filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Feb 24, 2017 6:02:06 GMT
Oh I agree the she-elf bit, the completely contrived Bard's family and town story, Legolas, and some of the White Council bits were completely unnecessary.
The only side story that was ok to add was some following of Gandalf to Dol Guldur, but they really shouldn't have proclaimed to know it was Sauron since he claims to have no idea by the start of Lord of the Rings.
Having Gandalf not find out it was Sauron basically the whole thing pointless, so it may as well have not even been filmed. Like I said, one three-hour film exclusively focused on Bilbo and the dwarves. I tried editing the films down to basically only the stuff that was in the book, and it ended up being way over four hours. I tried cutting lots of other bits and pieces, and it ruined the pacing, so I ended up editing it into a duology instead. (the edit I did is private, just for me and my friends) I guess if the filmmakers had set out to do one film from the start, it could have worked with just one film, but the way it is now, it's impossible to make just one three hour film that has good pacing, since there is some stuff in it that just can't be fixed (like Azog. I would have rather seen Bolg as the main villain, since he's actually alive in the book's continuity). Both the Maple Films version and the Bilbo Edition are 4.5 hours long (although the Maple Films version has an intermission right after the barrel escape), and they both have similar creative choices. The editors of them wanted to focus on Bilbo's story, since he's the title character, as well as tell a story with better pacing.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 24, 2017 6:04:27 GMT
It isn't too crammed if you just stick with what Tolkien wrote for it and don't bother with any of the Appendex materials. Bilbo finds The Ring, the core component that makes The Lord of the Rings functionable as a story. I agree tha Bilbo finding the ring is the core. I disagree that it's not too crammed. Two movies would have been just fine and name them "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" and "The Hobbit: There and Back Again"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 6:09:29 GMT
@ filmfan95 and ArarArchStanton: Again, the Rankin-Bass version did just fine with an hour and a half. Their version trimmed a lot, but it was still coherent and flowed well enough. To make a proper three hour singular Hobbit film, you would have to design it that way from the concept stage. Of course cutting it down to just the Bilbo stuff in Jackson's version is still four hours long, a lot of those scenes went on forever past the point they did in the books with the inclusion of basically video game levels and fights happening in the thick of it.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Feb 24, 2017 6:14:20 GMT
@ filmfan95 and ArarArchStanton: Again, the Rankin-Bass version did just fine with an hour and a half. Their version trimmed a lot, but it was still coherent and flowed well enough. To make a proper three hour singular Hobbit film, you would have to design it that way from the concept stage. Of course cutting it down to just the Bilbo stuff in Jackson's version is still four hours long, a lot of those scenes went on forever past the point they did in the books with the inclusion of basically video game levels and fights happening in the thick of it. Is it bad that I actually prefer the Rankin-Bass version over the Peter Jackson version? I just like how simple it is. And it even feels darker than the Peter Jackson version at times. And it knows what to cut a lot of the time. Beorn is like the Tom Bombadil of The Hobbit: he's beloved by many readers, but he's not necessary for a movie adaptation. And Rankin-Bass rightfully cut him out. (I tried to cut him out in my private edit of the trilogy, but had to keep him because otherwise the dwarves get ponies from out of nowhere). They just did such a good job with the Rankin-Bass version. And can I just say it? I think Middle Earth looks a lot more like a fantasy story in cartoon form than in live action form.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 6:18:25 GMT
@ filmfan95 and ArarArchStanton: Again, the Rankin-Bass version did just fine with an hour and a half. Their version trimmed a lot, but it was still coherent and flowed well enough. To make a proper three hour singular Hobbit film, you would have to design it that way from the concept stage. Of course cutting it down to just the Bilbo stuff in Jackson's version is still four hours long, a lot of those scenes went on forever past the point they did in the books with the inclusion of basically video game levels and fights happening in the thick of it. Is it bad that I actually prefer the Rankin-Bass version over the Peter Jackson version? I just like how simple it is. And it even feels darker than the Peter Jackson version at times. And it knows what to cut a lot of the time. Beorn is like the Tom Bombadil of The Hobbit: he's beloved by many readers, but he's not necessary for a movie adaptation. And Rankin-Bass rightfully cut him out. (I tried to cut him out in my private edit of the trilogy, but had to keep him because otherwise the dwarves get ponies from out of nowhere). They just did such a good job with the Rankin-Bass version. And can I just say it? I think Middle Earth looks a lot more like a fantasy story in cartoon form than in live action form. You'll get no argument out of me. A live-action Hobbit film could easily have followed the gameplan of someone making the filmmakers watch the animated film and then telling them, "This, but twice as long."
|
|
OmegaWolf747
Sophomore
A lonely wanderer, jettisoned from my cozy den.
@omegawolf747
Posts: 184
Likes: 79
|
Post by OmegaWolf747 on Feb 24, 2017 22:40:42 GMT
I really wanted to like The Hobbit films, but compared to the majesty of LOTR, it just left me flat for some reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 23:08:20 GMT
I really wanted to like The Hobbit films, but compared to the majesty of LOTR, it just left me flat for some reason. Oh, I can explain that. Those films were anything BUT Tolkien's original literary classic.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 25, 2017 2:14:45 GMT
It isn't too crammed if you just stick with what Tolkien wrote for it and don't bother with any of the Appendex materials. Bilbo finds The Ring, the core component that makes The Lord of the Rings functionable as a story. I think it is whether you stick to what Tolkien wrote or not. There are so many different action sets that you can spend a little extra time with each and have tons available for two films. There is simply no reason do it all in one.
Just because it's in one book doesn't mean there is some obligation to put it in one film, or that it's better off that way.
Sorry, I completely disagree and have put a lot of thought into this, so you won't be convincing me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 2:42:31 GMT
The feeling is mutual. You won't be convincing me that The Hobbit needed two films.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 13:38:08 GMT
Never had a problem with the Hobbit movies. I mean to make it a trilogy was a bit idiotic. It should really just have been one 3 hour movie. There was no need to make it into 3 movies.
Of course the LOR movies are far better.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 25, 2017 17:39:04 GMT
Never had a problem with the Hobbit movies. I mean to make it a trilogy was a bit idiotic. It should really just have been one 3 hour movie. There was no need to make it into 3 movies. Of course the LOR movies are far better. I thought two movies would have been just fine, but the real problem with The Hobbit is the constant way way way over the top action scenes, falling down ridiculous drops and nobody getting hurt, people throwing axes around floating down rivers, swinging around inside the mountain to make a gold statue out of Smaug. Oh and the 13 dwarves ride out on rams thing. WUT was that??? It was just all so bombastic and unacceptable.
What was left was probably great, but I'd like to see all of the nonsense action edited out.
Oh and the pointless subplots like the elf dwarf lovefest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 18:32:25 GMT
Never had a problem with the Hobbit movies. I mean to make it a trilogy was a bit idiotic. It should really just have been one 3 hour movie. There was no need to make it into 3 movies. Of course the LOR movies are far better. I thought two movies would have been just fine, but the real problem with The Hobbit is the constant way way way over the top action scenes, falling down ridiculous drops and nobody getting hurt, people throwing axes around floating down rivers, swinging around inside the mountain to make a gold statue out of Smaug. Oh and the 13 dwarves ride out on rams thing. WUT was that??? It was just all so bombastic and unacceptable.
What was left was probably great, but I'd like to see all of the nonsense action edited out.
Oh and the pointless subplots like the elf dwarf lovefest.
Yeah i agree. Well i guess 2 movies could work i mean 2 movies that was like between 90 and 120 minutes could also work.
|
|
|
Post by captainchrisredfield on Feb 28, 2017 20:02:53 GMT
The Hobbit was a severe disappointment for me. I'm a big fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, so I was looking forward to the Hobbit. But I didn't really like the movies. I'm normally not too harsh on CGI, but the Hobbit looked like a videogame sometimes, the effects were terrible. The action scenes were too over the top, the characters boring (the dwarfes were too much of a comedy team) and the story was stretched way too long, the attempts of humor also didn't workd. The character of Tauriel was unecessary as was the love story (Gimlis and Legolas friendship was much better).
I really hated the overall look of the movies: too many colours, everything looked totally unrealistic. The CGI was one of the worst in a big production, I've ever seen. Movies ten or more years older look way better. Bilbo often wasn't even the main character, he felt more like a side character.
I haven't even watched the 3rd movie. The first was bad, but the second was worse and after seeing the trailer for the third, I decided to save the money.
Smaug and Dol Guldhur were my favourite parts of the movies. But the fight with Smaugh kinda ruined him, way too long and why did they make Smaug Godzilla size if they wanted him to have a fight with the dwarfes?
Overall, I really couldn't enjoy those movies and they bored me a lot. I was a bit sad, because I really liked Lotr.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Feb 28, 2017 20:36:59 GMT
The Hobbit was a severe disappointment for me. I'm a big fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, so I was looking forward to the Hobbit. But I didn't really like the movies. I'm normally not too harsh on CGI, but the Hobbit looked like a videogame sometimes, the effects were terrible. The action scenes were too over the top, the characters boring (the dwarfes were too much of a comedy team) and the story was stretched way too long, the attempts of humor also didn't workd. The character of Tauriel was unecessary as was the love story (Gimlis and Legolas friendship was much better). I really hated the overall look of the movies: too many colours, everything looked totally unrealistic. The CGI was one of the worst in a big production, I've ever seen. Movies ten or more years older look way better. Bilbo often wasn't even the main character, he felt more like a side character. I haven't even watched the 3rd movie. The first was bad, but the second was worse and after seeing the trailer for the third, I decided to save the money. Smaug and Dol Guldhur were my favourite parts of the movies. But the fight with Smaugh kinda ruined him, way too long and why did they make Smaug Godzilla size if they wanted him to have a fight with the dwarfes? Overall, I really couldn't enjoy those movies and they bored me a lot. I was a bit sad, because I really liked Lotr. The Maple Films fan edit desaturated the colors to make it look more realistic, and I think it's pretty effective. It also cuts down the fight scenes A LOT, so that it doesn't feel like a videogame anymore. When the dwarves enter Smaug's lair, they just get chased around for about three minutes and then Smaug leaves, without the stupid liquid gold thing. Of course, I'd prefer if they didn't encounter him at all, and Smaug just left as soon as he was done talking to Bilbo, but the edit still works better than the real movie. The same guy also made a separate hour-long edit that cuts the movie down to just the Dol Guldur stuff, and I think it works a lot better as a separate movie, rather than inserted into the main story. Now, Bilbo feels like the main character again. I vastly preferred this fan edit over the actual movies. So check it out if you're interested. There's even some clever edits done so that if you hadn't seen the original movies before seeing this, you wouldn't ever know they had originally been different in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by captainchrisredfield on Mar 3, 2017 19:14:39 GMT
The Hobbit was a severe disappointment for me. I'm a big fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, so I was looking forward to the Hobbit. But I didn't really like the movies. I'm normally not too harsh on CGI, but the Hobbit looked like a videogame sometimes, the effects were terrible. The action scenes were too over the top, the characters boring (the dwarfes were too much of a comedy team) and the story was stretched way too long, the attempts of humor also didn't workd. The character of Tauriel was unecessary as was the love story (Gimlis and Legolas friendship was much better). I really hated the overall look of the movies: too many colours, everything looked totally unrealistic. The CGI was one of the worst in a big production, I've ever seen. Movies ten or more years older look way better. Bilbo often wasn't even the main character, he felt more like a side character. I haven't even watched the 3rd movie. The first was bad, but the second was worse and after seeing the trailer for the third, I decided to save the money. Smaug and Dol Guldhur were my favourite parts of the movies. But the fight with Smaugh kinda ruined him, way too long and why did they make Smaug Godzilla size if they wanted him to have a fight with the dwarfes? Overall, I really couldn't enjoy those movies and they bored me a lot. I was a bit sad, because I really liked Lotr. The Maple Films fan edit desaturated the colors to make it look more realistic, and I think it's pretty effective. It also cuts down the fight scenes A LOT, so that it doesn't feel like a videogame anymore. When the dwarves enter Smaug's lair, they just get chased around for about three minutes and then Smaug leaves, without the stupid liquid gold thing. Of course, I'd prefer if they didn't encounter him at all, and Smaug just left as soon as he was done talking to Bilbo, but the edit still works better than the real movie. The same guy also made a separate hour-long edit that cuts the movie down to just the Dol Guldur stuff, and I think it works a lot better as a separate movie, rather than inserted into the main story. Now, Bilbo feels like the main character again. I vastly preferred this fan edit over the actual movies. So check it out if you're interested. There's even some clever edits done so that if you hadn't seen the original movies before seeing this, you wouldn't ever know they had originally been different in the first place. I definitely will check it out. Thank you for the information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 19:46:50 GMT
The Maple Films fan edit is one of the best. Agreed. It's the only version I watch now. It's one film divided into two halves, so it works nicely when marathoning with the EE of the LOTR films....
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Mar 3, 2017 21:48:39 GMT
The Maple Films fan edit is one of the best. Agreed. It's the only version I watch now. It's one film divided into two halves, so it works nicely when marathoning with the EE of the LOTR films.... It's not perfect. Thorin inexplicably has Orcrist again for the final showdown with Azog (which probably could have been fixed just by having a shortened Legolas and Bolg fight), and when Smaug leaves the mountain, he's now covered with water (the liguid gold was color corrected, but it's still obvious that he's covered with a liquid of some sort). I've actually seen some fan edits that solve this (and I did the same in my own, private, fan edit) by just leaving the dwarves outside the mountain (which I prefer, as they never entered the mountain to fight Smaug in the book) and when Smaug leaves, they don't show him breaking out through the gate, but just show the dwarves feeling the earthquake Smaug causes (which originally came earlier), with Balin saying, "That my lad was a dragon." Then it cuts to Smaug in the sky, without the need to show him breaking down the gate. I don't know why the editor didn't just do it that way. And just to nit-pick, I wish he had cut out all references to Smaug referring to Thorin as "Oakensheild," as Thorin did not earn that name until after Smaug took over the mountain. And there are some things that can't be fixed. I liked how the filmmakers made one of the orcs be an old enemy of Thorin's, as this works better to make the final battle less abrupt, but I didn't like how they made the orc be Azog, as Azog actually WAS killed in the Battle of Moria in Tolkien's books. I think it would have worked better if they had used Bolg instead, and had him be taking vengeance on Thorin for killing his father (since Bolg is Azog's son). But no amount of editing is going to fix this missed opportunity of the filmmakers. But, it's still a nice fan edit, and I've probably watched it more times than the actual movies (The Bilbo Edition fan edit is pretty good too, though it's not as professionally edited as the Maple Films edit).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 21:52:20 GMT
Agreed. However, it's the best of the fan edits I've seen, and it's the only one available in a quality I can watch along with the LOTR films. I just wish the mp4 version had a 5.1 audio track. That would have been perfect.
|
|
kjnics
New Member
@kjnics
Posts: 11
Likes: 6
|
Post by kjnics on Mar 4, 2017 18:22:15 GMT
I've never heard of these fan edited versions of the Hobbit films. I will have to check them out.
(Without having seen the edited versions, the mention of them reminds me somewhat of Oliver Stone's "Alexander". I heard the 2004 theatrical version was rather bad, but I enjoyed the 2013 version very much. With the right editing, certain movies can indeed work).
Like others here, I love the Lord of the Rings but found the Hobbit films rather underwhelming, patchily made, over-stretched (the three movies instead of one or two) and/or overly cartoonish (and have not seen them again). They're very separate projects, in my opinion. Fortunately, the Hobbit did nothing to taint my vision of Jackson's overall fine work with the Lord of the Rings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 19:56:21 GMT
I've never heard of these fan edited versions of the Hobbit films. I will have to check them out.
|
|