Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring (movie)

I think the title for this article is incorrect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

Ridiculous nit-picking

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

• Odo Proudfoot, Bilbo's cousin, is named Everard and not Odo.

• In the film, Sam Gamgee and Rosie Cotton (who only appears at the end of the third book in truth) dance together at the party. In the book, it was actually Everard Took and Melilot Brandybuck (who are cut from the movie) who danced together.

• Boromir dies at the end, but he really died at the beginning of the second book.

• In the film, Galadriel is shown alone when she meets with the Fellowship. In the book, she was with her husband Celeborn.

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

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

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

Reopening old issues

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

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

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

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

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

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