MCP
Well-known member
- Messages
- 13,023
- Reaction score
- 483
- Trophy Points
- 168
J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit (Maple Films Edit):
This is a great edit of a not-great trilogy. LOTR -- the extended editions especially! -- did such an amazing job of treating a fantasy setting seriously. It was a rare occasion where the setting and the narrative was taken seriously, rather than developed into a cheesy barbarian body-builder festival, or kiddie movie, or as a sort of pre-modern version of current Hollywood blockbuster tropes. There are very few exceptions to this pattern: "Hellboy," Conan the Barbarian" (1982), "Dark Crystal" all stand out. Don't get me wrong: I'm no art-film buff, or culture snob; I am proud to have "Yor the Hunter" on BD, an extensive collections of schlock and cheese, including fantasy, and enjoy "Labyrinth" and its ilk. But LOTR was something different, a breath of fresh air: incredible scenery and effects and cinematography, an amazing (yes, I know, not 100% fidelity) to the book (including cleaving close to its prose, without F-bombs, American slang and the rest), great casting and music, and lots of detail. Imagine if you will, a parallel Earth, where we got Tom Cruise as Aragorn, Danny De Vito as Smeagol, Johhny Depp as Elrond, a Danny Elfman soundtrack, lots of product placement, a few extra characters to meet the mood of the times, like a hobbit action-hero, perhaps a scientist/ hacker/ super-wizard, ideally a pretty but disaffected young woman in a tight leather bodice, and loads of slapstick etc.
Now: "The Hobbit" trilogy. A big step backward. It retained the amazing sets and designs of LOTR, but was something far less in every respect. LOTR showed grim,noble dwarf kings and a stoic Gimli; in this one we got badly-dressed dwarfish buffoons and cliches. What is with those ridiculous hair- and beard-styles? The only exception is Thorin, who looks completely out of place, perhaps the result of an ill-advised studio decision to create a dwarf hottie. He barely looks dwarfish, more like Jason Momoa's Aquaman than anything. LOTR had awe-inspiring monsters from legend; in this one we got great spiders and great dragon, but we also got trolls who eat snot, a goblin king with a plummy English accent and wargs. Lots of wargs. Wargs who can now climb trees. LOTR cleaved to the source material; in this one dwarfs are oafs who makes fires on the floors using elven furniture, two dwarfs who are not-very-funny versions of Merry and Pippin; we suddenly find Tom Bomabil is a sort of hairy grimdark Wolverine-analogue, last survivor of a persecuted race etc.; oh dear, there is a cringey dwarf/ elf romance. LOTR had a sense of urgency and peril and world-spanning, epochal change; in this one we got padding, bloat, and CGI, as the director did his best to push a 150 page book into a 12 hour movie marathon. Scenes from LOTR were recycled as well: brave adventurers fleeing within a goblin mountain; eagles summoned by a moth coming in at the last momemt; wargs attacking on the hills etc. The "Hobbit" keeps dragging on, and on, and on, and on. Oh my goodness, does it drag. The heroic efforts of Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins were not enough, alas, to salvage this Hollywood junk.
So the editors at Maple Films certainly had their work cut out. This edit is, I think, the best possible salvage operation and I must express my amazement at the job done here -- and in the standalone spinoff "Durin's Folk lk and the Hill of Sorcery" which you MUST see.
The worst of the slapstick is gone, the worst cringe is removed, and the bloat is reduced greatly. The endless flagging of what will happen in LOTR is gone, for the most part. Of course, we can all think of our personal preferences for what should stay or go (maybe the dwarfs wrecking Rivendell, the whole Azog storyline etc.) but rebuilding a watchable film that retains the best parts of the trilogy that should have been one movie from the start. The story is tighter, with the removal of lots of padding, byways and cul-de-sacs. With so much stuff gone, its a real achievement to retain a clear and interesting narrative. Bilbo is central, as is his struggle within. There is some incredible scenery, camera work, special effects and choreography, and this emerges from the murk with wonderful effect.
There is a lot work and care here, and it shows. We cannot expect any editor/s to work miracles, and even with the best will in the world, the "Hobbit" will never be a good film. But it can, as we see here, become something worth a watch, or even two. I cannot really give a high rating for enjoyment or even narrative, but that is not the fault of the editor/s who could only work with what existed: a deeply flawed product in the worst traditions of the Hollywood blockbuster/ cash-grab.
Well done Maple Films! No one can expect more of anyone than we have here!
https://ifdb.fanedit.org/j-r-r-tolkiens-the-hobbit-maple-films-edit/discussions/10606/
This is a great edit of a not-great trilogy. LOTR -- the extended editions especially! -- did such an amazing job of treating a fantasy setting seriously. It was a rare occasion where the setting and the narrative was taken seriously, rather than developed into a cheesy barbarian body-builder festival, or kiddie movie, or as a sort of pre-modern version of current Hollywood blockbuster tropes. There are very few exceptions to this pattern: "Hellboy," Conan the Barbarian" (1982), "Dark Crystal" all stand out. Don't get me wrong: I'm no art-film buff, or culture snob; I am proud to have "Yor the Hunter" on BD, an extensive collections of schlock and cheese, including fantasy, and enjoy "Labyrinth" and its ilk. But LOTR was something different, a breath of fresh air: incredible scenery and effects and cinematography, an amazing (yes, I know, not 100% fidelity) to the book (including cleaving close to its prose, without F-bombs, American slang and the rest), great casting and music, and lots of detail. Imagine if you will, a parallel Earth, where we got Tom Cruise as Aragorn, Danny De Vito as Smeagol, Johhny Depp as Elrond, a Danny Elfman soundtrack, lots of product placement, a few extra characters to meet the mood of the times, like a hobbit action-hero, perhaps a scientist/ hacker/ super-wizard, ideally a pretty but disaffected young woman in a tight leather bodice, and loads of slapstick etc.
Now: "The Hobbit" trilogy. A big step backward. It retained the amazing sets and designs of LOTR, but was something far less in every respect. LOTR showed grim,noble dwarf kings and a stoic Gimli; in this one we got badly-dressed dwarfish buffoons and cliches. What is with those ridiculous hair- and beard-styles? The only exception is Thorin, who looks completely out of place, perhaps the result of an ill-advised studio decision to create a dwarf hottie. He barely looks dwarfish, more like Jason Momoa's Aquaman than anything. LOTR had awe-inspiring monsters from legend; in this one we got great spiders and great dragon, but we also got trolls who eat snot, a goblin king with a plummy English accent and wargs. Lots of wargs. Wargs who can now climb trees. LOTR cleaved to the source material; in this one dwarfs are oafs who makes fires on the floors using elven furniture, two dwarfs who are not-very-funny versions of Merry and Pippin; we suddenly find Tom Bomabil is a sort of hairy grimdark Wolverine-analogue, last survivor of a persecuted race etc.; oh dear, there is a cringey dwarf/ elf romance. LOTR had a sense of urgency and peril and world-spanning, epochal change; in this one we got padding, bloat, and CGI, as the director did his best to push a 150 page book into a 12 hour movie marathon. Scenes from LOTR were recycled as well: brave adventurers fleeing within a goblin mountain; eagles summoned by a moth coming in at the last momemt; wargs attacking on the hills etc. The "Hobbit" keeps dragging on, and on, and on, and on. Oh my goodness, does it drag. The heroic efforts of Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins were not enough, alas, to salvage this Hollywood junk.
So the editors at Maple Films certainly had their work cut out. This edit is, I think, the best possible salvage operation and I must express my amazement at the job done here -- and in the standalone spinoff "Durin's Folk lk and the Hill of Sorcery" which you MUST see.
The worst of the slapstick is gone, the worst cringe is removed, and the bloat is reduced greatly. The endless flagging of what will happen in LOTR is gone, for the most part. Of course, we can all think of our personal preferences for what should stay or go (maybe the dwarfs wrecking Rivendell, the whole Azog storyline etc.) but rebuilding a watchable film that retains the best parts of the trilogy that should have been one movie from the start. The story is tighter, with the removal of lots of padding, byways and cul-de-sacs. With so much stuff gone, its a real achievement to retain a clear and interesting narrative. Bilbo is central, as is his struggle within. There is some incredible scenery, camera work, special effects and choreography, and this emerges from the murk with wonderful effect.
There is a lot work and care here, and it shows. We cannot expect any editor/s to work miracles, and even with the best will in the world, the "Hobbit" will never be a good film. But it can, as we see here, become something worth a watch, or even two. I cannot really give a high rating for enjoyment or even narrative, but that is not the fault of the editor/s who could only work with what existed: a deeply flawed product in the worst traditions of the Hollywood blockbuster/ cash-grab.
Well done Maple Films! No one can expect more of anyone than we have here!
https://ifdb.fanedit.org/j-r-r-tolkiens-the-hobbit-maple-films-edit/discussions/10606/