Talk:The Hunt for Gollum
 | The Hunt for Gollum is currently a film good article nominee. Nominated by Chiswick Chap (talk) at 07:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: 2009 British fantasy fan film by Chris Bouchard |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Hunt for Gollum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 9, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that although the Lord of the Rings fan film The Hunt for Gollum is completely unofficial, its creators "reached an understanding" with Tolkien Enterprises? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Error in the second sentence '17 years AFTER...'
editRef: "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
editThe Hunt for Gollum VFX at VFXWorld. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"Based on"
editThis 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).
References
editAlthough, perhaps bias, this list of press from the official site is a good place to start for critical reception stuff, i.e. to links to the full reviews/mentions-in-passing. Also, this 'behind the scenes production video' is a good place to start for the production section. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
New Film
editWith 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#Return to live-action films (2026) until the article for the new film is moved to the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:44, 11 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)
Requested move 11 May 2024
edit- 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 , 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. -- GreenC 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. -- GreenC 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. -- GreenC 22:20, 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)
- 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. -- GreenC 22:12, 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)
- 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) -- GreenC 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 Wikipedia: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. --GreenC 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)
- 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)
- 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. -- GreenC 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
edit- 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) GreenC 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. -- GreenC 04:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support as nom, per my original !vote in the above RM, that was closed early on procedural grounds. -- GreenC 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)
- Please see WP:RMCOMMENT: "
Revisiting title
editAs a reader, when reading off-wiki about this film, my tendency here was to just search for "The Hunt for Gollum" instead of the full title. I felt a bit WP:ASTONISHed to wind up here, and I think it's undue weight to have readers arrive at this fan-film article instead of the relevant section at Middle-earth in motion pictures § Return to live-action films (2026).
So I would support moving this fan-film article to The Hunt for Gollum (2009 film), having this title redirect to the section, and providing under the section's heading a link to the fan-film article. The RM discussion above was fairly recent, though, so I'm not sure of a good time to revisit. Please ping me if you have thoughts or want to revisit. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- See the threads above; the community has twice this year rejected that proposal. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Chiswick, as my comment shows, I acknowledged the RM discussion above already. There was no "second" rejection; the second thread was a continuation of the first. Consensus can change. I shared my experience as a reader. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are free to air your views. I oppose any such move. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Chiswick, as my comment shows, I acknowledged the RM discussion above already. There was no "second" rejection; the second thread was a continuation of the first. Consensus can change. I shared my experience as a reader. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)