Fan Cuts The Hobbit Trilogy Into a Single, Four-Hour Movie

[Hyperstorm]

I may actually bothered to see The Hobbit if it had been one movie (albeit 4 hours long) because I love the book.

I was willing to accept it split into two movies I consider three movies excessive and just an excuse to try milk the Tolkien cash cow.

 

[laggyteabag]

*sigh* watching the video on the link only made me remember how much I hated the films.

Stupid barrel section.

 

[Scars Unseen]

... as it is still software piracy...

IP law makes no sense to me. Anime fan subs can be distributed freely without fear of legal recourse (as far as I understand it). Isn't a completely fan re-edited film basically the same concept?

Not really. The only reason anime fansubs are cut any slack is because there isn't a local distributor who is planning to purchase and (hopefully) release the show in the West. Try doing a fansub of, say, Attack on Titan, and you won't get far. The more serious subbers recommend that you only use the fansubs until the show has an offcial distributor as well.

On the other hand, just because it's an official release does not make it superior. For example, I think that they WhyNot fansub of Steins;Gate is far better than the subs that come on the Blu-Ray(which I did buy anyway because I always want to support licensed localizations even if they are imperfect). And don't even get me started on the poor typesetting on Crunchyroll releases. Not all fansubs are great, but some are worth looking into even if you own the licensed version.

Honestly, I think that visual novels are benefiting somewhat by their late arrival to the licensing scene. It seems that at least in some cases(maybe most), the official licensed localizations of visual novels end up being cleaned up versions of the fan translations. The JAST licensed Steins;Gate VN(to keep my examples consistent), is better localized than any other translation, VN or anime, including the previous unlicensed fan translation. All in my opinion, of course.

 

[Evonisia]

Thank Christ he got rid of that god-awful love triangle sub-plot. Much as I loved the third one, I just couldn't be bothered with their bland presentation and it's the biggest reason Desolation of Smaug was a mixed bag for me (among other things).

Like I said, 2 movies would be best. Unless 4 hours seems like a reasonable length for a movie? I could easily see it working as a 2 act structure.

And honestly I don't think the movies are that bad as is either, everyone has their own idea of what the perfect edit would be, I'm sure some people would miss the "filler" that Jackson created for his version of the films.

Isn't the extended version of Return of the King 5 hours long?

 

[Strazdas]

I suppose that makes sense. Still, I can't help but feel such strict IP regulations do nothing but impede artistic expression. There has to be some kind of middle-ground somewhere.

Cha, middle ground. not while media companies are in charge. trying to find middle ground with them is like a woman about to be burn for witchcraft trying to find middle ground with the inquisitor. Sure shes being treated unfairly, but they profit way too much off it to let it happen any other way.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As someone who complains vehemently about the Hobbit movies, I'll just say that personally I have never had any problem with Legolas being there. Of course he would have been. I do have a problem with him stealing the show and Peter Jackson constantly trying to portray him as the most BAMF in Middle Earth whenever possible.

Definitely. Though, I thought they'd give Arwen a cameo in the Rivendell scenes.

 

[syl3r]

i think the cut might realy be good. but my problem with the hobbit is, that it looks so cheap and fake (in contrast to the original lotr).
especially laketown looked so bad, thats where i stoped watching the second one and only recently watched all 3 in a row.

compared to other fantasy it still looks good, but i think it doesnt fit as a lotr prequel on a visual level. the surroundings, hills and general areas from lotr were just so huge and fantasticly made, and hobbit feels too cheap compared to it.

i think for hobbit it would have been better if it released first and lotr after that. that way it would feel like an upgrade and not a downgrade.

about legolas, i have to agree to most other people. its ok that hes there, its not ok that he basicly is god with a bow. that scene in the 3rd movie where he collapsed a tower to use as bridge to save that sheelve (cant remember her name)..... just rediciulous. if it was just one scene with his over the top skills it would be ok, see lotr for reffrence, but in this trillogy they just overdid it waaaaaay too much with him

 

[Teoes]

snip

Mr Bogos, you appear to be the Escapist's go-to newsmonkey for stories that involve "this is interesting, but totes illegal and we don't condone that sort of thing so we advise you don't touch it with a shitty stick.".

OT: I would like to see this (Hobbit extended editions.. eh, a bit less so, but I'd still like to see them) but gosh durn that there illegal bit. Ah well.

LotR extended edition gets regular spins in our house, especially when the missus is working on her art. The same has not been happening for The Hobbit.

 

[Piorn]

Definitely a good thing. I remember we watched the first one twice because one of our friends couldn't make it the first time, and I was bored out of my mind.
But piracy is very bad and I don't endorse it one by, a big no. No. How dare you. The humanity.

 

[Lightknight]

... as it is still software piracy...

IP law makes no sense to me. Anime fan subs can be distributed freely without fear of legal recourse (as far as I understand it). Isn't a completely fan re-edited film basically the same concept?

Better safe than sorry

Sure, that logic is of course why I take suitcases with me everywhere I go with anti-venom of every known animal, a gas mask, guns+ammo, and peanut butter bars in case I get lost for days without food. Oh, and a life straw, don't forget one of those...

"Better safe than sorry" isn't really saying anything. We can always be safer. Is this illegal or isn't it? The educational value alone of seeing how the movies could have been one large movie would be worth seeing this. I suppose that the only surefire way for it not to be illegal is to own all three copies of the movies (specifically the versions this person used so you know you own the same license).

But I really don't know and I'd love to know what the truth is. I never download anything illegally. My wife and I have a strong policy against doing so. So I think it's important to know if that content is legal to view and if not, how could it become legal to view?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

What I'm curious about is how this will affect the music. Like Star Wars, the music of Lord of the Rings is so ingrained into each scene that I'm concerned editing will mess up a lot of the musical cues.

 

[Venereus]

I like how everyone forgets the Lord of the Rings was a single book cut into 3 by the editor for easier publishing.

 

[Trishbot]

If the Lord of the Rings movies are a grand adventure, The Hobbit movies are the theme park attraction ride based off of them. A lot of fun, but oddly mechanical and automated.

I'll check out an "un"-expended cut soon. The filler was in the original movies, but it's pretty bad in The Hobbit.

The new material in the LotR movies made the films better. The new material in The Hobbit just made the films longer.

 

[Lightknight]

I like how everyone forgets the Lord of the Rings was a single book cut into 3 by the editor for easier publishing.

That would have been quite a tome. Not seeing how this relates to the much smaller Hobbit.

 

[Dandres]

I thought the Hobbit movies were too long. I nearly fell asleep during the last one. I thought they should have renamed it the battle of the select few. I watched it thinking ?Hey look it?s the armies.? a minute latter ?Were did the armies go.?

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

They only stretched it out to three because of the money they knew they'd make. A single four hour movie, while not as profitable, would have been more enjoyable.

Yeah, and this fad is getting out of hand. In every book series turned movie franchise since Harry Potter, Hollywood has been splitting at least the last book into two or more films, usually just to make more moolah. Harry Potter needed it, since Rowling wrote door stoppers and adaptations of earlier books cut semi-major plot points, but a lot of the split films now are so drawn out, you could read most of the book before finishing them and enjoy it more. Here, they expanded a single (sort of short, from what I've heard) book into three movies totaling over 8 and one half hours.

OT: Another great case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. To enjoy a film adaptation of a famous fantasy novel you either have to sit through 4 hours of filler, or be technically a criminal, even if you own all three films, and therefore gave the filmmakers around $60. I'll take the third option and not give them money until they officially release a condensed version. (Which might mean I have to wait until the heat death of the universe. But what do expect with Hollywood?)

 

[Elvaril]

Four hours, you say? Meh, Rankin/Bass cut it down to an hour and a half.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I like how everyone forgets the Lord of the Rings was a single book cut into 3 by the editor for easier publishing.

And what a brilliant move that was, too.
But The Hobbit is three times shorter and needs no such edit.

 

[Covarr]

So if he's aiming to make it truer to the book, why did he leave all those orcs in the barrel scene? I've seen other fanedits that remove them entirely, and do a good job at it, so it's not like it wasn't possible. And then for that to be the one scene he shows off... I haven't downloaded this one yet, but I suspect it'll disappoint me with other similar content that could've been cut.

I like how everyone forgets the Lord of the Rings was a single book cut into 3 by the editor for easier publishing.

This is different, for one major reason: No additional content was added to stretch out The Lord of the Rings when it was split up. All the publishers did was literally chop the book, which was already divided into six books internally, into three books filled 100% with content that Tolkien wrote. Jackson didn't do that with The Hobbit; if he had shot the book as-written and divided that into three, each movie would be like an hour. He made it longer to fit his own material, not Tolkien's.

P.S. Thanks