Remember when I said I wanted a shorter version of The Hobbit movies ? And that if their wasn't an official version there would definitely be an unofficial version ? Well there is, and I watched it this afternoon (though it's been out for over a year). A single 4 hour 15 minute film instead of the absurdity of the 9 hours of three films at the cinema. And it's really rather good.
Gone are the singing dwarves. Gone are Galadriel, Sauruman, Tauriel and her utterly pointless romantic sub-plot, Legolas (or at least reduced to a 5 minute scene) and (thank sweet merciful Cthulhu) the horror that was Radegast. The Azog stuff is still there, but vastly reduced. It is much, much better than the theatrical releases.
The worst of the overblown action sequences (like the dwarves falling off a tree on the edge of a cliff, or covering Smaug in molten gold, and those silly giant worms) are completely cut. A lot of the less ridiculous but still pointless action sequences are gone as well (e.g. there's no big chase sequence after the trolls are turned to stone - the dwarves just arrive in Rivendell without incident). And no-one fist-punches their way out of a barrel and goes spinning round like a gyroscope with blades. It feels like an adventure story with action sequences now, not an action story with adventure sequences.
It's not perfect by any means. While cutting Ian Holm's prelude with the overblown destruction of Dale sequence works well, it would have been nice to include the famous, "In a hole under the ground there lived a hobbit..." introduction, which would tie in nicely to the end. I also think the stupid rock giants could have been edited to make it look like a big rockfall.
The overall story has survived this dramatic loss of five hours of footage remarkably well, but there are understandably a few oddities. For instance, it's not made explicit that Gandalf stays in Rivendell after the dwarves leave, making his re-appearance in the goblin town rather strange. So many of the orc sequences are (quite rightly) lost that it's easy to forget they're chasing the protagonists, which means that occasionally they appear more unexpectedly than they should. It's not clear how Bilbo gets into the woodland realm of the elves or how he knows about the barrels. Bard assists the dwarves at first but then decides to oppose them for no obvious reason, and later it's not clear why the guards are after him because until that point they've actually been on good terms. And Bilbo's descent into the mountain happens rather suddenly after they arrive.
All of these are rather minor plot holes are there are certainly decent movies out there with far worse problems. Overall, this version is a massive improvement on the theatrical releases. The only major thing I would change is to split it into two two-hour films. Not because I mind four hours of watching a movie so much as it feels like it's in two parts, with the journey to the mountain being quite different to what happens when they get there. Also, while the quality is quite watchable it's not HD and there are occasional reductions in the frame rate during the sequences from The Battle of the Five Armies.
Bottom line : this is a more than passable version of The Hobbit, which brings the movies back up to the quality I expected originally. Sure, it's not Lord of the Rings, and it shouldn't be - the source material is too different. But at least now they both feel like they're in the same universe and told by the same storyteller. Nice job, TolkeinEditor !
https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com
I gotta check this out some time. I always felt there was a good movie in there. It should have always been two films instead of three, but it goes to show what happens when decisions are made based on what will pull the most money from fans rather than just making the film you want.
ReplyDeleteWay less Legolas, thank God. I swear that in the last film Orlando Bloom got almost as much screen time as Martin Freeman.
I'm not someone who generally balks at changes from the source material. I actually liked the of the she-elf character (I can't remember her name). What bugged me was having this character only to have her need saving by Legolas and some lame message that love hurts.
If this is as better as the Star Wars: a Phantom Edit, it should be great! Thanks for the share.
ReplyDeleteRelated: now that Phantom Edit has been taken down by Disney in their unending quest to mediocrify their franchises, does it still exist in its 1080p form somewhere on the internet?
Mike Aben Originally I thought it could have been done as a single 3 hour movie, however after seeing this I think 4 hours is probably the minimum. There were even a few moments where I thought an extra minute or so would have helped.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, waaaay less Legolas. Reduced to the level of sensible, crowd-pleasing cameo.
I don't have anything against Tauriel the character but that whole sub-plot was unnecessary. It's amazing how the editor managed to cut her completely (well she may have a single line, I think) without there being any feeling of something missing whatsoever. Similarly Radegast (who, like Tom Bombadil, is not someone who should ever be on screen) is totally gone.
What I found frustrating with the theatrical releases was that they did such a great job of altering the source material in LOTR. Nothing felt like it was something Tolkein wouldn't have written, even if he actually didn't. With The Hobbit virtually all of the additions felt crudely bolted on to the main story, because they were. Take 'em away and BAM! instant better film.
Of course what the studios should do now is officially endorse this, make a polished-up high frame rate 3D version and release another two films at the cinema. I'd pay to watch them and buy and the blu rays.
Elie Thorne I never heard of the Phantom Edit, will investigate...
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor I started watching it last night, but only got half way. Yes, some of the truly insufferable scenes are gone, but I'm not convinced it's that much better. I just can't get behind any of the characters like I could with LotR. The cast is great, the design is great, I just wish more energy went into the script.
ReplyDeleteOf what I watched, the weirdest thing is when they are being chased by orcs out of the goblin caves and are suddenly at Beorn's house. What, no eagles, and where the hell did Gandalf go?
Mike Aben It helps if you don't remember what happened in the original. In this version, they're chased out of the caves and Beorn's house is nearby. No need for eagles just to cross a smal field ! I don't remember how they were included in the original... doesn't Gandalf accompany them from the caves to Beorn's house though ?
ReplyDeleteMy major issue with the originals was with what the characters did rather than what they said. All I remember from the book is that there's Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, and a bunch of generic dwarves I never cared about. Granted there are no memorable character moments like there are in LOTR but I wasn't expecting that.
Rhys Taylor You're right. Gandalf was there. As I recall, the book does have them chased by goblins up a tree and rescued by eagles.
ReplyDeleteThe cut is actually somewhat reminiscent of the hobbits exiting the Shire in LotR. Running from ring wraiths, boom, we're in Bree. No Tom Bombadil in between. Actually, if it were me, I would have cut Beorn. I'm thinking part of the problem might be that the orc battle in the trees was the climax from the first film. It may not have been possible to keep it and get the pacing right.
The book was just Bilbo, Gandalf and a stack of dwarves who, for the most part, were rather silly. I admire the attempt to try and personalize the dwarves. Even the romance wasn't a bad idea. Just the execution was.