The Hobbit Recut - The Fan Edits thread

[bollemanneke 3,342]

@Nick66: You asked me to report back when I had watched that fanedit Bloodboal recommended (I think it was him anyway). So here I am after having watched part 1.

I can't go into too many details about the visual aspect of all the editing that took place, but the person who watched it with me said he didn't notice anything. As far as he was concerned, he was watching a film no one had tampered with.

 

Story-wise, it's most definitely a vast improvement. Everything goes so much quicker without all the useless rubbish. No Radagast (I did like him, but ultimately he wasn't necessary), no Dol Guldur (so no stupid Galadriel epicness in part 2, yay!), no Tauriel (thank God)... I think that's all the major differences. Part 1 ends with Bard aiming his weapon at the dwarves. It's not a bad ending, but not an 'Oh my God' cliffhanger either. Two things I did not like: they got rid of the entire prologue except for the introduction to Frodo and the 'nasty wet Hobbit hole' bit. That scene never annoyed me. They also got rid of Gollum killing the goblin, also rather unnecessary in my opinion. But, if you want to know whether you should watch this edit or the original, I'd advise anyone to discard the original right away. One possible flaw is the handling of Azog: he's only first mentioned by the Goblin King, so right now we only have unexplained animosity between him and Thorin.

 

As for the music. The editors claimed to have restored unused music. I don't know as much as I should about the rejected/tracked music, but one thing I did notice -- I think this wasn't in the original film at least -- was the inclusion of the Baggins/Took theme in Axe or Sword when Bilbo joins the company. And that worked quite well. Obviously, we sadly don't have the prologue music or the stunning Nazgul choir. (Yes, I liked that music, even though I know it should't be there.) Two things were edited rather badly: the ring music comes in very abruptly when Bilbo first finds it, and there's a rather clumsy transition between Erebor and Overhill because they got rid of the White Council as well. Are these edits unacceptable? Well, they're only a tiny litlte bit worse than the film edits. There's also one statement of Tauuriel's B section for some reason.

 

That's all for now. If you have questions, ask away.

[gkgyver 1,645]

This obsession by some people to cut scenes that are actually good just because they're not in a children's novel is wierd as shit.

[Jay 37,336]

2 hours ago, bollemanneke said:

@Nick66: You asked me to report back when I had watched that fanedit Bloodboal recommended (I think it was him anyway).

 

 

 

It wasn't BloodBoal that recommended it, it was Nick66 himself, hence why he asked you to let him know what you thought of it if you watched it

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Were you able to follow whats going on without the descriptive audio, manneke?

[Bilbo 3,709]

8 hours ago, gkgyver said:

This obsession by some people to cut scenes that are actually good just because they're not in a children's novel is wierd as shit.

 

I just don't get fan edits. I mean, sure, I can see why someone would make one but I can't see why anybody would want to watch a fan edit done by a random stranger. 

 

 

I actually rewatched the EE of Unexpected Journey last night and it was lots of fun even if it has a few (I would consider minor) problems. I'll take the worst of PJs Middle-earth over Captian America 25 or Thor 7 any day. 

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Bilbo 3,709]

It just feels like we've had that many of them. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

9 hours ago, gkgyver said:

This obsession by some people to cut scenes that are actually good just because they're not in a children's novel is wierd as shit.

 

Fanboys as armchair critics, who think they know better then professional film makers.

 

It makes me laugh.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

More like "Hahaha!", "Hohoho!" or "Hihihi!"?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Pointing and laughing!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

What does pointing add to the experience of laughing?

[bollemanneke 3,342]

@Jay: Oh, fair enough.

 

@Stefancos: Sure. I usually only watch films with descriptive audio only once anyway because it sort of reduces the effect of the music. It's not such a hard story to follow either.

 

As for watching random fanedits, this one isn't random, it's a very good one. I agree that cutting things just because they weren't in the book is stupid, but I also have to say that yesterday evening I actually felt like I had watched a film about a quest, and that's what it should be about. All those side plots are unnecessary, with or without the book as reference.

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

On 17 September 2016 at 10:30 PM, bollemanneke said:

@Nick66: You asked me to report back when I had watched that fanedit Bloodboal recommended (I think it was him anyway). So here I am after having watched part

That's all for now. If you have questions, ask away.

Glad you enjoyed it!

As I said previously, I'm not a big one for fan edits, but I just found The Hobbit to be so bloated that I really enjoyed what Dustin, a film maker in his own right, did with his edit. All the crucial elements of the story are there, but the focus is now on Blibo, where it should be.

 

Unlike you, I didn't miss the Erebor/Frodo stuff in the prologue at all. Most of that information is relayed again later in the film, and I think it works better that way.

As far as Gollum killing the Goblin, I really don't miss that at all. It's certainly truer to the book this way.

The reason Part 1 ends with the Dwarves encountering Bard is b/c that's exactly where Jackson originally intended to end it when there were only two films.

I'll take you word for it on the music edits...I don't think I have as much of an ear for that kind of thing as many on this board do. All I can say is it's something I didn't notice...though I'm sure it's there.

 

Anyway, glad you're enjoying it. It's my go-to version of The Hobbit now, and is basically the only way I consider the film to be watchable.

23 hours ago, gkgyver said:

This obsession by some people to cut scenes that are actually good just because they're not in a children's novel is wierd as shit.

I don't object to the extraneous scenes because they're not in the book. I object to them because most of them suck and don't work.

 LOTR has scenes that aren't in the book and they work just fine.

 

14 hours ago, Stefancos said:

 

Fanboys as armchair critics, who think they know better then professional film makers.

 

It makes me laugh.

Filmmakers are only human Stefanos, they make mistakes.  Even the best ones need a good editor. The problem with someone like Jackson, or Lucas w/the Prequels, is there's no editor in a strong enough position to tell them "Um, no".

Can you really say Jackson didn't show make pretty bad choices, but content wise and editorially, with The Hobbit?

If a professional editor can take a crack at that mess and make something more watchable out of it, I'm all for it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The problem isnt with the film makers though, its with the "fans".

 

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

What's the problem with the fans? They're supposed to take what they're given, shut up and like it?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No. But maybe they should accept that what they are given is what it is, and not try to think they can do better.

The movies lose something of their magic once the audience starts to believe that.

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

But this fan did do better. He made arguably a better cut of Jackson's film than Jackson did. I don't know a single person whose watched it that doesn't think that.

And watching this edit actually brings some of the magic of The Hobbit back to me that got loss in Jackson's mess.

I hear what you're saying, and part of me agrees with you. As I said I'm typically not bit on fan edits and don't make a habit of watching them, but if there was ever a film that could use a good editor it's The Hobbit. YMMV.

 

If you're a Tolkien fan or have any love for these movies at all you should give it a try. It's not perfect...you can only do so much given the material...but it's a significant improvement.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

In your opinion!

 

My love for Tolkien ultimatly expresses itself by reading his works.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Agreed. Stefancos, I'm not a Tolkien fan myself. Actually, I think he's way too romantic, pro-war and just unable to write good sentences. But let's not get into that 'as it is too early in the morrow for me to bear the wrath of the great and fair JWfanners...' This fan edit exposes the potential of all these three films. Even if you totally ignore the book, can you honestly say that these adaptations don't feel bloated? If half of it is quite frankly unnecessary, that means something's terribly wrong.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Too romantic? Pro war?

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Well yes. Do you know whether the entire ring-quest is supposed to be about going to your doom or doing a great, fair, noble thing to save the world? I still haven't figured that out.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

A bit of both actually. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

12 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

In your opinion!

 

My love for Tolkien ultimatly expresses itself by reading his works.

Well of course in my opinion!  

 

On your second point, we agree. 

[Jay 37,336]

Huh, the guys whole edit is on google drive.  That makes it easy to watch!

 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Nice. I have it on two DVD9s, it's also available on Blu-Ray. I asked the guy whether he would ever consider going back to it because it could be perfect if he waited for CRS and got rid of some sloppy music editing.

[Jay 37,336]

I skipped around and checked out a few parts and there is indeed some very wonky music editing in parts.

 

And he left out some EE scenes that I thought he would leave in like the gang meeting Beorn while he's chopping wood

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Yes. He seems too intent on aping the book rather than producing two good films. That mostly means the same, but I'd have preferred a prologue and the Azog introduction. Removing Gollum killing the goblin is just stupid. Who could possibly be bothered to do that?

[Jay 37,336]

If anything, you could open a 2 cut film with the Gandalf/Thorin scene that opens DOS, and after he says "we're going to need a burglar" you could somehow segue to him meeting Bilbo outside his house.  But then you miss any way of putting in establishing shots showing the scope of Hobbiton.  Hmmm.

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

 

38 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Removing Gollum killing the goblin is just stupid. Who could possibly be bothered to do that?

There's a very good reason for removing killing the goblin.  In the book, Bilbo found the ring. He didn't know who it belonged to at the time, and he didn't know it belonged to Gollum during the riddle game, he figured that out later. 

 

The way Jackson shoots the scene, Bilbo sees Gollum lose the ring and he steals it, knowing it belongs to Gollum.

 

Bilbo seeing Gollum lose the ring, then stealing and keeping it, not only changes Bilbo's character but impacts the story in several ways. In the original prologue to FOTR, it's clear Bilbo simply finds the ring, true to the book. It also impacts the way the riddle scene plays out. Why would Bilbo draw attention to having the ring in his pocket when he knows he stole it from Gollum? It makes sense if he simply found the ring and doesn't know, at the time, that the ring belongs to Gollum. But Jackson's version turns Bilbo into a thief who inexplicably draws attention to his thievery.

 

 

 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

But the original prologue guides you into the entire backstory in a better way. The only complaint I've heard about that is that you can't even see Smaug (must have looked rather ridiculous), and it's not in the book of course. Muscially it would be great to have it included, same goes for the Azog introduction. He also cut the belching Dwarf but didn't get rid of their other antics. Oh dear, seems I'm not liking this as much as I thought...

Oh fair enough, you're right.

[Jay 37,336]

8 minutes ago, Nick66 said:

Bilbo seeing Gollum lose the ring, then stealing and keeping it, not only changes Bilbo's character but impacts the story in several ways. The the original prologue to FOTR, it's clear Bilbo simply finds the ring, true to the book. It also impacts the way the riddle scene plays out. Why would Bilbo draw attention to having the ring in his pocket when he knows he stole it from Gollum? It makes sense if he simply found the ring and doesn't know, at the time, that the ring belongs to Gollum. But Jackson's version turns Bilbo into a thief who inexplicably draws attention to his thievery.

 

YES

[Bilbo 3,709]

Does Bilbo actually see him lose the ring though? Watching it again at the weekend Bilbo seems surprised to see it on the ground. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

27 minutes ago, Bilbo Skywalker said:

Does Bilbo actually see him lose the ring though? Watching it again at the weekend Bilbo seems surprised to see it on the ground. 

Absolutely he does. He sees the whole thing...Gollum killing the Goblin and the ring flying off him as he does it. It happens in slow motion, and Jackson makes it clear Bilbo is looking right at it as it all happens. In fact Jackson cuts to a shot of Bilbo, moving his head and following the action intently, several time.  After Gollum leaves, Bilbo picks up the still glowing, Sting then after looking around a moment glances down and sees the ring, which he immediately picks up. It looked to me more like his first priority was assessing his situation than going straight after the ring after Gollum left, but in any event it's clear from how Jackson shoots the scene that Bilbo sees everything that went down.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

According to the official audio commentary, he does:

 

'Bilbo watches from behind some fungi as Gollum violently subdues his catch. As he does so, a ring falls from his loincloth and lands on a rock.'

 

He really should know where it came from in this case.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But in the book, and The Fellowship movie Bilbo stumbles upon the Ring before meeting Gollum.

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

Well, exactly. 

 

But this is a fan edit, he can't exactly include a scene that wasn't shot, can he? The best he could do was delete Gollum killing the orc and retain the spirit of what happened in the book (i.e. Bilbo finding the ring, not knowing where it came from, rather than stealing it).

[gkgyver 1,645]

1 hour ago, Nick66 said:

 

There's a very good reason for removing killing the goblin.  In the book, Bilbo found the ring. He didn't know who it belonged to at the time, and he didn't know it belonged to Gollum during the riddle game, he figured that out later. 

 

The way Jackson shoots the scene, Bilbo sees Gollum lose the ring and he steals it, knowing it belongs to Gollum.

 

Bilbo seeing Gollum lose the ring, then stealing and keeping it, not only changes Bilbo's character but impacts the story in several ways. In the original prologue to FOTR, it's clear Bilbo simply finds the ring, true to the book. It also impacts the way the riddle scene plays out. Why would Bilbo draw attention to having the ring in his pocket when he knows he stole it from Gollum? It makes sense if he simply found the ring and doesn't know, at the time, that the ring belongs to Gollum. But Jackson's version turns Bilbo into a thief who inexplicably draws attention to his thievery.

 

 

 

 

You completely disregard the fact that Bilbo is supposed to put the ring in his pocket without realizing, emphasizing the lure of the ring, which is why Bilbo later on asks what he has in his pocket more to himself.

Therefore, he doesn't intentionally draw attention to it.

And who says Bilbo was ever going to tell Gollum the answer?

 

FotR's portrayal of Bilbo finding the ring is even more off, I don't see anybody bitching about that years after the fact.

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

1 hour ago, gkgyver said:

 

You completely disregard the fact that Bilbo is supposed to put the ring in his pocket without realizing, emphasizing the lure of the ring, which is why Bilbo later on asks what he has in his pocket more to himself.

Therefore, he doesn't intentionally draw attention to it.

And who says Bilbo was ever going to tell Gollum the answer?

He whispers to himself "what have I got in my pocket," then says it louder, directly to Gollum, when he decides to use that as his "riddle". That's when he drew attention to it.

 

And FOTR's portrayal isn't "even more off" since FOTR doesn't have Bilbo witnessing Gollum killing a Goblin and seeing him lose the ring, and doesn't fundamentally change Bilbo's character, or the dynamics of the "what have I got in my pocket" question.

 

And you seem to be obsessed with these overly dramatic words...."obsessed"..."bitching"...I don't think anyone is obsessed or bitching. As if you're trying to minimise as irrational the ideas of anyone who disagrees with you. For my part I just think it's simply an unnecessary change that detracts from, rather than adds to, the story. 

Weird. 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

So, that was part two.

 

Like part one, story-wise, this is such an enormous improvement. I actually felt sad when Thorin died this time because we focus a lot more oh him. BUT: one does not simply cut Stephen Fry out of the film. This seems to be a result of the hatred towards Alfrid (which is justified, but come on, Stephen Fry is just great, leave him alone). Also, why does Smaug leave the mountain covered with gold if the Dwarves never threw it at him? And why wasn't Bard told the Master had died?

 

Musically, I didn't notice any bad editing this time. The inclusion of the Misty MoUntains theme is simply MARVELLOUS. But it would have been even better if that horrible Bilbo music was replaced by some cheerier Bilbo music during the auction. Finally, a simulated 5.1 mix of The Last Goodbye is sorely needed.

 

Overall, I'll certainly keep this edit and probably won't ever watch the originals again. But if my criticism was taken into account, it could be even more perfect than it is now.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They cut out Fry completely?

[bollemanneke 3,342]

No, they trimmed his scenes. For example, the 'there's talk of an election, I wouldn't stand for it, I don't think they'd ask you to stand' part. I want that back in.

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

 

32 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

So, that was part two.

 

Like part one, story-wise, this is such an enormous improvement. I actually felt sad when Thorin died this time because we focus a lot more oh him. BUT: one does not simply cut Stephen Fry out of the film. This seems to be a result of the hatred towards Alfrid (which is justified, but come on, Stephen Fry is just great, leave him alone). Also, why does Smaug leave the mountain covered with gold if the Dwarves never threw it at him? And why wasn't Bard told the Master had died?

 

Musically, I didn't notice any bad editing this time. The inclusion of the Misty MoUntains theme is simply MARVELLOUS. But it would have been even better if that horrible Bilbo music was replaced by some cheerier Bilbo music during the auction. Finally, a simulated 5.1 mix of The Last Goodbye is sorely needed.

 

Overall, I'll certainly keep this edit and probably won't ever watch the originals again. But if my criticism was taken into account, it could be even more perfect than it is now.

 I think I read that Dustin tried to remove all the gold from Smaug, and wasn't able to completely. Though I as I remember it's not quite "gold" anymore, he's recolored it, but it's still clear there's something he's shaking off. Though it's a valid criticism, but a small, technical one that doesn't impact that story.

 

As for Stephen Fry, I live in the UK, where he's a national treasure, and love him. But I can't say I was a fan of his portrayal of the Master,  which to me was way over the top. And frankly the contemporary class warfare/inequality lines that he has, that actually remain in Dustin's version, I wish were deleted.  I didn't mind the Master's reduced presence, and it's still more than was in the book.

 

I agree with you it's not perfect, but my complaints are a little different than yours.  For my part, I wish he would have removed the Elf/Dwarf/Orc barrel fight altogether, along with the cat & mouse with Smaug and the Dwarves. He's cut a lot of the foolishness out of these bits and trimmed the scenes, but I would have been fine without them altogether.

 

Anyway, it's my go to Hobbit also, and glad you enjoyed!

4 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

They cut out Fry completely?

No, he's still in it. His presence is just trimmed, but the important bits are still there...though with less of the comedy (testicle eating, etc.)

[bollemanneke 3,342]

But does Fry bother you because of the character he plays, or because it's not in the book?

 

Also, is it even possible to completely cut the Smaug vs Dwarf silliness? I mean, how would you explain Smaug flying off to Laketown if they never enraged him?

 

I posted all my remarks on the Fanedit.org thread hoping Dustin will read them. No reaction so far.

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

8 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

But does Fry bother you because of the character he plays, or because it's not in the book?

 

Also, is it even possible to completely cut the Smaug vs Dwarf silliness? I mean, how would you explain Smaug flying off to Laketown if they never enraged him?

 

I posted all my remarks on the Fanedit.org thread hoping Dustin will read them. No reaction so far.

Simply changing the character from the book doesn't bother me. Jackson does that quite a bit (e.g. Faramir) and I'm typically fine with it. Cinema is a different media than literature, and there have to be changes to serve the story. I just don't like the over the top way Fry plays the character, as much as I like Fry. But that's a personal choice, I can see where some people would be fine with it. I don't mean to sound like I'm a book purist, I'm not. I just want a coherent story, focused on Bilbo, w/o the bloat.

 

As far as Smaug vs. the Dwarves, I'd need to watch again, though I think you could cut from Bilbo's interaction with him, to Smaug figuring out Bilbo was from Laketown and bolting. It would obviously take some editing, and the logistics might be tricky. Yeah, I need to watch it again.

 

Again, these are small complaints. I think if I'd just watched this film without ever having seen the originals I would not have known it was a fan edit, and probably would not have noticed any of the imperfections...especially since the original is full of them.

 

 

[gkgyver 1,645]

I didn't even watch further than the opening credits. A supposed film maker who butchers the opening music and takes you out of it, just to cut, of all things, the credits, doesn't deserve further exploring.

[Jay 37,336]

He removed "The Hobbit" title card from the very beginning, because he has it appear later, between an establishing shot of The Shire and Bilbo's smoke ring dissolving into Gandalf standing outside Bag End

 

Watch from 2:00-2:30 of the embed

[gkgyver 1,645]

I don't care. I know he moved it. And destroyed the moments that should get you into the film. Somebody who willingly destroys the pace, just to move the title card for the hell of it, clearly has no sensibilities.

 

Why destroy an opening that works? I don't get it. And I don't care about reconstructing the book. The edited opening is way worse than the actual film. And if you don't work within the possibilities of making existing footage and music work, and contrary to intention, make the film worse by clinging to some strange ideal, you're a hack.

 

The jump from Trollshaws to Rivendell is preposterous. How can someone take this serious? There is no sense of journey whatsoever. Anywhere. The Ancient Enemy may be useless, but at least it serves THAT purpose.

 

The introduction to Beorn is completely nonsensical. After Gandalf says he is dangerous, they just sleep there suddenly. He says he doesn't like dwarves. In the very next scene, he greets Thorin with respect.

Complete shite.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

What surprises me most (even though it's off-topic) is this: I just finished listening to the LOTR director's commentaries. It's mind-boggling that the people behind these three films who were so devoted to the material are responsible for three films of which 50% aterial is redundant. How do you go from being a Tolkien fan to a concept butcherer?

[Nick1Ø66 4,708]

16 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

What surprises me most (even though it's off-topic) is this: I just finished listening to the LOTR director's commentaries. It's mind-boggling that the people behind these three films who were so devoted to the material are responsible for three films of which 50% aterial is redundant. How do you go from being a Tolkien fan to a concept butcherer?

THIS. I've always thought the same thing.

 

10 hours ago, gkgyver said:

I didn't even watch further than the opening credits. A supposed film maker who butchers the opening music and takes you out of it, just to cut, of all things, the credits, doesn't deserve further exploring.

I don't understand this obsession you have with bitching about things you haven't seen.

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Do we actually know how we went from 2 to 3 films? Was it the studio's obsession with money and did PJ have no choice, or did PJ go crazy?