Best hobbit book edit?

[Moe_Syzlak]

I’ve got a different take here. I think Jackson’s film is too far afield of the book to make for an effective book edit. Trying to shoehorn the exact book plot out of the movies loses too much important thematic information IMO. I think Jackson would’ve been better off simply adapting the book rather than trying to adapt the book and make it a LotR prequel. I think his movies are frankly better thought of as a prequel to LotR and edits should focus on that. @Wraith did a good job if that IMO. But it seems that most want a book faithful edit. Unfortunately, I think trying do that is still just polishing a turd (no offense intended to the editors that have vastly improved the original product). It’s just not a trilogy that has much in common with the book. It’s the Hobbit as told in the voice of LotR, albeit with a few songs and such thrown in as seeming nods to the tone of the original book.

 

[Darth Kermit]

I’ve got a different take here. I think Jackson’s film is too far afield of the book to make for an effective book edit. Trying to shoehorn the exact book plot out of the movies loses too much important thematic information IMO. I think Jackson would’ve been better off simply adapting the book rather than trying to adapt the book and make it a LotR prequel. I think his movies are frankly better thought of as a prequel to LotR and edits should focus on that. @Wraith did a good job if that IMO. But it seems that most want a book faithful edit. Unfortunately, I think trying do that is still just polishing a turd (no offense intended to the editors that have vastly improved the original product). It’s just not a trilogy that has much in common with the book. It’s the Hobbit as told in the voice of LotR, albeit with a few songs and such thrown in as seeming nods to the tone of the original book.

I disagree, based on M4’s edit. I think his edit basically proves very solidly that eliminating all the stuff that makes it a prequel to LOTR can be done effectively. Removing the ring theme overuse, cameoing Legolas’s role, and of course removing the Dol Goldur side plot. Besides those issues, I’d argue the story is solidly by itself, so after removing those, it’s basically completely standalone rather than a prequel to LOTR imo.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

I disagree, based on M4’s edit. I think his edit basically proves very solidly that eliminating all the stuff that makes it a prequel to LOTR can be done effectively. Removing the ring theme overuse, cameoing Legolas’s role, and of course removing the Dol Goldur side plot. Besides those issues, I’d argue the story is solidly by itself, so after removing those, it’s basically completely standalone rather than a prequel to LOTR imo.

Fair enough. I haven’t seen that edit, though I have seen the Maple edit that M4 considers around about on par with his or her own. And no offense intended to eldusto (it is markedly better than the source material), I still find it a bad movie. When you try to edit something that was filmed with a fundamentally different tone, I think you can get the plot beats but lose what the overall story is about. That’s no criticism of the editors since there is no way to do what I’m suggesting. Rather, I think you have to look at the source material and say, “how is the best way to present this material?” I find the overall tone and the best way to focus the narrative is to focus on it being a prequel rather than try to force a book edit. It is filmed in a way that Is more tonally consistent with the LotR movies than with the book. But again, I haven’t seen the edit you’re referring to, so perhaps this editor has proved me wrong.

 

[Gieferg]

M4 is the first Hobbit edit I wanted to watch after I've read list of changes (many of which were the changes I wanted to do myself when I planned to do Hobbit 3-IN-1 edit few years ago). The fact that there are subtitles in my native language available also helped. Burned to Blu-ray already. Love the more natural, grainy look of this edit, I wasn't happy with digital, overprocessed look of Hobbit movies.

 

[M4_]

I’ve got a different take here. I think Jackson’s film is too far afield of the book to make for an effective book edit. Trying to shoehorn the exact book plot out of the movies loses too much important thematic information IMO. I think Jackson would’ve been better off simply adapting the book rather than trying to adapt the book and make it a LotR prequel. I think his movies are frankly better thought of as a prequel to LotR and edits should focus on that. @Wraith did a good job if that IMO. But it seems that most want a book faithful edit. Unfortunately, I think trying do that is still just polishing a turd (no offense intended to the editors that have vastly improved the original product). It’s just not a trilogy that has much in common with the book. It’s the Hobbit as told in the voice of LotR, albeit with a few songs and such thrown in as seeming nods to the tone of the original book.

I totally get this perspective, I think what it really comes down to is what you as an audience want. If you watch a book cut and end up seeing through the holes and are left unsatisfied, then that's totally fine, you'd probably love longer fan edits. But there's a good group of us that when we see the 3-4 hour long cuts, something just clicks into place in sticking with Bilbo the whole time that feels right.

I think both sides have a good argument: Book cuts may be able to trim all the "worst" parts out, but have potential to be unsuccessful for some due to how much is missing (you might find that missing Gandalf's plot or having less of Thorin's history falls flat). On the other hand, you might want a longer cut which keeps some sideplots and focuses in on Thorin more, but then you could end up saying it fell flat because we lost focus on Bilbo and his adventure. Could go either way, IMO.

Also, thanks everyone for the kind words, and I'm glad we're keeping no ill intents, we can all agree everyone's opinion on what The Hobbit "should be" as film(s) is different.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

I totally get this perspective, I think what it really comes down to is what you as an audience want. If you watch a book cut and end up seeing through the holes and are left unsatisfied, then that's totally fine, you'd probably love longer fan edits. But there's a good group of us that when we see the 3-4 hour long cuts, something just clicks into place in sticking with Bilbo the whole time that feels right.

I think both sides have a good argument: Book cuts may be able to trim all the "worst" parts out, but have potential to be unsuccessful for some due to how much is missing (you might find that missing Gandalf's plot or having less of Thorin's history falls flat). On the other hand, you might want a longer cut which keeps some sideplots and focuses in on Thorin more, but then you could end up saying it fell flat because we ended up losing focus on Bilbo and his adventure. Could go either way, IMO.

Also, thanks everyone for the kind words, and I'm glad we're keeping no ill intents, we can all agree everyone's opinion on what The Hobbit "should be" as film(s) is different.

To me, it isn’t about what is cut or not cut. It has little to with it being 1, 2, or 3 movies (although I think we can all agree PJ’s movies are unnecessarily padded). It is about whether one embraces the tone of the movies as they were filmed or whether they try to create something that is fundamentally different from what was filmed. To me, the book is fundamentally a different beast from what was filmed. The tone of the movies is clearly going for LotR prequel (with some half-hearted attempts to lighten things up as a nod to the book). But it is unfair of me to judge an edit I haven’t seen. Perhaps you’ve achieved something I thought I was impossible. I’m persuaded to at least give it a chance. Check you PMs.

 

[Gieferg]

or whether they try to create something that is fundamentally different from what was filmed.

This is usually more interesting, for me at least.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

This is usually more interesting, for me at least.

Fair enough. I, too, really enjoy edits that strive to transform the source material. But that is a big ask in most cases. You can only do so much with the raw material before it starts to show wear at the seams, IMO.

 

[M4_]

To me, it isn’t about why is cut or not cut. It is about whether one embraces the tone of the movies as they were filmed or whether they try to create something that is fundamentally different from what was filmed. To me, the book is fundamentally a different beats from what was filmed. The tone of the movies is clearly going for LotR prequel (with some half-hearted attempts to lighten things up as a nod to the book). But it is unfair of me to judge an edit I haven’t seen. Perhaps you’ve achieved something I thought I was impossible. I’m persuaded to at least give it a chance. Check you PMs.

Preface: Just finished writing and realized I wrote a little too much, hopefully it makes sense lol...This is just my perspective, I want to clarify I am not saying this is the "correct" way to view the trilogy, but here's my thought process in making the edit:

A big thing in my edit is consistency. While I understand your pov, I do have to say that The Hobbit films completely failed in matching with LOTR. They did film some stuff that "fit" (say, the dark and serious Dol Guldur sideplot, the White Council scenes), but outside of that you have visuals that are different, comedy that is different (a lot of immature/cringey jokes), art design that is different (think of the ridiculous troll concepts, the ones that are blind and have peg-legs), combat/physics is totally different, and as a result you get a trilogy that's either trying too hard to be silly and different, or trying to match the grandiose scale of LOTR with big battles, Sauron, returning characters.

As a base line, in my edit I removed/adjusted everything that just made you feel like you were watching an entirely different Middle Earth universe. New color grading, new presentation of combat/physics, and wacky art design has been toned down, so now you can watch both and feel like my edit can slot right before FOTR, and it's the same world, right? Even if the tone is different, the atmosphere is the same.

So, we have to remember that The Hobbit is a kids book which was tonally and structurally different. That's where things like silly songs come into play, and of course the episodic plot. First, I structured the entire plot to be essentially chapter by chapter like the book (there are still differences though), that's what gives this story its own identity rather than trying to do things like re-tell Sauron with his prequel Dol Guldur origins, shove the one ring music and its mysterious danger down our throats, or increase roles that should've been cameos; hence, I always say my edit and LOTR stand on their own, even though I've tried so hard to connect them (in terms of atmosphere). Finally, that leaves how the comedy/lightheartedness is dealt with, which goes back to what I said about "consistency." Is the comedy consistent with what could pass in LOTR (dodging arrows with sword? no. alfrid cringe humor? no. sexual kili/tauriel joke? no.). Is the comedy and lightheartedness consistent with the plot? That is, the more and more we get into this adventure, the more and more dangerous it becomes, so once we get to Laketown, Erebor, or the final battle, there won't be much comedy like the originals, it's an actual linear progression that we can get on board with. Thus, even if some of the story is spent having fun, by the end of it the stakes actually feel high, there was a sense of danger, and we feel something for our characters, which before you know it leaves us transitioning right into Fellowship of the Ring.

In summary: Most of the set pieces, characters, visuals, is much closer to what could be in LOTR, so the backbone of my edit is at that base level (or, trying to be). Then, of course the underlying plot is structured like the book (which is the part you disagree with I believe) to give the movie its own identity, but a little bit more comedy and lightheartedness is sprinkled on top (compared to LOTR) as homage to the source material, which slowly dissipates as the story gets more serious the further we go. Songs, funny moments with Dwarves, and Bilbo's humorous interactions.

I think it hits a good combo of choosing what should match with LOTR and what shouldn't, which is a hard balance to reach. Not that my edit stands up to LOTR, though, but just a bit closer than the originals.

 

[bradwestness]

In summary: Most of the set pieces, characters, visuals, is much closer to what could be in LOTR, so the backbone of my edit is at that base level (or, trying to be). Then, of course the underlying plot is structured like the book (which is the part you disagree with I believe) to give the movie its own identity, but a little bit more comedy and lightheartedness is sprinkled on top (compared to LOTR) as homage to the source material, which slowly dissipates as the story gets more serious the further we go. Songs, funny moments with Dwarves, and Bilbo's humorous interactions.

I think it hits a good combo of choosing what should match with LOTR and what shouldn't, which is a hard balance to reach. Not that my edit stands up to LOTR, though, but just a bit closer than the originals.

I agree completely, and I think one thing to remember with the lighter tone / more songs, etc. is that in the movie (and canonically in the LoTR universe, according to Tolkien himself) "The Hobbit" is meant to be Bilbo recounting his story, with potential embellishments, his own opinions in there and such.

So IMHO it kind of makes sense that some of the elements don't necessarily have to line up exactly with the more serious LoTR tone, which is meant to have been written by Frodo.

Frodo knew he was involved in an existential battle for the fate of Middle Earth, so his writing reflects that. Bilbo just thinks he went on a fun adventure and got into a few scrapes that his cunning and luck were able to get him out of, and found a cool magic ring, so his writing is more like a tall tale to entertain his nieces and nephews with than a hyper accurate accounting of what actually happened (that is, if you cut out all the Dol Guldur stuff that he wouldn't have known about anyway).

 

[M4_]

True, that's definitely a way for us Tolkien fans to think of it, but for casual viewers probably can't get away with that. Although, the movie being stuff largely from Bilbo's Pov makes sense as a good point, especially with the little intro showing him writing the story and the book end outro taking us out of the story.

 

[bradwestness]

Yeah, I mean, I think that's kind of how Tolkien retconned it after the fact in order to explain the difference himself between the tone of the books (why are there so many talking animals in The Hobbit and none in Lord of the Rings? Because Bilbo embellished those bits, I guess.) - but the movie does still have the wraparound scenes of Bilbo writing the story, so you get that somewhat - if you were to remove that it would be much more like it was just supposed to be the omnisciently-observed history of what happened, especially all the stuff not from Bilbo's POV that he wouldn't have known about.

 

[ArtisDead]

There are so many Hobbit edits out there that for anyone to say one is better than the other would be an extremely subjective statement.

You may want an edit that is fast paced with very good editing and short enough to enjoy in one sitting. In that case...Spence's edit...hands down. There is also Don Kamillo's and Billy Batson's edits to consider. Perhaps, you would like their narrative choices better?

You may want one that is long enough to stay close to the filmmakers intent but changes out a few things based on the editors' personal preferences. Adam Dens', Wraith's or L8wrtr's edit(s) would be your best choice.

You may want a book cut, then an edit(s) by Wraith, M4 or Dustin Lee (apparently the most popular edit in the history of IFDB) would be your best choice.

You may want an episodic structure which makes the movies very digestible in smaller pieces. Stromboli's amazing five episode edit is your best choice. There is also another version of Don Kamillo's Anti-Cringe Cut.

You may want an edit that stays with the three film structure but takes out a lot of silliness. TM2YC edit would be a good choice (all things considered, I slightly favor these edits).

You may want, a three film edit that only removes Peter Jackson channeling his inner George Lucas from the released versions. In this case you want the Q2 edits.

You may even want extended editions? Kerr has the amazing Arkenstone Extended Editions to suit that preference.

Then there's the Ironfoot edits that are incredible. The SamSpider edits which are also very good. Rangerkris has a couple, Masirimso17 has a couple. Menbailee has a great edit. The Little Hobbit was excellent.

That doesn't include the ones not listed on IFDB like The Bread and Butter Cut, The Cardinal Cut, The Tolkien Cut, The Bilbo Edit, The Hart Beat edits, The Two Hour edit, etc.

I think I've seen them all or most of them. Care for an opinion?

If you aspire to see the full potential of the Hobbit movies, your journey hasn't even begun. And the opinion on which edits(s) is/are best is very subjective based on who you ask, who they are, who they know and any other perspective that can invariably influence an opinion. Good luck! Enjoy the journey!

 

[bradwestness]

Well, this thread is specifically talking about a "book edit," so I would say that rules out quite a few of those (and that's primarily why I recommended M4's above). I agree that if you're not specifically talking about a book edit then that widens the field quite a bit.

 

[ArtisDead]

It actually bounced around a bit. I believe the point that I was making still applies. Opinions are very subjective and rarely objective. M4's edit is definitely a very good Hobbit edit (I may not go so far as to say it's the best), book cut or not. It should have been approved on this site long ago...and it is now...so...

 

[ArtisDead]

If you are a true Hobbit fan, I recommend not limiting yourself to Book Cuts. All of the ones I mentioned...Wraith, M4 and Dustin...their edits are great.

Which one is the best? That's very subjective. Wraith polished his edits for six years and there are over 1000 changes. Maybe, you should check his out? M4 worked on his for years and continues to tweak it. It has awesome digital alterations that make it definitive in its own way.

Dustin's edit...well...I'm told that it's the most popular edit in the history of this forum...I think that speaks for itself. You decide which one is best for you.

Maybe, you should consider the others? Does it have to be a book cut? Myself and many of my friends were blown away by Spence's edit. Shorter and no holes.

I personally didn't hate the originals so an edit that eliminates much of the silliness is right up my alley. I prefer TM2YC's Entirely Respectable edits. I also like Q2's edits.

This will sound subjective and it is. Many of us were blown away by Stromboli's Five episode structure. The idea of incorporating all of the best parts of the edits from the legends that came before was very original and genius. Its an amazing edit no matter how you nitpick it. It is likely, the final original concept to be incorporated into a Hobbit edit.

What's left? Mashing The Hobbit with Star Wars? I know...I can hear it now...subjective.

 

[M4_]

Does it have to be a book cut? Myself and many of my friends were blown away by Spence's edit. Shorter and no holes.

For many of us it does, that's what the thread topic is about. The Hobbit is such an iconic book that being able to have all the scenes from it really elevates the experience for certain audiences. While the Spence edit is great, I'd argue it does have one hole - cutting from outside the Goblin Caves straight to Mirkwood, where they obtain new ponies, even though theirs were lost quite a while ago before they entered the caves. I'm not sure any edit that cuts several hours worth out can get away with no holes, including mine. But that's what gives us the ability to be creative and drastically change the films (which we didn't love in theaters), so I'm not complaining!

It is likely, the final original concept to be incorporated into a Hobbit edit.

I'm not sure I understand this perspective, it seems like an oxymoron. The people that have been coming up with original ideas over the past few years (and those that will continue to do so into the future) deserve to be counted as original concepts. Because if they're not counted (which I can totally understand if people think they're just "doing what others have done"), then that would mean that BOTFE is in the same boat, as it also uses concepts previous editors came up with? I don't see it as different than a fan editor being inspired by previous edits and making their own, which is very commonplace in the world of Hobbit edits, and is always welcomed for me (because I love seeing new takes, new visions).

I think the next wave of Hobbit edits will be original in their own way for the use of new digital alterations, only possible due to the ease of access of visual effects technology as the years go by; things that would've been much harder a few years ago are becoming more and more possible. There's lots of talks about deep fakes for Gandalf/Legolas/Thorin (which was briefly displayed in my edit with Thorin's wounds, but I think a full movie deepfake is far away), full on new scenes (The Roadshow WIP edit from OT supposedly has shots of a Raven flying to the iron hills), or just more rotoscoping & painting things in/out of shots in general.

Maybe one day someone will fix Beorn's fur being brown in BOTFA, add a Thrush into Laketown, truly match with the colors/film look of LOTR shot by shot, or even just more techniques that no one has even though of. We will see!

 

[ArtisDead]

The topic is titled book cut and that is what is primarily being discussed but not exclusively. Otherwise, I would not have posted. I believe the concept of a "book cut" is a misnomer to begin with. An editor may claim that his edit is a book cut. Based on what? No part of his edit is not in the book? Everything in the book is in his edit?

My point was that opinions are subjective and every fan should firm their own based on their perspective.

Nice interactive string!

 

[M4_]

An editor may claim that his edit is a book cut. Based on what?

For me, based on editing goals. If your main goal is to set out to make a version that follows the book, then that's a fine title to give yourself. Any editor can also claim their edit only includes the "best of," but what is that based on? It's just their editing vision and opinion of what they think is the best. Same for me, except looking through the lens of what happened in the book as an additional measuring stick for what to cut/what not to cut. It's not 1:1 to the book, nor is a "best parts only" cut 1:1 with what everyone agrees on to be the best, but my edit certainly follows the book accuracy philosophy very closely, hence I think calling itself a book cut is completely fair, following the book was the goal and end result, even if it's still subjective on how close I should've followed it.

 

[ArtisDead]

For me, based on editing goals. If your main goal is to set out to make a version that follows the book, then that's a fine title to give yourself. Any editor can also claim their edit only includes the "best of," but what is that based on? It's just their editing vision and opinion of what they think is the best. Same for me, except looking through the lens of what happened in the book as an additional measuring stick for what to cut/what not to cut. It's not 1:1 to the book, nor is a "best parts only" cut 1:1 with what everyone agrees on to be the best, but my edit certainly follows the book accuracy philosophy very closely, hence I think calling itself a book cut is completely fair, following the book was the goal and end result, even if it's still subjective on how close I should've followed it.

Based on what I saw on two views almost a year ago and three recently, I can't dispute that. You have chapters and everything. I was just trying to make a point not take away from the quality of your edit. You surely know that I respect your edit. I went to great lengths to get it approved. Yes. I think it's one of the better Hobbit edits but I think others are great as well.