What’s the best Hobbit trilogy fan-edit?

[Dreamwriter]

I'm in a Lord of the Rings mood, and realized that there might be a good fan-edit of the Hobbit trilogy to start with. I did find the original trilogy entertaining, but definitely flawed and over-long, and with the Extended Editions there should be plenty of material for a good edit. I found some great reviews of one from Maple Films (JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit), but that edit I guess came out in 2015 and was entirely based on the Theatrical Editons, so there has to be more options by now.

Has anybody watched these? What did you think?

 

[Gundam]

Same as with the prequel trilogy, fans think they can edit something better than Hollywood. The answer is none of them. The Hobbit will always not be as good as a watch as LOTR no matter how its edited.

 

[Transistor]

Same as with the prequel trilogy, fans think they can edit something better than Hollywood. The answer is none of them. The Hobbit will always not be as good as a watch as LOTR no matter how its edited.

Click to shrink...

Done

 

[JCHandsom]

Same as with the prequel trilogy, fans think they can edit something better than Hollywood. The answer is none of them. The Hobbit will always not be as good as a watch as LOTR no matter how its edited.

Click to shrink...

 

[Garlador]

I'm in a Lord of the Rings mood, and realized that there might be a good fan-edit of the Hobbit trilogy to start with. I did find the original trilogy entertaining, but definitely flawed and over-long, and with the Extended Editions there should be plenty of material for a good edit. I found some great reviews of one from Maple Films (JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit), but that edit I guess came out in 2015 and was entirely based on the Theatrical Editons, so there has to be more options by now.

Click to shrink...

Check out the Maple Films edit. I'll vouch for it. You're a tad misinformed though, as it is NOT based just off the theatrical editions and, in fact, incorporates quite a bit of the best extended cut material from the films (such as Thorian's funeral). There are plenty of other options too. Here's a good place to start:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheHobbit/comments/3vv8xm/collection_of_hobbit_trilogy_fanedits_and/

Same as with the prequel trilogy, fans think they can edit something better than Hollywood. The answer is none of them. The Hobbit will always not be as good as a watch as LOTR no matter how its edited.

Click to shrink...

While true, I've seen a couple fan edits, in particular the Maple Films one, that elevate the Hobbit to at least being a truly great film, if forever flawed. No film is like LOTRs, really. Hell, the Hobbit book itself is hardly LOTR-caliber either. It's a different animal altogether.

But to call all of them just "fans" who think they can do better than Hollywood is a bit of a misnomer. Many of the fan-edits are by industry professionals with lots of experience. We've seen time and again many fans are capable of surpassing Hollywood by better understanding the material or having more creative use of their tools.

 

[Snake Eater]

Acting is B movie level, not sure what editing is going fix that

 

[signal]

There should be a fan edit that is just Legolas fighting.

 

[Jedi2016]

 

[tata toothy]

One that cuts 95% of the third movie, I would guess.

 

[Garlador]

Acting is B movie level, not sure what editing is going fix that

Click to shrink...

Check out some edits then. There are some good performances in the film, and plenty of terrible ones that are out of place ("because it was REAL"... ugh....).

But keep it thin and focusing only on what works, the films have plenty of truly GREAT moments. Martin Freeman is a great Bilbo, Ian McKellen is still amazing, and Thorin has some really great moments too. The films have their moments, sandwiched between fluff. Riddles in the Dark is still a great scene, as is the core of the Smaug scenes once you cut out the cartoony stuff (which many edits do).

 

[jett]

Same as with the prequel trilogy, fans think they can edit something better than Hollywood. The answer is none of them. The Hobbit will always not be as good as a watch as LOTR no matter how its edited.

Click to shrink...

The sad truth that everyone must accept.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Same as with the prequel trilogy, fans think they can edit something better than Hollywood. The answer is none of them. The Hobbit will always not be as good as a watch as LOTR no matter how its edited.

Click to shrink...

That last statement was already going to be true, even Peter Jackson originally said he didn't want to direct The Hobbit because people would compare it to LOTR and nothing would ever match up to the what they held in their minds of the first trilogy.

But there are often cases that fans can edit things better than Hollywood, because "Hollywood" cares more about money and trying to attract the largest audience than making quality movies. For example, did you know the elf/dwarf romance was a late addition, only added in reshoots? The actress who played the elf in fact only agreed to the part on the condition that there *not* be a romantic triangle. Hollywood edited the movie to add something that is widely considered one of the very worst things in the movie (theoretically on the hopes that adding a romantic love triangle would attract more women to see the movie). So there is a solid example of a time a fan would be able to edit something better than Hollywood, by cutting that out and restoring it back to the original filmed version. And just by removing that, you also remove another huge editing problem, that there were two hugely dramatic death scenes one after the other instead of just one important one; the second (from the romance) took away from the importance of the first (Bilbo/Thorin), though the movie is supposed to be about the relationship between The Hobbit and The Dwarves.

 

[Koukalaka]

Click to shrink...

The perfect encapsulation of the Hobbit movies - works both as a demonstration of why they were terrible, and summarising my reaction to seeing them.

 

[きゃりーぱみゅぱみゅ]

Click to shrink...

This gif doesn't make much sense to me, because it's implying that if Bilbo had just said "fuck off and leave me alone", that the film would end. Even though, that is pretty much how he responds to Gandalf, but they just invade his home later in the night anyway.

 

[FriendlyNPC]

How about reading the book? You'll get the whole story and it won't suck!

 

[Dreamwriter]

How about reading the book? You'll get the whole story and it won't suck!

Click to shrink...

Or I could watch an edited version of the film that doesn't suck? And still get "the whole story" since really almost nothing was cut from the book.

 

[Garlador]

That last statement was already going to be true, even Peter Jackson originally said he didn't want to direct The Hobbit because people would compare it to LOTR and nothing would ever match up to the what they held in their minds of the first trilogy.

But there are often cases that fans can edit things better than Hollywood, because "Hollywood" cares more about money and trying to attract the largest audience than making quality movies. For example, did you know the elf/dwarf romance was a late addition, only added in reshoots? The actress who played the elf in fact only agreed to the part on the condition that there *not* be a romantic triangle. Hollywood edited the movie to add something that is wildly considered one of the very worst things in the movie (theoretically on the hopes that adding a romantic love triangle would attract more women to see the movie). So there is a solid example of a time a fan would be able to edit something better than Hollywood, by cutting that out and restoring it back to the original filmed version.

Click to shrink...

If you want to push that even further, how many times have Hollywood executives created edits of a film that are disastrous, only for the director to take their footage and do it THEIR way to much better results? Director's Cuts are fascinating because those are always clear examples of films that didn't turn out the way they intended because Hollywood wanted it to be different, resulting in lesser films. If we're being pedantic, a director's cut is often a glorified fan-edit of their version of the film versus the studio version of the film.

It's amazing how many times that's happened for me with Ridley Scott. I'm not really a big fan of the theatrical Blade Runner I saw, and I hated Kingdom of Heaven, but the director's cuts are incredibly superior in every way.

But I have often seen fan edits that surpass the originals. I don't know if I can ever watch the Star Wars Special Editions after viewing the Despecialized Editions.

... My favorite fan-edits though are the crazy creative ones, like one that removes ALL spoken dialogue in The Phantom Menace and only tells the story through John Williams's music and subtitles, or the one that edited American Psycho and Batman Begins together to create "Bateman Begins".

 

[gforguava]

The 2-hour edit.

Tries to stick as close the book as possible.
Uses the Misty Mountain song to show the history of the Dwarves and Smaug in montage.
It is interesting just seeing how the footage was repurposed and to see just how much stuff was left out.
It is only two hours long.
And most importantly: It ends with "Roads" from the Rankin/Bass film over the credits.

 

[Deleted member 21693]

There's this edit by that one guy with the name Peter Jackson. The edit is called "Production Vlogs". It's better than anything found in the three movies.

 

[Arc]

Same as with the prequel trilogy, fans think they can edit something better than Hollywood. The answer is none of them. The Hobbit will always not be as good as a watch as LOTR no matter how its edited.

Click to shrink...

I disagree. Unlike the prequel trilogy there is a decent film hiding in all the bloat. Cut out all of the Appendix stuff and most of the third movie and you've got something passable.

 

[nightwatcher]

Click to shrink...

lmao

 

[BossAttack]

Or I could watch an edited version of the film that doesn't suck? And still get "the whole story" since really almost nothing was cut from the book.

Click to shrink...

There was plenty cut from the book and the things that are there are often dumbed downed version from the book like their first meeting with Beorn.

 

[NookSports]

Maple edition is pretty good but can't fix acting or effects and lighting looking like shit

 

[Spectone]

I thought about doing my own edit but I realised that there is so much wrong in those movies you would end up cutting most of the story out.

 

[Deleted member 1852]

I thought about doing my own edit but I realised that there is so much wrong in those movies you would end up cutting most of the story out.

Click to shrink...

Considering how much of the movies was padding that had nothing to do with the book's story, this is definitely a good thing.

 

[JBucc]

I watched a couple of edits a while back, I can't remember which ones exactly, and after the Lindsay Ellis videos got curious and watched about half of the J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit one. They always start off nice because an Unexpected Journey is the best of the three and with some trimming of the overindulgent parts is quite a nice movie. After that things start to fall apart. By the time you get to the elves and beyond there's too many stupid characters that you can't completely get rid of and the focus of the movies has shifted.

 

[wow_bob_wow]

Maple edit is solid, I'd recommend it.

 

[TheXbox]

There are none. I've tried, man. They cannot be salvaged.

 

[Garlador]

Maple edition is pretty good but can't fix acting or effects and lighting looking like shit

Click to shrink...

While not perfect, they do cut out most of the poor acting scenes while focusing on the good ones, they actually DO redo many of the effects within their limits (like removing Radagast from the Eagle scene and removing the gold from Smaug's skin, etc), and they go through the whole thing to color correct it to make the film look much more like the original films. It's a very substantial amount of changes and it really affects the feel of the films.

 

[Deleted member 8257]

Any edit that cuts out the elf-dwarf romance subplot.

 

[NookSports]

While not perfect, they do cut out most of the poor acting scenes while focusing on the good ones, they actually DO redo many of the effects within their limits (like removing Radagast from the Eagle scene and removing the gold from Smaug's skin, etc), and they go through the whole thing to color correct it to make the film look much more like the original films. It's a very substantial amount of changes and it really affects the feel of the films.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, there's just some choices PJ made that can't easily be fixed. Night shots in particular look really really fake

 

[Deleted member 21339]

While not perfect, they do cut out most of the poor acting scenes while focusing on the good ones, they actually DO redo many of the effects within their limits (like removing Radagast from the Eagle scene and removing the gold from Smaug's skin, etc), and they go through the whole thing to color correct it to make the film look much more like the original films. It's a very substantial amount of changes and it really affects the feel of the films.

Click to shrink...

The redone shots look way worse.

 

[Lmo2017]

Just watch the Rankin/Bass cartoon and consider yourself lucky.

This thread now has me humming "Roads" :P

 

[Cocksman]

The first movie is legitimately good. It just had no reason to go on for another two films. And fuck Alfred.

 

[Garlador]

The redone shots look way worse.

Click to shrink...

They're the same color pallet used in the original LOTR films. The original trilogy was very desaturated and faded visually; it had a distinct "aged" look to it, whereas the Hobbit is oversaturated and high-contrast. I mean, just compare the Rivendell or war scenes.

 

[Deleted member 21339]

Yea I thought Rivendell looked way better in The Hobbit compared to FOTR. What's wrong with more color and contrast? It's fitting for a lighthearted children's story

 

[Garlador]

Yea I thought Rivendell looked way better in The Hobbit compared to FOTR. What's wrong with more color and contrast? It's fitting for a lighthearted children's story

Click to shrink...

I'd agree, for the most part, except The Hobbit movies quickly become something that was nothing befitting a children's story...

The final extended cut of the final film was just outright "Rated R".

I mean, I agree here. How badly do you have to screw up a children's book that it becomes an R-rated adaptation? It's missing the whole point...

 

[uncelestial]

and they go through the whole thing to color correct it to make the film look much more like the original films. It's a very substantial amount of changes and it really affects the feel of the films.

Click to shrink...

What? The originals are objectively superior in both examples here. That's not "correcting" shit, that's a subjective choice to crush the contrast/black levels and it makes it look like TV fare, or like HDR got turned off. The visuals are one of the few things The Hobbit has going for it, fans trying to wade into this bit can fuck off.

 

[linkboy]

I've got the Maple Edit and I'm looking forward to watching it, just need to find the time.

 

[Xenon Bloom]

I'd agree, for the most part, except The Hobbit movies quickly become something that was nothing befitting a children's story...

Except the final extended cut of the final film was just outright "Rated R".

I mean, I agree here. How badly do you have to screw up a children's book that it becomes an R-rated adaptation? It's missing the whole point...

Click to shrink...

Holy crap how does that happen? Have you watched it? I bought the extended editions of LOTR on DVD when they came out and then again on bluray but I never even watched the Hobbit ones. Hell I barely remember the theatrical version of the third one

 

[Zoso]

J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit by Dustin Lee is pretty well done. I haven't taken the time to watch any of the others.

 

[levious]

This gif doesn't make much sense to me, because it's implying that if Bilbo had just said "fuck off and leave me alone", that the film would end. Even though, that is pretty much how he responds to Gandalf, but they just invade his home later in the night anyway.

Click to shrink...

The gif was presented as a "good fan edit."

 

[Lafazar]

Holy crap how does that happen? Have you watched it? I bought the extended editions of LOTR on DVD when they came out and then again on bluray but I never even watched the Hobbit ones. Hell I barely remember the theatrical version of the third one

Click to shrink...

Here is a mocking Legolas kill count, he kills more orcs in the Hobbit movies than in the LOTR ones, and way more brutally and sadistically, too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0WDfNKX0Os

Go to 7:00 to experience the sheer absurdity for yourself. Legolas is a complete psychopath in the Hobbit.

 

[Cheerilee]

I watched the "Maple Films" version from 2015 a couple of days ago (due to suggestions in the Lindsay Ellis review threads).

It's four hours long and it feels longer than that, and it mercifully has an intermission around the halfway point so you can stop and take a break (it's clearly one movie with an intermission, not two movies). But I thought it was a really good movie. There is actually a story in there which I completely missed amidst the endless distractions and false-LOTR of the theatrical cuts, and it really shines through when you remove all the unnecessary bits. Cutting the most egregious of the "stupid" parts suddenly made the movie feel like something that wasn't a joke. It was able to lean into some stupid bits and get away with it, because it knew when to back off.

There were perhaps two or three instances where I visually saw the signs of something having been cut. Aside from that it was surprisingly seamless. There was also a bit of a distraction factor when I remembered that there was supposed to be a particularly bad scene ahead, and then felt a bit of a chuckle when I saw the movie rightly skip right past that bad part (but that's not the fault of the edit).

I thought the Maple Films edit was great, and it reminded me of how I felt when I read the Hobbit for the first time. I would absolutely recommend it to anyone. Well worth the entire four hours.