Talk:The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)/Archive 2

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 22 December 2005 to 27 March 2006.

1

I moved all of the old discussions to an archive, as they were taking up far too much space on this page. Happy new year, folks. :) (Ibaranoff24 22:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

Nazgul at the Prancing Pony

The section which claims that the scene of the Nazgul slashing bedding is not in the book is not very accurate, but I hesitate to delete a section that has a screen capture next to it. In the book it is quite clearly stated that the hobbit's beds were fixed up to appear as if they were present, and when they returned in the morning the bedding had been slashed apart. I had always assumed that it was in fact the Nazgul who destroyed the room.

You had always assumed wrong. It's a common assumption made by people who were introduced to the story through one of the film versions. But the Nazgul were never revealed as the perpetrators -- this is just the way Bakshi's animators had interpreted it. (Ibaranoff24 23:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

Plot retelling

We have better plot summaries elsewhere in WP, don't really want to maintain two parallel accounts. It would be more useful to prune down just to the changes from the original story. BTW, as an accident of history I happen to be in possession of a 1979 calendar with film-related artwork, dunno if there is anything useful to be gleaned from it - there is no mention of "Part One" for instance (Who keeps an old calendar for 25 years!? Hey, I liked the artwork). Stan 22:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sauron

Can sum1 tell me if this version of sauron is reincarnated as a body in the 3rd age or an eye in Jackson's version. Batzarro 15:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Screen captures

I have a question -- does anyone know what kind of limits Wikipedia has for the number of screen captures in an article about a copyrighted film? I might be going over the limit with the seven screen captures I currently have in the article, but I keep seeing these screen captures popping up in other articles after I've removed them from the article, and it's kind of my philosophy to take advantage of every possible use these screen captures have (if an image from this film is used on a page for the character, I try to have that image used in the article about the film as well). (Ibaranoff24 23:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC))

No, there's no precise number, it's just said to be "limited". I think you're OK at a rate of one per screenful of text, two per screenful (in other words, 2-3 visible at any one time) is dense but still OK, above that things get to be more image than text, and so starts to seem excessive. No galleries at the end either, galleries don't offer space for the "critical commentary" that is part of fair use. This just my guess, no one has written an actual guideline that I know of. Stan 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Aragorn

It's a pretty widespread criticism/observation that Bakshi's version of Aragorn looks Native American. I found five different sources from a very quick Google search — I think that makes it a widespread and notable bit of trivia. I know that Ibaranoff disagrees — but what do others think? Let's try to find a consensus on this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's pure POV. It shouldn't be in the article. (Ibaranoff24 02:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

  The article should not say 'Bakshi made Aragorn look like an Indian'. However, it can say 'many critics feel that Bakshi made Aragorn look like an Indian' if the existence of that opinion can be verified from a reliable source. Include the fact that the opinion exists rather than the opinion itself. --CBDunkerson 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  The opinion that Aragorn appears to be Indian in the film is held by fewer people than the opinion that this film is "used to counter criticisms made against Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy". It's POV and not notable. (Ibaranoff24 03:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC))

I disagree. A Google search for "Aragorn Bakshi Native American" yields 471 hits, and "Aragorn Bakshi Indian" yields 427, the vast majority of which appear to be expressing exactly this opinion. It's a widespread opinion and worthy of note. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a small minority of people who hate the film. The opinion doesn't matter. (Ibaranoff24 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Three points: 1) I don't think it's such a minority opinion — I've heard/seen it mentioned independently in many different contexts. 2) Not everyone who thinks that Bakshi's Aragorn looks Native American hates the film. Some of the commentators I noticed in my (very quick) search said something to the effect of, "Although Aragorn looks oddly Native American, John Hurt's rich vocal performance gives the character grandeur" (paraphrased from memory). 3) Even if it were an opinion held by a minority who hate the film, I think it's a large enough minority that NPOV demands that it be included. I quote:

"The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

I won't restore the note again at the moment; I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, and don't have time to research the citations more thoroughly. However, if other editors feel that the note should be included, I hope that we will be able to come to a consensus suitable to all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)