Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
AUJ short cut
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Agrippah
Registered User

Jan 23 2013, 1:31am

Post #26 of 48 (287 views)
Shortcut
Proof reading? [In reply to] Can't Post

The topic made me interested, since I would love to see a short-cut version of AUJ, but the post is very hard to read. Proof read it, please!


(This post was edited by Agrippah on Jan 23 2013, 1:36am)


LordMaximus
Rivendell


Jan 23 2013, 2:24am

Post #27 of 48 (275 views)
Shortcut
Time invested at a guess [In reply to] Can't Post

Tolkien - 40-50 years total
Jackson - 7-8 years total
Dude that cut the short version - A weekend total at home in his parents basment

Respect where respect is due.


Súlimë
Rivendell


Jan 23 2013, 3:18am

Post #28 of 48 (272 views)
Shortcut
That actually sounds like a horrible movie [In reply to] Can't Post

I like The Hobbit for all the added stuff. If I want something exactly like the book, I will go and reread the book. Adaptations are always interesting to watch if you have an open mind, because it offers someone else's take on the material -- which is the whole point of adapting something in the first place!


Eowyn3
Rivendell

Jan 23 2013, 3:27am

Post #29 of 48 (393 views)
Shortcut
Short version of movie [In reply to] Can't Post

This shortened version sounds terrible. I love the movie the way it is. Watched it 5 times with my 3 children and will watch one more time. Don't mind giving the movie more profits. Why would anybody want to watch this shortened version is beyond my understanding. I have read the book several times; love the book and love the movie.


Grant
The Shire

Jan 23 2013, 3:59am

Post #30 of 48 (251 views)
Shortcut
Cool [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm a television editor and I think it's cool fans make shorter or alternate versions of the movie. I'd probably prefer Jackson approach but still it's kind of exciting how people reinterpret the movie.


Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Grey Havens

Jan 23 2013, 5:24am

Post #31 of 48 (247 views)
Shortcut
ok i had a problem with my keyboard, sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

That thing this guys did with this cut can be a polemic issue, but is the kind of things that fall into your hands,lets say,as a tolkien fan you cant deny to see. Im not justifying thosr actions but i cant deny what i saw.it worked in a way that if this movies where splited in two i feel it wuold have been better. Sorry but i have the right to be honest of what i feel. Evmany people out there is saying that PJ is doing three bevause of the money, i dont think so and i give more than a chance to an artist i rrspect and a person that I lova and that is peter. But still i cant deny what i feel about the matter.

The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!


swordwhale
Tol Eressea


Jan 23 2013, 7:12am

Post #32 of 48 (234 views)
Shortcut
adaptations... and different mediums [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I like The Hobbit for all the added stuff. If I want something exactly like the book, I will go and reread the book. Adaptations are always interesting to watch if you have an open mind, because it offers someone else's take on the material -- which is the whole point of adapting something in the first place!


Indeed, if I want to experience something exactly like the book, I will go reread the book.

I always preferred LOTR for tis epic detail. I realize The Hobbit is a read-aloud faerie tale in the ancient oral tradition. I understand where the style comes from (some guy sitting around a campfire telling tales, probably wearing a bearskin and going "BOO! at the apropriate moment).I just prefer the epic detail of Jackson's film. I prefer the fact that the Dwarves all have faces and voices and movements and personalities rather than being rhyming names on a list. Tolkine remains my favorite author and the builder of my favorite universe... but I really really like this film.

Of course PJ can't do the film in each of our heads... he has to do his, and hope we go along for the ride.

Go outside and play...


macfalk
Valinor


Jan 23 2013, 10:18am

Post #33 of 48 (209 views)
Shortcut
I think I'll pass [In reply to] Can't Post

You cut all the good scenes, no thanks.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


macfalk
Valinor


Jan 23 2013, 10:20am

Post #34 of 48 (207 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post

It would be the same if I for instance made a cut verision of LOTR or The Hobbit books. People would be outraged, just as they are to this idea.

"They aren't his stories"

The Hobbit and the LOTR movies ARE his stories. That's just the way it is, and he should be treated with as much respect as Tolkien should for his works. As for adaptations being "less valued", well, that is not true. Quite often the adaptation surpasses the source material.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Jan 23 2013, 10:21am)


stoutfiles
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 1:48pm

Post #35 of 48 (192 views)
Shortcut
Nope [In reply to] Can't Post

It would be the same if I for instance made a cut verision of LOTR or The Hobbit books. People would be outraged, just as they are to this idea.

So Jackson should be respected because he is adapting Tolkien's material, but if anyone adapts Jackson's material, people should be outraged?

Anyone who watches a cut version of a movie usually seeks it out, because that's what they want to see. They also very rarely pay for it. There's nothing to be outraged about. The only people who might be outraged are the people involved with making the movie, because their work has been deemed not that good. In that sense, i can see why the Tolkien estate is not fond of Jackson's movies.

The Hobbit and the LOTR movies ARE his stories. That's just the way it is, and he should be treated with as much respect as Tolkien should for his works. As for adaptations being "less valued", well, that is not true. Quite often the adaptation surpasses the source material.

They are his adaptation to the source material, which is a big difference. He didn't create Gandalf, or Bilbo, or any of the beloved major characters. He does not get respect for most of the material because it's already been written and described for him. Infact, the material he did create on his own is mainly the material getting all the criticism.

Still, he gets PLENTY of respect, but like all artists, he's going to get criticism. Even Tolkien gets criticism for certain things, he is not infallible. Regardless, when you adapt a classic piece of literature, you are never going to get an equal level of respect as the original author.

As I said before though, if we start comparing apples to apples, then Jackson will get a lot of respect as time progresses with his movies compared to other movies of the era. I'm all for comparing directors to directors, not directors to famous authors.


Kangi Ska
Half-elven


Jan 23 2013, 2:18pm

Post #36 of 48 (217 views)
Shortcut
Fans re-cutting a movie [In reply to] Can't Post

is like tourists repainting van Gogh's "Starry Night".

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
Photobucket



bborchar
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 2:57pm

Post #37 of 48 (179 views)
Shortcut
Jackson had the rights to adapt Tolkien... [In reply to] Can't Post

...this guy did not have the rights to "adapt" Jackson. Besides, if this person really wanted to respect Tolkien's work, he/she would have started with their own vision of the world, and gone from there. Not just use someone else's and cut it up to be more like their own. It's not even the same comparison. Jackson worked to make these films...this person used and illegal copy of the film to hack it up and put it out on the internet without permission.


LordotRings93
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 3:29pm

Post #38 of 48 (158 views)
Shortcut
;) [In reply to] Can't Post

My point exactly. They gotta have those action set pieces (I do anyway) to keep me interested from time to time.

Lover of Medieval Fantasy
"I know what I must do. It's just... I'm afraid to do it."


Owain
Tol Eressea


Jan 23 2013, 4:55pm

Post #39 of 48 (161 views)
Shortcut
Yes, he should. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
So Jackson should be respected because he is adapting Tolkien's material


Jackson is the only one who has gone through all of the difficulties to actually make them. That commands respect, again whether you like the end result or not.

Someone sitting on their home pc taking that work, cutting it into something in their free time because they think their view is better without having done the research into the books, scouted the locations, hired the actors, designed the visual world, shot the movie, managed the locations, fed the cast/crew/extras, reviewed the dailies, managed the technology, assembled the multiple assemblies, designed/built/rendered the visual effects, and on and on and on, shows a considerable lack of respect for the people who took the path required to adapt these works into movies.

It also shows a considerable amount of ignorance to what goes into making a movie. People, of course, are allowed to be critical of any work, any art form, but to imply that you can create something better without actually doing any of the work that it takes to create said work is well... ludicrous.

I had nothing to do with the making of movies but I edit for a living and it outrages me that someone would illegally acquire this movie online, cut it up into their version and then position it as "the way it should have been".

That is arrogance.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."


Wielder of Anduril
The Shire

Jan 23 2013, 6:23pm

Post #40 of 48 (163 views)
Shortcut
Can only say that I disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but I think things are moving along nicely with respect to making 3 movies. Sure, there is a danger in doing 3. If the extra material that is fleshed out is done poorly, going with 3 is going to look like a bad decision. But thus far Jackson and co. have done a nice job in that regard, so I trust that they will continue to do so.


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 7:14pm

Post #41 of 48 (152 views)
Shortcut
What's wrong with fans making their own version? [In reply to] Can't Post

It's not something I'm interested in seeing, but if there are people who prefer the movie this way, why not let them have it?

Yeah, there are legal issues, but assuming everyone buys it in DVD/BuRay, what's the big deal if one fan reedits it for their own personal viewing? And then shares it with like-minded fans?

I mean, do you have a problem with the person who remixed the FotR prologue with the discarded HS score from the soundtracks?

I just don't see how this hurts people who prefer the movie the way it was made - we don't have to watch this cut-up version.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


Owain
Tol Eressea


Jan 23 2013, 7:42pm

Post #42 of 48 (146 views)
Shortcut
I don't have a problem with fans having fun. [In reply to] Can't Post

Especially after the movie is out of theaters and available for purchase.

But I'm not too fond of people pirating a movie that is still in theaters and not available for purchase, recutting a movie for all of the reasons I've already stated.

Middle Earth is New Zealand!

"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."

(This post was edited by Owain on Jan 23 2013, 7:43pm)


bborchar
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 10:01pm

Post #43 of 48 (143 views)
Shortcut
Because it's nonsense... [In reply to] Can't Post

It's wrong because, very simply:

1. That is an unauthorized version of the movie.
2. People who find this and watch it may not REALIZE it's been hacked up
3. They may think (and rightfully so) "wow, this movie doesn't make any sense, why would I buy it?"
4. It ruins the integrity of the original film.

Basically, it's what a no-talent hack does to something because they think they can do a better job. What would someone think if someone took a just-released Tolkien book (say it's only been out a couple of weeks), cut out parts they didn't like, then distributed it out on the internet for anyone to download? It would (rightly) make people upset, because people might find it and think it was the original.

What this person did was illegal, and morally reprehensible.


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 10:12pm

Post #44 of 48 (122 views)
Shortcut
Do you have any evidence at all it's being labelled as the full film? [In reply to] Can't Post

No. 1 is correct, but so what? Fans make unauthorized versions of things all the time. As long as they're not making money off it and not doing anything that's gonna hugely affect sales, who cares? I mean, The Hunt For Gollum and Born of Hope were completely unauthorized too. They had no permission to use the book. So what?

No. 2 and 3 sound absurd. Do you have any evidence this is being labelled as the actual film, rather than a fan edit? I haven't heard any allegations of fraud here.

No 4 is nonsensical. Why would what some fan chooses to do with the movie have any bearing on the integrity of the film? Do you think that the Sad Kermit videos that feature Kermit the Frog singing songs like Hurt should be taken down because they hurt the integrity of the Muppets?

I mean, the full film is already available on the internet, so it's not like uploading a fan version is making it easier to pirate the film. In a similar situation, I don't see any problem at all with making a fan-version of a book. Who cares? No-talent hacks do all kinds of stuff. If there are people who would enjoy this sort of thing, why do you want to deny it to them? Do you want to force them to watch the parts of the movie they don't want to watch? Why?

Illegal, yes. Lots of things people do online are technically illegal. That's really a matter for WB to enforce. Sometimes copyright holders allow it and sometimes they try to take it down. Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech was recently posted illegally and taken down.

As for morally reprehensible? That sounds absurd. Who is being hurt, here? I mean, yeah, if this version is being packacked up and labelled as the official version of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and sold to unknowing rubes, then yes, that is definitely morally indefensible. But some fans making a version of the film that they'd prefer to watch? Nothing wrong with that.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


bborchar
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 10:32pm

Post #45 of 48 (130 views)
Shortcut
Sad Kermit is a parody... [In reply to] Can't Post

...don't confuse satire and parody with what this person did (both of which are legal, btw). And whether or not it's the full version, it's still pirating the film. But if you think it's fine for people to share an unauthorized version of any movie on the internet, then I doubt my point will come across.

If "fans" want their own version of the film, they need to make it themselves, not hack up the work of others...it's a bad representation of the movie (besides being nonsensical...the story is different from the book to the film, you can't just use some of the scenes edited together and have them make sense). And yes, I do find it morally reprehensible that anyone would plagiarize another person's work. Because that's what it is...plagiarism. And it DOES hurt the integrity of the original film by being out there, because whether or not you agree with what PJ did, it was his movie, and corrupting his vision of the movie is just as bad as ripping off another writer's book.


Kassandros
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 10:56pm

Post #46 of 48 (115 views)
Shortcut
You need to look up what plagarism is. [In reply to] Can't Post

Plagarism is when one author takes another's work and claims it as their own.

That's not what's going on here. I haven't heard of any deception. If something is labeled as a "fan-edit", then that's what it is. It is a fan re-editing something created by the PJ and his people. They are not claiming to have filmed the movie or hired the actors or anything like that. They are simply claiming to have re-edited it. There is no plagarism.

And whether it's worth watching or not is entirely beside the point. I have zero interest in it. It sounds like it'd be very annoying to watch. But that's my opinion. Obviously some people are interested, so why should I care?

Again, do you find the person on the other forum here who shared his re-edit of the FotR prologue with remixed Howard Shore music to be "morally reprehensible?" Or do you only criticize this because you don't agree with the opinions of the people who edited it? I don't see you spending a similar amount of posts hating on the people who are distributing intact copies of the film.

all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us...


bborchar
Rohan


Jan 23 2013, 11:18pm

Post #47 of 48 (105 views)
Shortcut
Go to my post... [In reply to] Can't Post

... here where I spent an inordinate amount of time discussing the evils of piracy. So yes, I've already "hated" on other people illegally distributing the film. Simply put: it's wrong. And no, I wouldn't watch a fan edit of a movie that I thought could use it, either. Why? Because it's not the same movie anymore. And putting it out there for others to watch (whether they like it or not) is wrong. If you don't like certain parts, either don't get the DVD when it comes out, or get it and skip them.


(This post was edited by bborchar on Jan 23 2013, 11:22pm)


irreality
Bree


Jan 24 2013, 6:53pm

Post #48 of 48 (157 views)
Shortcut
There is fair use and there is stealing [In reply to] Can't Post

"Again, do you find the person on the other forum here who shared his re-edit of the FotR prologue with remixed Howard Shore music to be "morally reprehensible?" Or do you only criticize this because you don't agree with the opinions of the people who edited it?"

Quickly:

Taking 10 minutes of a 3 hour movie and remixing it? Fair use.

Taking 2 hours of a 2:30 hour movie and remixing it? Not fair use.

-------------
Longer:

There are four criteria for the free repurposing of a copyrighted work not to be a copyright violation. These are the criteria for fair use. A "fan edit" would fail 3 of them.

One is: what are you doing with it? Are you making something new (transformative) or just a different copy of the same (derivative)? If the latter, it is not fair use. Making a music video or analysis of a scene is transformative. Making a slightly different version of the original is derivative.

The second is not relevant, since it concerns the distinction between facts and fiction/published and unpublished/public domain/etc.

The third: percentage of work used. A Fan Edit will contain a significant portion of the work, then it is not fair use. A short clip of a movie can be fair use.

The fourth is effect on market value. It pertains to whether if the particular derivative work, if widespread, would impact the market of the original. A clip of the prologue would not impact the market for the original, because it is not the complete movie. Even if many clips are popular and available, people would still watch the movie. Fan edits are different. Although one particular fan edit might not catch anyone's interest, if this were widespread allowed, fans could just distribute their own versions and impact sales of the original.


"I don't see you spending a similar amount of posts hating on the people who are distributing intact copies of the film. "

Some things are too obvious to be worth mentioning.


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.