• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Vote now in wave 1 of the FEOTM Reboot!

The Hobbit

Also, please do not post samples of your own work in this thread. Make a new thread in the ITW or Ideas forums.
 
Indeed - I can wait for a legitimate edit. He left the Bombur barrel scene in, so that alone convinces me to avoid it.
 
Discussion of fanedit versions brought to mind something that had been subconsciously nagging at me but that I couldn't quite place. The Hobbit trilogy plays out essentially in flashback, and there are several places that include second-level flashbacks (flashbacks within a longer flashback). This storytelling technique was all the rage in the 1940s but fell out of favor soon afterward and has been rarely used since.

Technically, the Extended Edition prologue to Desolation of Smaug includes a third-level flashback (a flashback within a flashback within a flashback) - and even in the flashback-happy 1940s, that much flashing back was used, to my knowledge, in only two movies and then never again. IMHO it was a serious overreach.
 
MovieMaven said:
Technically, the Extended Edition prologue to Desolation of Smaug includes a third-level flashback (a flashback within a flashback within a flashback)
Click to expand...

a88.jpg
 
Oliver Stone's magnificent film Nixon is framed as many parallel flashbacks to all sorts of events, from Tricky Dick's childhood to both multiple presidential campaigns, war meetings, college football games, etc. W employs a similar structure, as do the multiple cuts of Alexander. A more devoted cineaste than I could probably come up with many more examples... I'd be wary of making sweeping statements along these lines. ;)
 
According to FilmWalrus, http://www.filmwalrus.com/2007/09/review-of-saragossa-manuscript.html “The Saragossa Manuscript” (1965) goes as much as five levels deep. I'd never heard of it before, and apparently it was a Polish "experimental" (art-house) movie, so there's little reason I would have.

The one I did know about was "The Locket" (1946) - I'd actually seen that one. It goes three deep, and contemporary audiences had trouble following the intricate plot structure. (So did I.)

"Passage to Marseille" (1944) is also said to have gone three levels deep in flashbacks at one point, but I haven't seen it so can't confirm.

Single-level flashbacks never completely went away, since they could be inserted into various types of framing devices (such as, Bilbo writing his book and reminiscing). Two-level flashbacks became rare and considered "arty", and as for three or more, it took a very bold and/or "artsy" director to play with them.

All told I think I prefer the theatrical to the Extended opening of DoS, precisely because of the flashback issue.
 
kellenpure said:
Indeed - I can wait for a legitimate edit. He left the Bombur barrel scene in, so that alone convinces me to avoid it.
Click to expand...

Well then I guess I have some bad news....
 
TV's Frink said:
I need to point out that unless I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am, the third movie is not available to purchase in any format yet...meaning that edit was partially made from a pirated source.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was about to ask about that. Fanedit.org has a rule about not editing from pirated sources.

I also read th pic quality isn't great for the edit.

Don't want to shoot it down, it's probably great. Just kinda wished they had waiting for BOTFA to have been released and the end result had better pic quality.

Also, fanedits kinda operate in a grey area. Editing from pirated sources doesn't help this.

Still, good coverage
 
revel911 said:
Fan edit of the Hobbit news on Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/fan-cuts-the-hobbit-into-a-single-4-hour-movie-1680489729
Click to expand...

Quite a few outlets have reported on this edit but I've refrained from posting it on the front page here. Normally I'm all for the promotion of fanedits, but the problem I have with this one is that it incorporates the third film, a film that has not yet been released. Therefore whomever did this has a pirated copy and all the outlets talking about it are promoting a fanedit that used an illegal source. That shines a negative light on our hobby, something I'm none to pleased about.
 
^ To be annoying specific, he may have a legit copy for some reason (though I would happily bet my whole life savings against it), but the people he's sharing his edit with definitely don't. And yeah, he straight-up admits in his write-up that his edit is sub-dvd image quality. Two strikes and he's out. Off with 'im! Off with 'im, we say! :p
 
Gaith said:
^ To be annoying specific, he may have a legit copy for some reason (though I would happily bet my whole life savings against it)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he isn't Peter Jackson.
 
TV's Frink said:
I'm pretty sure he isn't Peter Jackson.
Click to expand...
My brother is friends with an industry guy who gets screeners all the time. He will lend them to my brother, which he isn't supposed to do, because he trusts my brother. We watched Cloud Atlas last time I visited him and it wasn't even in theaters yet. I assumed this is what Gaith was referring to.
 
But screeners are not considered official releases. There's a reason there is a DO NOT DISTRIBUTE (or a variation) at the bottom of them.
 
Well, he could conceivably be a top New Line exec's son or something. Again, it's almost certainly not the case, and not worth derailing the thread over. ;)
 
Q2 said:
But screeners are not considered official releases. There's a reason there is a DO NOT DISTRIBUTE (or a variation) at the bottom of them.
Click to expand...
Right, but Gaith's "annoyingly specific" exception was just that he may have had a legitimate copy. Of course once he distributed his edit he was in violation of the screener agreement. But this isn't really here nor there.
 
If he had put the edit up on the day the 3rd film came out on DVD/BluRay he may well have got away with it!.
 
If you'd like some perspective on the apparent fact that Bilbo never married, as well as enough detail on hobbit marital customs and history to kill a large rodent, well, click on over here. But maybe take an ibuprofen first. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom