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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

008Zulu:
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?)

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

There was no love "triangle" and I'm glad there wasn't. People need to stop being delusional not ever girl in every film is boy crazy. Its insulting that people would even make that connection. Guys and girls can just be friends you know?

The Entire 3rd film while mostly enjoyable did feel stretched out. I think they could have done it in two. The mayor and crony nonsense took up the most unnecessary screen time. Tauriel and kilis story was not a problem in itself but I felt like they didn't even develop each of the dwarves. They gave Kili a ton of screen time and mostly forgot about the other guys. It felt uneven.

Venereus:
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.

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.

Venereus:
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

This is probably terrible.

The movies can't be cut into anything close to the book because the tone and pacing of both are COMPLETELY different.

People still complaining that the movies aren't close enough to the book need to just let it go, honestly. It's been 3 years now. Stop dwelling and move on.

I think some of the cuts are a bad idea, such as the prologue. Knowing the importance of the Arkenstone from the get-go is better than being told about it for the first time right before Bilbo has to steal it. I think the prologue provides valuable information and shouldn't be cut. Trimmed, but not cut entirely.

Also, having Gandalf just disappear for a while without explanation is bad for the narrative, since 'I have to do wizard stuff' would be a stupid explanation. Keeping some of the Sauron stuff (not all) would help a person watching this who hasn't read the book understand things better.

we won't be linking to them here, as it is still piracy

Doesn't this count as a parody? I'm pretty sure this counts as a parody.

If this doesn't count as a parody for some stupid technical reason that's bullshit.

I'm with that other guy that mentioned that the music is probably gonna be all screwed up.

I liked all three movies though I get why some cuts would be preferred... I liked Tauriel. I DIDN'T like Tauriel falling in love with Kili and having Legolas be there and all like "Mmmeh, I liked her first" and blah blah, which is sad for me because they could've made certain parts of Battle of Five Armies so much more powerful without that stupid love triangle; brothers love each other, too.

Also polite pass on something having pirated content. A cut edition isn't nearly worth it enough.

Cutting out the Dul-Guldur stuff seems like a mistake, especially since that stuff canonically happened and was used to explain where the hell Gandalf was off to and what he was doing during his disappearances throughout Hobbit. Plus it was easily among the most compelling stories for me in all the films. I mean c'mon, Sauron, Galadriel and Elrond showing up like Middle-Earths Expendables was pretty bad ass.

Gxas:
This is probably terrible.

The movies can't be cut into anything close to the book because the tone and pacing of both are COMPLETELY different.

People still complaining that the movies aren't close enough to the book need to just let it go, honestly. It's been 3 years now. Stop dwelling and move on.

Especially because the third film doesn't even bother. It's The Hobbit in name alone, and gets on with being awesome regardless of what the original text said. And it was the strongest of the trilogy for it.

I tried to watch the first Hobbit film twice back in the day and I couldn't get through it either time. Needless to say I didn't bother checking out the rest of the trilogy.

If I ever do decide to check out the movie I'd go for this 4 hour cut.

Edit: My issues were with the pacing of the film and the fact that I didn't care about the characters and thus couldn't care about the action scenes either. It was simply too boring to bother.

Edit 2: This comes from someone who felt the book was pretty good up until the smaug story is complete. The book lost me with the battle of five armies stuff but that wasn't enough to ruin the story.

Should have cut out some of the dwarves as they are forgettable. ;-)

SonOfVoorhees:
Should have cut out some of the dwarves as they are forgettable. ;-)

They did, just not until the end.

CoffeeOfDoom:

kael013:
Wait, the riddle-off, the fight that gave Sting its name, and the conversation where Bilbo shows what a guile hero he is weren't in the book!? What edition did Tolkieneditor use, because I just looked through mine (revised edition) and those scenes are in there. In fact, they were pretty decently adapted; not perfectly, but very close (except for the spider battle, that was stretched out a tad too long).

If you actually read what Tolkieneditor said (https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/) he says:

"...it should be noted that Bilbo's key scenes-the encounter with Gollum, the battle against the Mirkwood spiders, and the conversation with Smaug-have not been tampered with, since they proved to be excellent adaptions (in no small part due to Freeman's performance), and serve to refocus the film on Bilbo's arc"

So yeah, Steven Bogos dun goofed.

Oh, well that makes more sense. Tiredness (I posted that @ 4 am here) and a habit of not double-checking articles is no excuse for my ignorance. Thank you for clarifying (and cute Avatar btw).

...Yeah, I should probably start reading the links more.

Wow that was fast. I knew someone was going to do it. just didn't think it was going to be taht soon.

Can't you get one of those in-player files to just skip to all the right places at the right times?
Oh right, you'd still need to rip all three films to run that...

Whatislove:

The complaining about Legolas being in it is what really gets me though, if you have read the Silmarillion, it is obvious that Legolas was in mirkwood at the time of the Hobbit, he was there, with his father. He may not have been quite as accomplished as he was portrayed in Jackson's adaption, but at the time he was still somewhere in the region of 3000 years old and past the age of Elf maturity.

Now I wouldn't be completely against Legolas being in the movies if his addition was actually well done but when nearly every damn scene he appeared in was so ridiculously bad it made me question why he was there in the first place. Legolas in the original trilogy did some pretty unrealistic feats but the way he was portrayed in the Hobbit bordered outright comical. It probably didn't help that more than half his moves were CGI but that was a problem that plagued the entire movie.

kael013:
Oh, well that makes more sense. Tiredness (I posted that @ 4 am here) and a habit of not double-checking articles is no excuse for my ignorance. Thank you for clarifying (and cute Avatar btw).

...Yeah, I should probably start reading the links more.

Don't worry about it, I realised my post sounded quite hostile when I read it again now, didn't mean for it to!

(Thank you :3 its some random Tumblr fan art of Korra XD)

I enjoyed the first two films but found the last one a generally bad movie and a huge borefest.

Honestly, I didn't even give a damn when key characters died because of all the pointless fillers and cheesy dialogue in between.

Two films, which was the original plan, would have been perfect. Then they could also have cut all the pointless content in the first two films, like the stupid rabid sled scenes.

Since when is a single movie four hours long?

What they really did was cut them into two two-hour-long movies and play them back to back.

The best thing I can say about the third one is that it made me care about the Azog and Kili-Taurel subplots.

Whatislove:

The complaining about Legolas being in it is what really gets me though, if you have read the Silmarillion, it is obvious that Legolas was in mirkwood at the time of the Hobbit, he was there, with his father. He may not have been quite as accomplished as he was portrayed in Jackson's adaption, but at the time he was still somewhere in the region of 3000 years old and past the age of Elf maturity.

Having Legolas just be there would've been fine. It's pretty likely that he would've been in Mirkwood with the Elven King, however, him being the main character for a good chunk of the second movie doing his crazy shit in a plot that never happened and bulked the movie out for no reason, while also cutting bits that were actually in the book was just Jackon giving Legolas an onscreen tongue bath for the sake of it. Which basically describes the whole trilogy, tolkeins work cut or squashed to the sidelines while Jackon makes 3 massive movies mostly consisting of his own fanfiction.

You're telling me this version lacks the "OMG love hurts so much, rite?" exchange between Tauriel and Thranduil in the end?

I'd pay for this if I could.

It certainly seems like the appropriate length.

Sure, Jackson included some seeds that were mentioned, or could be inferred to have happened, but there was so much extra crap that ultimately took away from the overall story. Two movies would probably have been the best length.

Battle of Five Armies did not need to be nearly as long as it was. IMO, it was easily the worst of the trilogy.

I'm curious to see how this fan cut will affect the overall tone of the films. One of my biggest issues was how disjointed it all felt. The Sauron subplot took away from the main stuff and was much darker in general. This just didn't fit with the rest of the movie.

My brother went and watched this thing. From what he's told me, the takeaway is that trying to create a more faithful adaptation of a book does not necessarily create a good film. Who knew?

For instance, there are continuity problems with a few scenes. It omits the prologue and starts with Gandalf greeting Bilbo at Bag End, but still has the '60 years later' caption, which now makes no sense. In omitting everything to do with Tauriel for example, it doesn't explain how Kili got cured of his stab wound, and Kili's death itself was cut because she was obviously a big part of it. I think it also cut Fili's death as well because of reasons. The thing is, you can't get away with killing off two major characters in a movie like you could in a book. That needs to be shown, not told.

It also downplays Legolas, which sounds fine in theory, but it leads to an issue in the final battle where Thorin is suddenly using Orcrist for no apparent reason. It also doesn't show what Gandalf was up to when he left the party, which again is something that you really ought to show in a movie.

Apparently, it did remove a lot of the filler involving the Wormtongue-like comic relief dude in Battle of Five Armies, which is something I can 100% get behind. I liked the Hobbit movies in general, and the first two were comparatively restrained, but I think the third one stretched the friendship a bit too far.

So I'd actually recently finished doing something similar for the first two films (as they are the only ones legally available to purchase at the moment), and I'm astounded at how he apparently managed to cut all three down to a total of 4 hours, and I still have the entire third movie to go (I'm looking at a total runtime of about 6 hours). I can't imagine his cut atually plays all that well as a film, as the hole thing is pretty much assured to feel incredibly rushed. I'm working from the theatrical cut of An Unexpected Journey, and the Extended cut of The Desolation of Smaug

for anyone that's interested here's a list of the changes I've made (and plan to make) for my cut:

*The entire prologue is gone. The film now opens with "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit..." The audience out about the dwarves' history with the mountain at the same time Bilbo does

*The entirety of Gandalf's subplot about the necromancer is cut as well, and any conversations that tie too heavily into it are shortened.

*radagast's intro is cut, but his conversation with gandalf remains, albeit in a truncated form

*The meeting of the white Council at rivendel remains in the film (though again is shortened) so gandalf doesn't just randomly disappear for about an hour of the film with no mention of his absence.

* The love triangle subplot is completely cut from the film. Legolas still has feelings for Tauriel, but Tauriel's involvement with Kili is cut entirely

* Accordingly, the subplot of Kili slowly dying from being shot by the orcish arrow is also completely removed from the film
* Tauriel and Legolas no longer show up in Lake Town prior to the death of smaug ( this ones' going to be a bit tricky to edit for the third film, but it can be done)

* Kili's Death sequence is also going to be edited so I can remove Tauriel standing around, looking worried, and calling out for Kili given that she no longer has any reason to do so.

* the epilogue will also be cut from the film as well

like I said, I'm looking at a total run time of about 6 hours

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

There is a slight difference between splitting a material of 1200 pages into 3 movies and doing the same thing to a 300 page book. A lot of the scenes in the Hobbit were stretched beyond belief. I cannot say how grateful I am for something like this to have happened because it sounds like a great version of all three films. Since BOTFA is not out yet, I am gonna wait to see how this turns out.

I'd just be happy if everything with Tauriel was cut out. Her scenes were terrible and the actress wasn't good enough to make them passable. (And she's like the first named character that appears in BoFA, for fuck's sake!) Also, made up Mary Sue character had more scenetime devoted to her than like 9 of the dwarves, including the movie she wasn't even in. Fucking hell, if they needed to pad out the running time that much, they could have given each dwarf a scene with Bilbo where they share their stories or reasons for being there. Just so that we had something to care about, I mean the last scene with the dwarves had them standing side by side looking at Bilbo and I remembered the names of like, 3. After. 10. hours. of. that. shit.

Just thought of something interesting, isnt it weird that people moan movies or games get censored yet seem happy with chunks being cut out of The Hobbit? Yes that trilogy was to long and full of pointless filler (would have cut out most of those dwarves) but then people applaud when there are cuts in one movie yet condemn when it happens in another.

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."

I think the last movie is most succinctly summarised by one line of mono-/dialog:

"Hey, there's about a hundred orcs coming our way. The two of use will take care of them, you go on ahead!"

Yeah, I was biting my nails...

MC1980:
I'd just be happy if everything with Tauriel was cut out. Her scenes were terrible and the actress wasn't good enough to make them passable. (And she's like the first named character that appears in BoFA, for fuck's sake!) Also, made up Mary Sue character had more scenetime devoted to her than like 9 of the dwarves, including the movie she wasn't even in. Fucking hell, if they needed to pad out the running time that much, they could have given each dwarf a scene with Bilbo where they share their stories or reasons for being there. Just so that we had something to care about, I mean the last scene with the dwarves had them standing side by side looking at Bilbo and I remembered the names of like, 3. After. 10. hours. of. that. shit.

Sadly it's impossible to cut Tauriel from the film entirely. She plays too big of a role in Kili's death scene.

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."

That's how I felt with the original trilogy. When Kevin Smith can summarize your trilogy in a minute, you done goofed.

Olrod:
Since when is a single movie four hours long?

What they really did was cut them into two two-hour-long movies and play them back to back.

Umm, Lawrence of Arabia. 4 hours long and theaters ran an intermission.

RaikuFA:

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."

That's how I felt with the original trilogy. When Kevin Smith can summarize your trilogy in a minute, you done goofed.

Ironic, as most Kevin Smith's movies can be summarized in a sentence.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here