The Lord of the Rings (film series)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to see it being improved and maybe becoming a featured article. I need help with a few things as I'm not a English native speaker. The Home media and Legacy sections need to be updated and maybe the plot section needs to be shortened. Aside from those things I think the article is pretty good.

Thanks, Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

Looks alright at first glance:

• The music for the series [turned out to be a success and] has been voted best movie soundtrack of all time for the six years running, - remove bracketed bit (sounds puffy). let facts speak for themselves...

• You have a Reactions to changes in the films from the books section...but not a section on differences between books and film....? (at 33kb of prose, the article can cope with some expanding)

• That section could be tightened and restructured a bit. Not sure how just yet. Need to think....

Oulfis

It looks strong to me overall (though I haven't done many peer reviews so may be missing things). I think the tables are particularly excellent, and the article has a good organization, and doesn't seem to be missing any important sections. Some things I notice could use improvement:

• The plot summaries of the three films feel too long. Since this is an overview article, the synposes can be shorter here, with the full synopsis in the main article for each movie. It's a very difficult story to tell succinctly, since a lot happens! But it might be possible to leave out some details, e.g.:

• Gandalf also learns that Gollum was tortured by Orcs, and that Gollum uttered two words during his torture: "Shire" and "Baggins." could be slighly shortened to --> Gandalf learns that Gollum has told Orcs the location of the ring.

• I wonder if there could be more sourcing for some of the details in the "Production" section, for statements like:

• other unit directors included John Mahaffie, Geoff Murphy, Fran Walsh, Barrie M. Osborne, Rick Porras, and any other assistant director, producer, or writer available.
• To avoid pressure, Jackson hired a different editor for each film. (specifically his motivation for this choice could use support)

• The "Comparisons between the film series and the book trilogy" section looks like it has been improved a lot, but it still looks weak to me.

• It seems to be lacking in a perspective which I think is common, namely, that the film series is unfaithful to the books but is therefore superior to the books. The article as it is seems to assume that any changes from the books can only be bad or at best neutral/necessary. Looking at some of the referenced sources about Arwen might help you find some people with this perspective -- improving Arwen and Eowyn's roles is one of the ways that the film series is sometimes considered superior to the books.
• Probably because it is a contentious and difficult section, the prose in this section is weaker than the rest, with several tortured or confusing sentences.
• The whole section would benefit from a clearer organization structure. Perhaps you could group opinions into a series of stances: those who see the movies as faithful, those who see them as unfaithful and bad, unfaithful but neutral, unfaithful but good.