I wonder if it's time to revive Music of The Hobbit film series, which is currently a redirect to the film page. Notability has been proven and in my opinion the charts template and the album infobox are somewhat cluttering this article. De728631 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, I believe that the music of the hobbit should have its own article, for it is cluttering up the article. Now in its own article the information (charts and infobox) is fine and relevant, but not in the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.147.112 (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Music of The Hobbit film series has been restored and the most recent content has been merged to the article. --2nyte (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Source material
I added a sentence to the opening paragraph While the films are principally based on the novel The Hobbit, the story is expanded with elements from Tolkien's later works, specifically The Quest of Erebor, which was published posthumously in Unfinished Tales. This seems appropriate for an opening paragraph, and I noticed it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article. The statement is objectively true, as anyone who reads the books and watches the film will agree. I'll look for a reliable source later, although once it's released the Special Edition DVD will probably say the same, and that would be best I think. What immediately inspired me to add it was MovieBob's review on The Escapist, but I'm not sure if online videos are appropriate sources (he is reliable, though). elvenscout742 (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Online video" may not be an appropriate phrase, actually. He is a respected film and cultural critic and creates content for a noteworthy online magazine. The article already cites other movie reviews, so if worst comes to worst we can cite him. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Elvenscount742. I agree, The Quest of Erebor is a clear influence, but officially New Line only have the rights to The Hobbit, LOTR & its Appendices. Unfinished Tales et al is outside that agreement, and it seems to me that the directors have worked hard to circumvent any potential litigation from Saul Zaentz. Having only seen the film once, it's impossible to be sure, but I don't recall any specific dialogue or exchanges drawing on The Quest of Erebor. We seem to be treating Appendix A as the primary non-Hobbit-novel source, but the Tale of Years in App B provides the structure around which the non-Hobbit-novel sequences have been constructed (White council, etc). Open to debate on this, but the point remains that it's not wise to infer reliance on sources outside of copyright agreement in the top line of an article on a very topical (and historically very fraught) movie project. Re the 'Comparison with source materials' section above--Mja58 (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think just about every scene in the film that had Gandalf but not Bilbo was not mentioned directly in the novel The Hobbit but tied into material discussed elsewhere in Tolkien's writings. I haven't read all of Quest of Erebor and what I did read was a long time ago, but it seems that the whole "Gandalf and the White Council go after the Necromancer" plot, as well as Gandalf's reasoning behind sending the Dwarves off on their quest were barely mentioned in Hobbit and were discussed in far more detail in Erebor. I wasn't aware that there were legal issues involved with the rights to Tolkien's other works, though. I'm removing the sentence in light of this, but I think it will probably need to be reinstated later (perhaps when the film leaves theatres or when the DVD is released and more reliable details come out). elvenscout742 (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh you're quite right, the film is very much a retrospective view of the Bilbo story in the greater landscape of the events leading up to the War of the Ring, exactly the function The Quest of Erebor sought to perform. But the additional material of the movie had to be drawn from Appendix A (specifically Part IV: Of Durin's Folk) and the Tale of Years. Could we add something to suggest "Critics have drawn comparisons with Tolkien's later works, specifically The Quest of Erebor[ref], although legal disputes following the release of the Lord of the Rings[ref] meant that only the Hobbit, LOTR and its appendices were available as source material in the film[ref]"? What's in this film doesn't seem to wander outside the bounds, but the issue may become a very real problem with the next two films, as much of the material in Parts III and IV of Unfinished Tales is invaluable in filling in some of the back story - particularly Saruman's fall in The Hunt for the Ring--Mja58 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, honestly all I remember about that anywhere in the Appendices was that Gandalf wanted to attack Dol Guldur to defeat Sauron, but Saruman was secretly motivated by a desire for the ring, which he believed was still in Sauron's possession. This seems be contrary to Christopher Lee's dialogue in this film, so I can only guess that Saruman's position as expressed in this film has little relation to Durin's Folk(!). I think we could put that in somewhere, but as I said above I am not that familiar with the legal dispute behind this. Also, Cumberbatch appears to be slated only to appear in the first two films, meaning that both Smaug and the Necromancer are out of the picture by the third film, which leaves at most one big battle and then the aftermath. That's roughly half the plot of The Return of the King (the film), and it'll be interesting to see what they do to pad it out... elvenscout742 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The lawsuit was about LOTR profits not being paid to Tolkien's estate. While the case was open, the estate attempted to block the prospective Hobbit films. A copyvio would be a red rag to a bull given the nature of the relationship between New Line and Toklien, so Unfinished Tales material has to be off the cards.


 * You are right about Christopher Lee's dialogue, and for me the 'White Council' is the shakiest aspect of the films in terms of reliance on the source material. I suspect it will continue to be this way for the remaining films. This is due to the 2000 year anachronism that has clearly been created so as not baffle the audience with a two-millennia back-history. The Tale of Years in App B tells the full story: Greenwood the Great was darkened into Mirkwood in about TA1000 (the Quest of Erebor was TA2941), the Necromancer's identity was confirmed as Sauron by Gandalf 100 years before the Quest, having been supposed to be a Nazgul (but not the Witch-king, who resided in Angmar) since their reappearance in TA1300. In this sense, there are internal discrepancies between the Hobbit and Tokien's other writings, such as why Gandalf did not pay more attention to Bilbo's ring, knowing of Sauron's return. The have been collapsed into a simple short timeline for the films, but Tolkien himself sought to reconcile these issues, including an attempted complete re-writing of the Hobbit in 1960(?), which was abandoned on style grounds. The Quest of Erebor was originally intended to be included in the Appendices to LOTR, and is one of the main 'reconciling' passages. This three-way triangle of discrepancy/reconciliation between the literature(s) and films is something I alluded to earlier in the 'Comparison with source material' section above, and I feel is worthy of inclusion in this article.


 * The following isn't strictly relevant to the article, but may be of interest in response to your first point. Saruman did not believe Sauron to be in possession of the One Ring. Remember, he "lacked this one thing to regain his former strength". As is told in The Hunt for the Ring & The Disaster of the Gladden Fields (Unfinished Tales, Part III), Saruman was the first to read his way through the scrolls in Minas Tirith's vaults. He learned of the nature of Isildur's death and believed the Ring to be still in the Great River (not knowing of Deagol's finding). He convinced the White Council that it had rolled down to sea, but secretly searched for it by the Gladden Fields, recovering relics of Isildur, including (if I remember correctly) his skull, which he hid in Orthanc until their discovery in the Fourth Age. It will be difficult to resist dramatising that!


 * I wonder if Cumberbatch's omission for the Third Film credits signifies the return of the 'Great Eye' instead of an anthropomorphic Necromancer character? The assault of Dol Guldur in the same year as Erebor drove him back to the Barad-dur, so it makes sense to create a visual continuity with the FOTR by associating the Ring with the Eye.--Mja58 (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully he will have all his limbs hacked off in a big sword fight and end up on an operating table getting the big eye fitted (and a mysterious voice change)...Mezigue (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if I recall correctly, roughly half of the plot of The Hobbit was covered in this film, so part 2 is likely to cover almost all of the rest. I can see them turning the Battle of Five Armies into a Pelennor Fields event for the final film, though, but having Thorin die in the middle of the movie (=Pelennor Fields was in the middle of the RotK movie) seems unlikely. This also means we may get a lot of Sauron-stuff in the third film, which if the film-makers are making it up because they're not legally allowed to use the original story, I'm sad. :-(
 * I actually don't have a copy of either The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings on me now (I moved to Japan in the summer), so I can't check, but: in the Appendix with the extensive timeline of events before Frodo's setting out from Hobbiton but that connect to the One Ring, there is one very long paragraph summarizing the events of The Hobbit. If I recall correctly, it mentions Saruman accepting Gandalf's appeal to attack Dol Guldur because at this time he was already possessed with a desire to control the One Ring. I may have remembered wrong, though.
 * Anyway, if we are going to discuss any of this material in the article, it would violate WP:NOR to do so without basing everything in reliable secondary sources. We aren't allowed point out that this element of the film resembles that part of such-and-such non-Hobbit book unless it has been discussed in external sources. The source I cited above (Bob Chipman's review) mentions that a lot of the "filler" in the movie, particular relating to Gandalf's anticipation of Sauron's return, was apparently culled from The Quest of Erebor; but if said would be a copyright violation, and the filmmakers have in fact been careful to avoid anything such, then including that statement in the Wikipedia article would be something close to libel, and we definitely should avoid it. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we not just cite places in the Return of the King Appendices? Appendix A is directly adapted in multiple places in the film, and Appendix B provides additional material that is referenced.Dcash36 (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that would be WP:OR because we are taking two primary sources and comparing them. We need to have reliable secondary sources that make the same comparisons. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sourcing a CNN article that simply states the obvious, that parts of the film are adapted from the Appendices. Once someone reliable writes an article pointing out the exact material directly drawn from Appendix A and B, that might be better/more specific to cite as a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcash36 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Mja58 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (Quibble) The potential litigation over Unfinished Tales would not be from Zaentz, who as I understand it bought the film rights for the then-existing material before 1973, but from Christopher Tolkien — am I wrong? —Tamfang (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that a source has now come to light to support the inclusion of the appendices as a source of material for the film. A sentence has been added to the article introduction to relect this. Could I request that the phrasing be changed from "from the Appendices to Tolkien's The Return of the King novel" to "from Tokien's Appendices to the Lord of the Rings books", as the appendices are merely contained within the Return of the King volume (when published separately), but are appended to the entire work. Pernickety, I know, but an important distinction.--Mja58 (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Your link is broken. But I found another reliable source (Matt Atchity of RottenTomatoes) who claims somewhat ambivalently that much of the material of the film came either from the Appendices of LOTR or from Tolkien's later writings. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Top critics
This is really getting out of hand here. There has been an ongoing dispute about the mentioning of Top Critics. Per WP:RTMC on Top Critics, "The "Top Critics" section on Rotten Tomatoes is a smaller sample size and may be statistically inaccurate. The section's overall score may also differ depending from where in the world Rotten Tomatoes is accessed. This is because a query may redirect a reader to a local English language site (such as uk.rottentomatoes.com in the United Kingdom and au.rottentomatoes.com in Australia) and the Rotten Tomatoes staff is given some subjective control in selecting "Top Critics", allowing for different make-up on different local sites." I think we should just leave it out. Rather than getting involved in an edit war, I am taking this discussion here to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the "local" versions of RT that you mention are derivative versions of the main site, so it only makes sense to use the information that the main RT site has, if there is a difference at all. Secondly, is there a difference? Unless in this case the "top critics" scores are different on these different versions of RT, the question of which to use is a non-question. Thirdly, in this case the score is different by 23% between "top critics" and all critics and while all critics collectively give it a "fresh" rating, the "top critics" give it a "rotten" rating. That there is this significant difference among critic pools seems important to note somehow, and th "top critic" number does this. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some of this analysis. There is a didference obviously. RT's Top Critics may be statistically inaccurate. The significant differences among critics does not really make a difference. If you go on to the derivative websites, or the main websites, the statistics may be inaccurate at its best, so we should just leave the top critics out
 * What does it mean to say that the number is "statistically inaccurate"? The number is not like a poll where a sample is used to reflect a percentage that applies to some larger group. As a statistic, the number is just as accurate as any percentage of a total group is accurate. The "top critics" percentage is only meant to reflect the average of these critics, which it does with 100% accuracy. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that, but per WP:RTMC, the Top Critics are inaccurate, so we should obviously remove them. I am going to open an RFC on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me that it's not possible for the number to be inaccurate, but because WP:RTMC says that they "are" inaccurate (actually, the page says "may be" inaccurate) we should remove it? If WP:RTMC says something that makes no sense, WP:RTMC should be changed, not followed. Besides, the worry that is noted there is based on sample size, and in this case there are 40 "top critics", the same size group as there is for the Metacritic score. There is no sample size problem here, so even if WP:RTMC makes sense about how the number "may be" inaccurate some of the time, we know it is not in this case. If the worry noted at WP:RTMC makes any sense at all, it is that sometimes a "top critics" score is based on 3 or 4 critics, and so is not sufficient for using as an average. If there were only 3 or 4 I would agree with that, but in this case there are 40. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, what I said was that I partially agree with your ideas, but we should remove Top Critics per WP:RTMC and WP:MOSFILM, since Top critics may be inaccurate and the number differences are not important to be included in this article. As such, I am requesting for a comment about this situation and have also notified WT:FILM to see if we can gain a consensus about this issue. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that the "top critics" score MAY BE inaccurate just means sometimes (when the number of critics used to make it is small) it is inaccurate and sometimes (when the number of critics used to make it is not small) it is accurate. In this case, it is accurate, so WP:RTMC and WP:MOSFILM do not recommend removal. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the removal of top critics is based more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. Perhaps because the top critic fresh rating falls below 50%? The sample size is large enough and is typical of most films. Unless this was a small production where the number of top critic reviews was around 1 to 3, there should be no issue at all in including this. TheLou75 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost, why is the 65% rating being listed as a rating from top critics? It's not. 53% negative rating is being given by top critics. Wormow (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's explained in the opening paragraph of this section! Betty Logan (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Is it relevant to mention top critics in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey?
With regard to WP:RTMC, should top critics be mentioned in this film article? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. The only worry I can make any sense of that is stated there is that sometimes the number of "top critics" used to make up a percentage is small. A percentage based on 3 or 4 critics would not be particularly meaningful, but in this case it is a percentage based on 40 critics. That is the same number of critics used to make up the Metacritic number and is as many as is often used in film articles for the overall RT number. Having 40 "top critics" is enough to make this number significant. That the approval rate is 23% different from the total critics number makes it worth noting. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum to my above comment: According to Wikipedia's Rotten Tomatoes page, RT requires "at least 40 reviews from Tomatometer Critics (including 5 Top Critics) receive the 'Certified Fresh'." So in this case the number of "top critics" reviews alone reaches that threshold, making it a legitimate average. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Top Critics is certainly not accurate nor reliable, therefor should be removed. The sample size is not the question, it is Rotten Tomatoes regional filtering that makes Top Critics inaccurate as a source. Different geographic locations (UK, US, Australia) will encounter different Top Critic ratings. --2nyte (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a potentially very important discussion, because there are a lot of Wikipedia pages that list the scores for RT's "top critics". If it cannot be used on the page for The Hobbit, then the same reasons would make it inappropriate to use on pages like The Lord of the Rings (film series), Critical response to the Harry Potter films, Critical response to Star Trek, Critical response to the Chronicles of Narnia films, Avatar (2009 film), The Social Network, Inglourious Basterds, and possibly hundreds of other pages (just pop site:en.wikipedia.org "top critics" into google to see a list of several hundred Wikipedia pages that report "top critics" scores). 99.192.52.131 (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No as per 2nyte. "Top Critics" is regionally dependent i.e. a critic who shows up as a "top critic" on the US site may not be classed as a "top critic" on the UK site. Therefore top critic scores vary from region to region. The only score that should be included is the main RT score which includes all critics, regardless of which version of the site you are using. Betty Logan (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. It's long been consensus practice that we don't use "top critics" since it's an arbitrary distinction, and some editors have indicated that the list of top critics change depending on the geographic location of the user. Also, simply because other articles include things they should not doesn't mean we extend bad practices to other articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No as per 2nyte. Comment per 99.192.52.131: I removed "Top Critics" from all James Bond film article pages after consulting senior editor SchroCat. We'd were having needless edit wars on several of the 25 Bond film pages and none of us knew that RT's "Top Critics" indeed had regional differences until I mentioned it. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - As there is mutual agreement siding to avoid Rotten Tomatoes "top critics" I think we should move to change WP:RTMC. --2nyte (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, top critics and the score changes based on the location of the user. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Regarding 2nyte's suggestion above: I agree that if there is a clear consensus to omit "top critics" scores (as it seems certain there will be) that WP:RTMC needs to be changed to state that no article should use them. 99.192.52.131 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Addendum - I just made a change at WP:RTMC to reflect the results of this discussion. I invite others to check it to make sure that it is appropriate. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.52.131)


 * Yes -Yes, top critics are important to use. On RT, there are about 43 top critics. It is valid information, and almost every other film article has it. And may i point out that The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is the only LOTR page that has top critics listed, possibly because it is the only film to get a higher top critic score.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The number of Wikipedia pages that lists the scores or the number of critic scores in "Top Critics" should not make a deference. The fact of the matter is that the information is regionally dependent and therefor should not be used as it's not a reliable source.--2nyte (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Although I have a neutral position in regards to the "Top Critics", the essay being cited by several editors needs to be made policy by the films project to have any real weight in this or other discussions. It doesn't matter what changes are made to it, no one is required to follow or abide by it as it stands now. DrNegative (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have just started a section at WT:FILM to address this issue. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Following the recommendation of editor "Eric" in reply to my post at WT:FILM, I have now posted a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This topic is not one for discussion here. It should be either taken to the talk page on the Review aggregators page or the relevant Admin talk board. MisterShiney    ✉    20:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment You have been made aware of discussion ongoing at WT:FILM and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. How about participating in them? You seem to have a strong objection, so it would be useful for you to discuss it rather than just revert edits and issue warnings to block editors. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am currently partaking in them. But you did break 3RR (dont worry, you arn't a real editor until you have been warned for edit warring ;) ) and have added a single line to an essay based on a few comments by a couple of editors on a single film page and then proceeded to do mass removals of content from various film pages without discussing on the article pages. You justified it by citing the said Essay (which you edited) which is not policy. You should not have made those edits as it is biased and you were the one who made the changes to the essay. MisterShiney    ✉    21:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not violate 3RR. I made a grand total of three edits to Stargate (film), so it is not possible that I could have mode more than three reversions there. And when you consider that the first edit was not a reversion, just a change, then I only made TWO reversions, exactly the same number you made and comfortably within 3RR's limits. Please count more carefully before you issue warnings to block editors and complain about "vandalism". 99.192.91.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please dont rude by insulting my intelligence. It was my belief that you were intending to continue to partake in what I saw as Disruptive editing by violating this and continue to revert. I recommend that as a new editor that you make yourself aware of the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines and if you wish to continue this conversation, please come over to my talk page for a cup of tea, a biscuit and a nice warm log fire, so we don't disrupt this talk page with irrelevant chatter. MisterShiney    ✉    21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, as per the various arguments above. - SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes The editors defending the non use of the Top Critics are fanboys. The truth of the matter is - the consensus is not MIXED to POSITIVE, but rather mixed. I would say even leaning to negative. DanLancaster (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment::: How would you say they are leaning toward the negative, the reviews are far from being negative, though they may contain their criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.194.37 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: please do not insult other editors or be so presumptuous. Speaking for myself I have no interest in the film, nor have I seen the other "Rings" films. You do not address the reason many of us object to "Top Critics", namely the regional differences and how this will lead to inadvertent unnecessary edit wars on too many film pages. - Fanthrillers (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey, no worries my friend - I'm not "insulting" you. However, the Top Critics should be in the article RIGHT NOW, and it should be decided whether it should not be included or not. There seems to be some censorship on that material, which is crossing over into breaking a neutral point of view. By ignoring that very blatant critical pan of the film, the wikipedia article is not portraying the film's reception properly. Regional differences? As in there's no critics from Zimbabwe that reviewed the film? Or maybe Antarctica? Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregate of established critics, and the Top Critics are another facet of that. It certainly is a reliable source. DanLancaster (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps you don't understand. Regional differences results in different numbers. For example, Moonraker (film) has a 100% "Top Critics" rating in North America, but only 63% "Top Critics" rating in Britain. This is true of all films. There's a lengthy discussion of this issue here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment No,no,no, I understand very well - it still doesn't change the fact Top Critics has a negative outlook on this movie. Moonraker however is not a good example because the aggregate reviews are from a time before simple amalgamation via the internet. DanLancaster (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No to including the "Top Critics" score at this time due to the regional differences. Dan, the problem with the regional difference is that a US editor looking at the "Top Critics" score sees a different number and a different set of reviews than a UK editor looking at the same thing. The editors see different results because of their IP addresses, and Rotten Tomatoes doesn't provide static measurements. In short, it's not verifiable. I think it is sufficient to have Metacritic in the article since they tend to be more "top" critics than all the critics that Rotten Tomatoes samples. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - The Top Critics rating is an important metric and gives insight into the critical reception of the film. The argument that it is flawed due to sample size is invalid in this case as there is a large enough sample size (40+ reviews) that is typical of popular films. This argument would only be valid for small productions generating a small sample size such as under 10 reviews. TheLou75 (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No – I agree with those who hold that Top Critics is an important metric, but until Rotten Tomatoes get their act together and start providing coherent, stable, non-regional Top Critics scores, there doesn't seem to be any good way to integrate them. —Flax5 00:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No - I am not well enough aware of RT to make an evaluation of their internal vetting process for what constitutes a top critic, but the use of the term here implies favoritism. If they are notable they are included. If they are not, they cannot remain in the article. It seems fairly clear that we don't choose favorites. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No - For reasons mentioned by Flax5, Darkwarriorblake, Erik, and others: regional difference between top critic scores is too great (several weeks ago, Aus: 70%, US: 20%). Thus, not a useful or reliable measure of the film's overall reception.  This was a problem on the The Hobbit film series page, too, until the top critic score was removed. - MattMauler (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception
Critics Consensus: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Is (Mostly) Worth the Trip - changed reviews to mixed to positive, as rotten tomatoes states the above, and it is rated as being positive - Jak Fisher
 * I don't see why it's necessary to use terms like "positive", "mixed" and "negative" here. They're far too subjective for this kind of thing – people are never going to stop changing them back and forth. The film's high profile, polarised reception and huge and diverse fan base certainly don't help this. I suggest removing the first sentence entirely, and allowing the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores to speak for themselves. —Flax5 23:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The change is proving controversial, so please don't add it back until some consensus is reached here. I agree with Flax5, that reviews (and perhsaps, in due course, awards) should be allowed to speak for themselves. William Avery (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I have repeatedly changed the sentence to MIXED, despite User:Jak Fisher's constant attempt to slant the reception otherwise. The reviews are MIXED per the sources, don't take it personally. It's just a fact. If you remove this one more time Jak, I will have to consult an administrator to block you from editing this page. Please provide useful additions to the film's page. Thanks. DanLancaster (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no dispute with the page just reading "mixed" rather than "mixed to positive", but I thought I should add one brief comment here. Metacritc puts all the reviews is aggregates into one of three categories: positive, mixed, or negative. Right now according to them of the 40 reviews they have counted there are 20 positive reviews, 18 mixed reviews, and 2 negative reviews. So I can understand why someone might think that "mixed to positive" is a more accurate description of that collection. While, like I said, I have no problem with using just "mixed", I don't think it fair to say it is slanted to describe the reviews as "mixed to positive". 99.192.94.114 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone can convincingly argue that a 2:1 ratio of positive to negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes is "mixed" critical reception, that would be justification for the "mixed" only phrasing. Seeing as twice as many professional critics rate the film favorably as rate it negatively, however, I find it incorrect to state simply that the film received mixed reviews. And before you cite Metacritic as a "different" rating, most of those reviewers are included in the RT aggregator...Dcash36 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dcash36, and I even have it sourced saying the movie is mostly worth the trip, but someone seems to keep ignoring it and only refers the the BBC source
 * There is a BBC source, Rotten tomatoes, which is mixed considering the Critics and Top Critics score, as well as a New Zealand source (which is arguably the most important according to the New Zealand editors) which says mixed. 2 of 3 sources say mixed, while one suggests mixed but doesn't say it outright. I will continue to defend mixed as per the sources and WP:NPOV. NickCochrane (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * RT aggregates basically every review referenced singularly by the news articles whose sources are smaller in scope, and comes up with a "Fresh" rating with a 2:1 positive to negative ratio. The "Top Critics" section, whose importance is up for debate as is, is still subsumed into that larger number, which, again, deems the reception positive. Suggesting that the reviews are mixed despite twice as many of them being positive as negative seems the opposite of acting according to WP:NPOV.Dcash36 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The opening sentence really isn't even necessary and should probably be removed. Just let the aggregate scores speak for themselves and the reader can interpret for themselves what the percentages mean.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Is it necessary to mention if reviews were mixed, positive, etc. in the opening of the Critical response?
This sentence is subject to much debate/ edit warring over what terminology should be used to describe the overall attitude of the critical reviews. But to my point is this sentence even necessary when it is directly followed by aggregate scores of the reviews?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if sources are available, then it is preferable to have them before the reporting of the aggregate scores. I think there are plenty of sources to use. Googling "the hobbit" critics reviews shows 1, 2, and 3, for example. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do NOT see the value of describing the reviews as positive, negative, mixed when reporting the Rotten Tomatoes and/or Metacritic ratings. Designating a 75% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (for example) as "mixed", "mixed to positive" or "positive" is the subjective judgment of the individual editor and therefor should be avoided. Primogen (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necesary to assign a label like "negative", "mixed" or "positive". These categories are too subjective to be of any encyclopedic use, and let's face it, we'll always have editors who go ahead and change things like this based on their own preferences. Another problem is pinpointing when a score goes from one category to the other. When exactly does "mixed" become "negative"? Where do you draw the line between "positive" and "mixed", or between "generally favourable reviews" and "critical acclaim"? These labels are all too common on this site, and don't even get me started on "universal acclaim".
 * I say we open every "Critical response" section with the cold, hard, objective and inarguable metrics: first the Rotten Tomatoes score, then the Rotten Tomatoes consensus, then the Metacritic score. Maybe these lines could even be standardised with a template? —Flax5 22:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We would not choose the terms ourselves. We would attribute such characteristics to sources like the ones I linked to. We have to remember that not all readers are familiar with RT and MC, so I think it makes better sense to provide that overview before mentioning the aggregate scores and how each website determined it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think when surveys of critical reception all agree that a film has reviewed well or poorly then there is no harm in saying that, because a lot of readers will expect to find a nutshell summary of the critical reception. The problem is when these surveys come to different conclusions, with some finding the reception mixed or positive, or even describing it as lukewarm. In the case of The Hobbit we have something of a split decision: most surveys are saying the reception was either mixed or reserved in its praise, but to say the reception is "mixed to positive" is WP:SYNTHESIS, because these surveys themselves aren't actually saying that. I think in cases like this we should perhaps emphasize the incongruity, and introduce the section with something along the lines of "Critical opinion has been split on An Unexpected Journey. A, B, C consider the criticism to be mixed, while D, E, F regard it has lukewarm or generally positive". Our job as editors is to summarize, not to draw to conclusions. Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no harm in seeking a consensus or popular view of critical response, but mixed seems to be the most neutral and encyclopedic. In the case of this film, there are multiple sources that credit the accumulation of critical response "mixed" and so so say "mixed to positive" is an attempt to hide the fact by some editors that film was simply not the amazing film they were hoping for. Keep it at "mixed" - it's the most neutral and encyclopedic. NickCochrane (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, unless a convincing argument can be made that a 2 to 1 positive to negative professional reviewer ratio is "mixed" reception, it seems to me that stumping for this section to read "mixed" is itself a violation of a neutral point of view, attempting to ignore the clearest set of data (the large RT dataset that takes all the reviews mentioned elsewhere into account) in the interest of deriding the film.Dcash36 (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the new wording is appropriate. NickCochrane (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You've cherry-picked a few sources that refer to critical reviews already accounted for in the RT score (which is easily the best and most comprehensive data set out there) to put forth a non-neutral point of view. Again, a 2:1 favorable to unfavorable ratio. The articles you sourced refer to a select few critics (mostly the Metacritic bunch) without taking the field into account--it's not like we don't have access to that greater field of information. One could just as easily source a number of articles pointing to generally favorable reviews instead of those, because few people will write an article taking up every critic from the San Francisco Chronicle to the Guardian. That's what the more informative review aggregators are for. Metacritic's view is mixed, RT's view is positive, why go out of your/our way to make the critical reception appear worse than it was? Mixed to positive is the most comprehensive picture we can give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcash36 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What is listed are attributed claims, specially worded as not to be interpreted as WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What you have suggested amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. If you have a reliable source that says the reviews have been positive, please cite it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when is RT's own synthesis inadequate, where far less comprehensive sources are fine? You yourself suggested just using the hard data from the review aggregators. It might be synthesis if I'd just found some reviewers and thrown them in to support one or another view; instead, I'm stating what RT (2:1 positive to negative ratio) and Metacritic (a subset of RT reviews aggregated to a "mixed" score bordering on "generally favorable") support in the following sentences. NickCochrane's edit picks three sources, who themselves pick a tiny subset of reviews, and uses them to make professional critical reception seem far less positive than it empirically was. I'd be in support of just leading with RT over this.Dcash36 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes isn't the sole arbiter of critical consensus. Just because it works with a larger sample size doesn't make it more representative: its survey depends on the pool of reviewers it samples (which may contain bias) and its methodology for determining whether those reviews are good or poor is entirely subjective. There is no statistical argument that Rotten Tomatoes' conclusions are inherently more valid than those of other aggregators or arbiters. As it stands, Rotten Tomatoes is pretty much on its own in regarding the critical reception for the film as "positive", and while I agree their findings should be included it is obvious it is not the prevailing view. "Mixed to positive" doesn't make grammatical sense; either the reception is mixed or it is positive, sources just disagree as to which it is. I think the current wording is much better and more in line with the neutral tone we would expect when dealing with subjective opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're missing the fundamental point of a review aggregator; Rotten Tomatoes is not "pretty much on its own in regarding the critical reception for the film as 'positive.'" The whole idea of an aggregator is that it takes many, many critical reviews into account to determine a consensus. The L.A. times might have looked at a few "Top Critics" reviews and deemed the reception mixed; RT takes everyone that all of the cited sources reference into account and weighs them against a more comprehensive field, whether its the Cleveland Plain Dealer or the Standard, to come up with their final score. You are right that the "mixed to positive" line is grammatically weak; I'd be all for just removing the sentence entirely and letting the data from the two most accepted/popular aggregators speak for itself.Dcash36 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just remove the line interpreting the critical reception.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, as suggested here and also suggested in the above section. Less comprehensive, less objective "overview" removed in favor of the hard data. Users can interpret for themselves.Dcash36 (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Dcash, I think you think I actually made the new change, I did not in fact do it, it was other editors as per the above discussion, however, the current summary should not be removed as it accurately portrays main criticism of the movie, but avoids the above argument on how we interpret the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate reviews. NickCochrane (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply put, I don't think it accurately portrays the main criticism of the movie. It doesn't even suggest mixed; the cited sources make it sound like the critical consensus was negative. The Movie Review Intelligence write-up, I think, sums it up best: "Good but not great." Any way you slice it, there were some critics that grumbled about the movie, and a very small number who really gave it high marks, but the easy majority of the reviews out there (as evidenced on Rotten Tomatoes) were positive but not glowing. I don't see why it's necessary to use a cherry-picked summary of the consensus using words like "unenthusiastic" and "stumbles," which seem like an outright attempt to inaccurately portray the consensus as negative when every review aggregator I can find is showing more than a majority of positive reviews; the data we provide below is far more streamlined. It's kind of unnecessary to paraphrase it and risk further subjectivity.Dcash36 (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it subjective that the section on "Critical response" displays a selection of top critical response? NickCochrane (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I (and others) have pointed this out already... Relying on the larger sample size of professional reviewers seems common sense here. I could rather easily cite locations that cherry pick 5 or 6 positive reviews that claim that critical consensus is "overwhelmingly positive." I'm sure if I did so, however, you would remove it. I feel like you are attempting to do the whatever one might call the opposite of fanboy promotion by trying to make the critical response seem more negative than it actually was. RT and Metacritic both take the reviewers cited in your sources into account and, even so, they still report a consensus that the majority of critics rate the film favorably (RT more than Metacritic), and yet you prefer to the source referring to a very limited scope of reviewers in saying that response "stumbles."Dcash36 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since some people seem to prefer using this sort of introductory section, I sourced Television New Zealand to provide a more comprehensive picture here.Dcash36 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "mixed reviews" has long been used as a euphemism for any critical reception in any field with a substantial degree of negative criticism. It's understood that it can mean anywhere from 50/50 to mostly negative. it's simpler than trying to find a single exact word.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Request Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: De facto withdrawal by nominator admitting to being WP:POINTY. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey → The Hobbit an Unexpected Journey – As per Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness and xkcd 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. WTF?  Is this a joke?  As The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is indisputably the title, then WP:SNOW probably applies.  Think this is someone trying to make a point.   --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose - This move request makes no sense and not only goes against WP:OSE and WP:COMMONNAME, but also WP:POINT. It would help if you gave an actual rationale for why this should be moved. In all honesty, this should be speedy closed, but I'll leave that up to someone else. - SudoGhost 13:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I endorse the speedy close. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This post was to illustrate the ridiculousness of the arguments against capitalizing the "I" in Star Trek Into Darkness. I have proven my point sufficiently.138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

what is the majority of the release?

 * The majority of the film's release, however, was converted and projected at 24 fps.

This sentence is cryptic. I'm guessing that it means something like "Most of the copies distributed to theatres ...."

Whatever it means, it ought to be reworded. —Tamfang (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It means only 400 screens of 3000 screens could show the 48fps version as per the sources. NickCochrane (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dwarves song / Terminator theme
The musical theme of the song the dwarves sang the first evening at Bilbo's home after supper is almost identical to the musical theme of The Terminator first heard in the title of that film. I haven't read any review of Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey which mentions it.

Has anyone read a review pointing this out? and would it be significant enough to include in this article? (or have I had too many cups of espresso and this is ridiculous?) --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please cut down on the espresso. I hear no similarity in the two pieces of music, though I don't think it would even be worth mentioning unless it was specifically stated that The Terminator theme song was sampled or an influence on the Misty Mountains song. --2nyte (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good point about the specific statement. (I really wasn't trying to be trivial.)
 * Re the espresso: Will do-de-do-do-do. (But I don't think Abby Sciuto would.) Thanks. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the song comes from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.231.159.204 (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe he was referring to the music. – Hattrem (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Hattrem

RFC: Cast lists in Hobbit film articles
This is a neutral request for comment at Talk:The Hobbit (film series).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Film Budget
Is the budget 200-350 million, or the 180 million as other sources are saying, as per the newly released figures. The series main page also states it was 180 million. Just wondering. Thanks. - Jak Fisher (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When it was planned as a two-parter the combined budget was $540 million (which would have worked out at roughly $270 million per film). Then it was changed to three films, but that's where it became confusing. Some sources (including IMDB) just divided the original budget three ways (540/3=180), but that isn't correct any more, so we shouldn't say that. The Hollywood Reporter did an article last year where an insider says each film cost $315m, but the studio say it is $200 million per film. It is most likely the combined budget is $630 million and the insider divided it between two films (630/2=315) and the studio revised the figure for three films (630/3=210), which explains that figure. Earlier this year, financial filings in New Zealand reported the studio had spent $561 million across the three films. On top of that, the New Zealand taxpayer has contributed NZ$98 (about US$80), which would take the total expenditure to about $640 million (which is more or less the same as our 630 figure). At the moment we don't really know how the budget breaks down (we know in total it had roughly cost $640 million up to March this year) so I think we should leave in the 200-315 figure for now and see if we get any more updates. Ideally we need a source to tell us the total for the series and how it breaks down, but may not get that information until the third one is released. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I make an edit to only $200 million since $315 million number is not from the studio source. Plus Wall Street Journal reported 'cost more than 200 million to produce' http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/12/16/the-hobbit-tops-the-weekend-box-office/ Until the final data come with the third installment (I hope), I suggest we should use 200 million for this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.200.172.150 (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not how Wikipedia works. The Hollywood Reporter is a reliable source so we report both figures they consider worthy of reporting. The funding structure for the films is complex and it is not clear at all how it breaks down across the three films, so we don't cherry pick what we think is correct as per the instructions at Infobox film. If we get revised figures at some point then we can refine the budget estimate then. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Guess I have to surrender to Wikipedia system. Don't worry, it also takes (a lot of) time for Avatar article to fully accepted the studio source's budget data instead of highly inflated number from 'reliable source' like NYTimes. Just one thing, there's conflict between "A knowledgeable source says the first two installments cost $315 million each" from Hollywood Reporter and "The movie (The Desolation of Smaug), a New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Warner Bros. production, cost about $225 million to make" from LATimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.200.172.150 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot of it also depends how the films are accounted too, since there probably isn't an even split: if the cost of the sets and actor fees are credited to the first two films, then the first two in theory could cost much more than third one. For example, if you pay Ian McKellan $10 million for two films, then decide to split the film into three, how much of Ian McKellan's 10 million goes to the first film? Half? A third of his fee? Work out a percentage based on the total number of minutes he's in each film? In theory the third film could just cost you an editing fee. I think a "wait and see" approach is best for now, since the readers can see exactly what the sources say anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there will be a lot of problems if someone (outside the studio) trying to breakdown the budget, especially this two to three parts case. But the studio already did that for us and gave out (or throw away) the number. I also understand that we should represent various data from many reliable sources, but the number 315 million is just really out of the world. We're not in the position to judge, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.200.172.118 (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)