Talk:The Hunt for Gollum

Error in the second sentence '17 years AFTER...'
Ref: "It takes place seventeen years after Bilbo Baggins' 111th birthday party and just prior to Frodo Baggins leaving the Shire (Middle-earth) for Rivendell"

This should read:

"It takes place seventeen years before Bilbo Baggins' 111th birthday party and just prior to Frodo Baggins leaving the Shire (Middle-earth) for Rivendell"

This is because Gollum is DEAD within the year following 111th birthday party! Make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.121.3 (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the books' timeline, Bilbo's 111th birthday is in 3001, and Gandalf doesn't visit Frodo and tell him to leave the Shire until 3018. Most of the events of The Lord of the Rings take place in 3018 and 3019.  (See Timeline of Arda.)


 * The Peter Jackson films skipped/condensed this 17-year delay for dramatic purposes. I'm not sure whether the chronology is completely clear in The Hunt for Gollum, or how much this fan film follows the timeline of the books vs. the Jackson films.  But if the intention was to follow the books, then "17 years after" would be correct. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Visual effects
The Hunt for Gollum VFX at VFXWorld. — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Based on"
This article says that the story is based on appendices written by Tolkien, and gives three references. However, none of those three references say any such thing. Most likely, someone is confusing this movie with "Born of Hope," which actually is based on appendix passages. Miconian (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The references are more for the entire sentence, not particularly the "based on appendices" part. But the BBC reference (#2) does indeed state that it "was inspired by the appendices from Tolkien's fantasy epic." I wish I could give you an exact citation of where in the appendices this is discussed, but after a quick ransacking of my dorm room, I have discovered that I somehow managed to leave all 3 of my copies/sets of LotR at home. Someone else want to help out with the exact quotation? It's just a couple sentences about how Aragorn helped Gandalf hunt for Gollum and eventually ended up in Mirkwood. Legolas makes a passing reference to this at the Council of Elrond. I think it's somewhere in "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen". Princess Lirin (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Added the quote as reference to first para of the article Robert Walker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

New Film
With a new and professional film of the same name in the works, it might need to be distinguished from this one. See here: https://variety.com/2024/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-movie-2026-release-warner-bros-1235997102/amp/ KnightofFaerië (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article will become "The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film)" and the new one will become "The Hunt for Gollum (2026 film)" or whatever it turns out to be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This move should not have been made, there is only one article named "The Hunt for Gollum" so adding disambiguation is inappropriate. If the new film is released with the currently announced title, which is technically considered to be a working title at the moment, then the article for that film will be at The Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum which clearly has natural disambiguation. Any confusion caused by the similar names can be covered using hatnotes. This article needs to be moved back to The Hunt for Gollum and a hatnote can be added pointing to Middle-earth in motion pictures until the article for the new film is moved to the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2024

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Moved per discussion below, which essentially becomes a technical rename back to a title before an undiscussed page move. In a case like this there is no problem with opening a fresh move request at any time if editors think that the title needs to be changed. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 02:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film) → The Hunt for Gollum – Per my comment above, the move to add unnecessary disambiguation to this article needs to be reverted as there is no other film with this name and if the newly announced film does end up keeping this as a subtitle, its full title will have natural disambiguation anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I second that. Why would the working title of a newly announced project cause this page move? We can't be sure that the film will keep its temporary name and maybe will become WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ภץאคгöร  19:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that does feel like a lot of crystal-ball gazing to me. The situation has been that several enthusiastic but not very expert edits were made to this article about the future film, starting with material added to the lead without citations; but happily the standard improved after that. If the excitement has subsided and we all feel there isn't either a current mess (two films written into one article) or (crystal ball again) two films with one title, then we should at once remove the disambiguator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support for The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film) The new film title isn't really a sub-title it's the main title of the film "Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum" ie. the primary title is not "Lord of the Rings". Also it will be commonly referred to as simply "The Hunt for Gollum" because "Lord of the Rings" is a branding section of the title. If this article is renamed, as proposed, it will cause unnecessary confusion and consternation for the next few years. -- Green  C  21:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't add disambiguation to article titles because they could be confused with another title that doesn't exist. If people come here looking for information on the in-development film then they should be directed to that with a hatnote. That would remove the "confusion and consternation". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, the same argument could be made about a hat note. And if the hat note redirects to a sub-section in another article, that would also be a reason to disambiguate since invariably redirects for the new film will be made (actually already made, but where they point remains an open question). All of these rules are guidelines, whose purpose is to reduce confusion and get readers to the right place with as few clicks as possible. As of 9 May 2024, most readers searching on "The Hunt for Gollum" are mostly looking for information about the newly announced film and not the film produced in 2009. If a search results shows "The Hunt for Gollum" you can bet they will click there right away and be surprised/disappointed it is not their intended page. That's why we have these guidelines to prevent that situation. -- Green  C  22:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for The Hunt for Gollum was the newly announced film then I would agree that we should redirect that to the new film and add disambiguation here, or at least turn that to a disambiguation page. But there is no way we could say that the new film is already the primary topic given it is years away from even existing and could potentially end up being called something different. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How can there be a primarytopic for a non-existent topic? It's arguing in circles. Look, it's really simple: when someone searches on this term they need some clue as to where to go, or not go. That's primarily what the rules are trying to solve. -- Green  C  22:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lord of the Rings: The Hunt for Gollum is a red link. What are people talking about here? is there some other film discussed on Wikipedia with this name? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy support: As far as I can tell, this is a request to revert a recent undiscussed move. It can simply be performed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Assume your support is for The Hunt for Gollum and not The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film) -- Green  C  00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * BarrelProof - once a consensus discussion has begun and people are !voting, a close like this on procedural grounds is extremely not allowed, except in very limited circumstances. It's true, a non-discussed move can be undone, but once there is a consensus discussion going, you can't close the discussion on "speedy" grounds, there is no such rule. See Requested_moves/Closing_instructions. It specifically says anyone with a conflict of interest (participated in the RM etc) is not allowed to close. You are an involved editor. WP:RMEC allows for procedural close, but only if "the request was initiated via block evasion". Thus, there are no grounds for this close, and I request you reopen the RM, and let it finish. And restore the notice at the top of the page. I won't dispute the current title of the article, while the RM continues. -- Green C  23:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * As you wish, I've reopened, but I will not undo my speedy revert of the move itself. Clearly, no RM discussion is necessary to revert an undiscussed move away from a stable title, and you don't seem to dispute that this proposal fits that description. It seems rather silly to me to have a discussion open about a proposal to move an article back to the title it already has been moved back to, but if you think that's appropriate, then fine. In any case, the burden of justification should fall on those who oppose the prior stable title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed there doesn't seem any point in continuing a discussion whose object has been removed. I suggest we close it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2024 (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.
 * CLARIFICATION The move request is to name the article The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film). It got flipped around after the article was renamed part way through the RM. --  Green  C  00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Chaotic. But that is a dead duck, given what we now know there is no possibility of that move being accepted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2024

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn and won't be further involved. (non-admin closure) Green  C  06:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hunt for Gollum → The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film) – Per discussion thread(s) above. You can !vote "support" if you agree, or "oppose" if not, return in 7 days and the result will be set. -- Green  C  04:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as nom, per my original !vote in the above RM, that was closed early on procedural grounds. -- Green  C  04:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RMCOMMENT: "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2024 (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.