Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Organization and StructureEdit
I think this article needs a great deal of work—perhaps even a complete rewrite. By being organized according to general types of differences—i.e. omission, additions, alterations—there is nothing about the structure that imposes order to prevent such things as focusing too much on one part of the story or on one kind of difference. As a result, the entries are all jumbled up, and the Omissions section at the top focuses almost entirely on the end of the story. Moreover, trivial differences are mixed up with non-trivial ones, and major thematic differences are neglected entirely.
As the article stands now, I think it needs to be rewritten. It would be improved by being reorganized along different lines with differences being catagorized according to scope of difference—Major, Significant, Minor, and Trivial—and then by sequence in the story. The present article omits several major differences while focusing on very trivial ones. The definition of a difference might also be included to guide contributors so that the article is not overburdened with trivialities and non-difference differences.
--N3rus 08:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- added the Rewrite template to the page per N3us's comments Razor77 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering about the best approach for these improvements. One could, of course, write a very lengthy treatise on the subject, but such a thing would not be appropriate in this venue. We would not want to 1) bore the reader, 2) tire the reader, or 3) imply that the movie was bad due to its departures from the "canon". While my knowledge on the subject well qualifies me to write on it, my writing style tends to be verbose. Every difference between the two storylines could not be included or it could very easily devolve into a list of very trivial matters. I would very much like to know what other people think about this and discuss such things as: whether the article needs a rewrite or just a reorganization, if a rewrite is needed, what would a good approach to it be, and what level of detail should be reached.
Agreeing on a definition of a difference between books and movies would be a good start. As there are several levels of difference from the utterly trivial (e.g. no fox at Frodo's first camp) to major thematic deviations (e.g. the alteration of the passions and personalities of major characters.) The definition could, then, be along the lines of deciding on some threshold below which something would be considered too trivial for inclusion. There is also the possibility that I am thinking too rigidly. Maybe it should be organized in such a way that any difference that anyone would like to add could be included with just some guidance as to where things should go so that it is a clean read that folks can follow.
N3rus 01:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are two things to begin with:
- A new name: Tolkien vs. Jackson: Differences Between Story and Screenplay
- A new form: Major thematic differences followed by lesser differences chronologically
Initial changes to be made if no objections.—N3rus 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Changes in ProgressEdit
I have renamed the article, but I am surprised that the name wraps inconveniently. That was quite unexpected. I wonder if there is anything that can be done about that or should I just use a shorter name?—N3rus 11:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure how to go about making changes of such a scale to an article like this. It will take quite some time to complete all of the required changes because of the research that is involved. Should those changes be made incrementally or should they be saved for one huge change once all of the research has been done? Can someone tell me what the best procedure is?—N3rus 12:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The page now reflects the changes begun as part of a major rewrite so you can see what I have in mind. There is a great deal of material to cover, and the article is already quite long. (I did say elsewhere how that my writing tends to be verbose.) Please let me know what you think of it so far. (Note: I have saved the original material to use as a reference.)—N3rus 19:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now added the section on the differences pertaining to the Ents' decision not to go to war. As no one has said anything about the work so far, I must assume that it is headed in the right direction. I would like to hear some comments about the growing length of the article. Should it be kept shorter? Should it be divided into subarticles?—N3rus 06:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Now, the article is 6,800 words in length, and there is still much more to do. At least it has only just now reached the top 10 longest articles. I do not expect it to become number 1.—N3rus 11:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added a table that shows where and how much material from the book is missing. This has added much more than expected to the size of the article due to the overhead of the HTML table.—N3rus 05:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
We are now up to number three in size. I have added a great deal to the section on the differences in character, but there is more work to be done there. Most of this material so far has come from my existing knowledge of the story and screenplay, but I am nearing the point in which some research is in order. To fill out the differences sections of the three movies, I will have to compare the books and movies in detail.—N3rus 11:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Length of ArticleEdit
If you have some comments or ideas about what to do about the length of the article, please do so here. Please be candid in so doing. Maybe I am just too long-winded for my own good.—N3rus 12:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we could split it into three articles, for the three films and three books. And even a forth to link to the three articles.
- Is this just a matter of creating the new articles and then linking them altogether with a TOC, or is there some special procedure for making subarticles?—N3rus 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article is organized into three major parts. The introduction, the major storyline differences, and the differences by movie. I think it would be good to carry this organization into the subarticles. The top-level article could be the introductory and explanatory material and the two subarticles could cover the two major groupings of differences. The article that contains the information by movie title could, itself, actually be three articles so that they can be independently referenced by the existing articles for the individual books and movies.—N3rus 13:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have begun work on separating the different sections into separate articles.—N3rus 18:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- The three movie/book articles have been separated out. There is still a great deal of work to be done.—N3rus 19:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have completed a second reorganization of the article to split its major sections into subarticles. I hope this is an improvement. There are some changes suggested by Arwen Skywalker that I need to make, and some additions of more differences by movie. The RK article needs the most work.—N3rus 09:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
the wording "Tolkein vs. Jackson" seems to put these two on the same level, as if both were accessing another source and telling their own version of an already existing story. but Jackson is retelling Tolkein so there is no "vs." here...in my humble opinion. a better title might be "tolkein as told by jackson" etc. hope someone comes up with something better that what is there now. 22.214.171.124 07:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I see your point, but I disagree - I feel the phrase "Tolkein vs. Jackson" implies that the article will be a comparing the two versions of the story (granted I know that Tolkien created the origanal story); the article is very analytical and the comaparison puts Tolkien's story 'vs.' Jackson's version of the story.-- 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "silly and irrational emotional manipulation" seems to me to be an opinion rather than a fact. Emotions do not need to be ration by there very nature, so I think that "silly and irrational" should be removed and it should be left as plain old "emotional manipulation" (even though there's probably a better way to put that, too). Rain Thalo 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Opinion based article Edit
Spread over this article are phrases that are judging solely on the authors preference. heres an example: "The overall effect of the entire movie series was that it told a story that was recognizably that of Tolkien's, but it did so with major thematic and other differences that tended to disappoint his fans."
I am a LOTR fan and I liked the movies.
What we see here is some wanna-be elitist taking his own opinion way to serious and abusing this wiki to try and spread it. The basic idea is: If you are a true fan of LOTR you cant like the movie, and if you enjoy the movie you are not a real fan but some worthless popcorn-guy.
Besides valuable information, these phrases ruin the article and make it completely worthless.
126.96.36.199 14:24, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say completely worthless. Granted, I accept that we couldn't make a direct film version of LOTR. I dislike the changes in characterisation but after reading an overview of John Boorman's LOTR (planned in the 70's but fortunately never filmed) I must kneel before Jackson as a paragon of accuracy. We should change it.--Wyvern Rex. 18:13, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This page is hugely based on opinion in ridiculous proportions. I added on an extra paragraph (not logged in, unfortunately, sorry about that) to emphasize the reader must decide for themselves. In the meantime, I unfortunately have no time to help overhaul this page, though I reccomend a complete rewrite. In fact, do you think we should delete this page entirely? It isn't very "wikified" and opinions exist even in the title (indirectly).Maybe we should vote on it. SPQR (talk) 19:33, August 2, 2012 (UTC)
More like a blogEdit
This article, as what others have mentioned before, is heavily opinionated. The writing is poor; the facts and ideas are rumbled over and over again. What is the point of this article anyway? If it means to point out differences, it could also work as a blog. In that way, other people could also post their ideas.
I vote to delete this page and make it as a blog instead.03:33,1/17/2016