|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CMackintosh
Ossiriand
Sep 21 2024, 12:14pm
Post #1 of 18
(69974 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Fanedits of The Hobbit
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've just come across the phenomenon of fanedits of The Hobbit. I'd previously encountered them in fanedits of Lynch's Dune. They seem to me to be an example of what Tolkien was talking about when he said in one of his letters:
"I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many onlyplaced in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. Absurd." With fans being some of those "other minds and hands", wielding scalpels to interpretations of the text that fail to fit their own interpretations. Part and parcel, as far as I can see, of Tolkien's own rejection of allegory:
" But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers." And history as we know, is prone to interpretation and reinterpretation ...
What do others think?
|
|
|
AshNazg
Hithlum
Sep 21 2024, 4:47pm
Post #2 of 18
(69920 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't know if opinions have changed
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We weren't really allowed to discuss fan edits in this forum previously. I made a couple of my own and we had to go elsewhere to talk about them because users here were quite hostile to the idea.
A shame because I don't see it as much different to fan-fiction or fan-art.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Sep 21 2024, 5:42pm
Post #3 of 18
(69911 views)
Shortcut
|
I support fan edits when Han shoots ONLY - not even "first." Or fixing any egregious atrocities like that, such as "Go home, Sam." ;)
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 21 2024, 7:56pm
Post #4 of 18
(69894 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In my gut I just feel that fan edits are ethically wrong.
The fan editor is working on material that they did not create and doesn’t belong to them. Isn't that illegal? Fan-edits exist because the maker doesn’t like or thinks they can improve on the original. IMO, the original creator is the only one entitled to edit their creation.
I don’t read fan fiction, but my understanding is that they are original creations based on the original. That also applies the fan art that I’ve seen.
So, I don’t care to discuss fan edits.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Sep 21 2024, 9:55pm
Post #5 of 18
(69879 views)
Shortcut
|
It depends.
Fan edits as we are thinking of them are probably not Fair Use or Transformative so you would be in essence correct.
Personal use is okay, Distribution, even without profit, can get you into trouble, but is often tolerated by the copyright owners so long as there is no brand confusion. Why? Because the owners want to generously honor the fans who literally made the franchise a success. Star Trek fan films went many, many years without issue until one fan crossed the line, forcing corporate policy decisions, and pretty much ruining things for everyone.
Then there's the case of Star Wars (A New Hope) where it takes fan edits to restore the original where Han outright shoots Greedo. The "fan edit" exactly restores the original because Lucas would not release the original, unedited film in a modern format. Legal? Not strictly, but is restorative, changing nothing frame-by-frame from the original, and the needs of the many, in their view, is more righteous than Lucas.
(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Sep 21 2024, 9:57pm)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 21 2024, 10:22pm
Post #6 of 18
(69870 views)
Shortcut
|
But I don't think that "The Hobbit" needs any edits-- the films are not even just good, they are very good in their own right.
Either that, and/or even the LotR films needs serious edits, too.
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Sep 21 2024, 10:23pm)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Hithlum
Sep 21 2024, 10:35pm
Post #7 of 18
(69868 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They can be made for all kinds of reasons...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I've made edits that sync to audio from the audiobooks, from Tolkien's readings and the Rankin/Bass cartoon.
They are shared only with evidence that the recipient already owns a copy of the source materials in some form. No money is being lost or gained from the process. It's not done to improve or dismiss the films, it's just interesting to see what creative people can do with the footage.
Some have edited the thrush into the Smaug fight very successfully (to the point it's actually confusing why it wasn't there in the first place), some make Orcrist glow blue. Some simply tighten the pacing, some even extend the runtime, adding deleted scenes from the behind-the-scenes materials.
I am personally excited to watch a fan-edit of Planes, Trains and Automobiles this Thanksgiving. The director intended it to be much longer but the studio cut it down. Some of the original footage was found so it'll be interesting to see the film closer to the director's original vision.
For movies you've seen over and over, it can be enlightening and refreshing to see them edited differently. Like watching again for the first time.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 22 2024, 1:32am
Post #8 of 18
(69849 views)
Shortcut
|
Of Zack Snyder's Justice League. Did Zack Snyder really wanted the movie to be over 4 hours?
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Sep 22 2024, 1:33am)
|
|
|
CMackintosh
Ossiriand
Sep 23 2024, 9:47am
Post #9 of 18
(69692 views)
Shortcut
|
is a Fanedit from rewatching a DVD and Fast-Forwarding the moment you encounter a scene that offends your sense of what should be in the movie? Or sidestepping to a scene from the Deleted Scenes directory which you feel fits the movie better? I don't think there's any difference.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Sep 23 2024, 12:45pm
Post #10 of 18
(69674 views)
Shortcut
|
That's absurd. Fans who feel strongly enough about anything are not wanting to skip it. They want to see it unadulterated.
Han shoots Greedo is iconic. That cannot be skipped.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Sep 23 2024, 1:03pm
Post #11 of 18
(69672 views)
Shortcut
|
is a Fanedit from rewatching a DVD and Fast-Forwarding the moment you encounter a scene that offends your sense of what should be in the movie? Or sidestepping to a scene from the Deleted Scenes directory which you feel fits the movie better? I don't think there's any difference.
That person is not making changes to the original and putting the modified version out there as an alternative. (Has any fan editor ever not shown their version to others?) It’s not so much a question of monetary gain or loss, but of a kind of intellectual/artistic integrity.
I get that the internet generations are not overly concerned with intellectual property rights, the right of a creator to own their creation. I’m not claiming to be a paragon of virtue, but I just feel fan edits are wrong and that’s why I don’t care to discuss them.
I think I’ve said all I have to say on this subject.
|
|
|
Meneldor
Doriath
Sep 23 2024, 4:56pm
Post #12 of 18
(69645 views)
Shortcut
|
is a Fanedit from rewatching a DVD and Fast-Forwarding the moment you encounter a scene that offends your sense of what should be in the movie? Or sidestepping to a scene from the Deleted Scenes directory which you feel fits the movie better? I don't think there's any difference. Also, if I've paid my own hard-earned money to buy myself a copy of a work of art, I own it, and that gives me the right to do what I want with it, including changing it to suit me.
Now if I'm trying to resell it and make money off it, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. The original creator should rightly object to that.
[imagehttps://live.staticflickr.com/7861/46771076241_b8be25dab5_m.jpg[/image]
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107
(This post was edited by Meneldor on Sep 23 2024, 4:58pm)
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Sep 23 2024, 10:57pm
Post #13 of 18
(69544 views)
Shortcut
|
You left out a more common condition where it is bought, edited and shared for no personal gain or profit.
Making money from it is more of a strawman for the purposes of this discussion's context.
Fans respect the ethics of non-profit. The changes they make have been to bring back an original film, possibly in a more modern format. But it's true they don't respect some changes made by the Creator after the fact. Other changes are actually accepted. This kind of brings up Steven Spielberg who famously edited E.T. to change the police guns into walkie-talkies. He later recanted and agreed with the fans that it was the wrong thing to do.
(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Sep 23 2024, 10:59pm)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 28 2024, 6:12am
Post #14 of 18
(68000 views)
Shortcut
|
Of Tolkien condemning Zimmerman's deviations from the book in the so-called 'script' for the proposed animated LOTR movie. He said something along the lines of: "Zimmerman can alter Balrogs as much as he wants, but he cannot say that he knows more about Balrogs than me".
Which leaves us with the question: who should be entitled to have a definitive take on what a work of art should be? It's primary creator(s) or unknown fans decades afterwards?
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Sep 28 2024, 6:16am)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Sep 28 2024, 6:34am
Post #15 of 18
(67983 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually, the correct quote would be:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"[...]Z [Zimmerman] may think he knows more about Balrogs than I do, but he cannot expect me to agree with him".
https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_210
Tolkien kind of LASHED OUT on this one.
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Sep 28 2024, 6:36am)
|
|
|
Meneldor
Doriath
Sep 29 2024, 12:20am
Post #16 of 18
(67747 views)
Shortcut
|
is going to claim a fan edit would be the ultimate definitive take on any piece of art. Only that for some people they're the preferred take.
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107
|
|
|
CMackintosh
Ossiriand
Sep 30 2024, 10:12am
Post #17 of 18
(67263 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Director's Cuts and Extended Editions, anybody?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Things are a lot more fluid than most people realize, or so it seems. If we're into Shakespeare, there are the Quarto and the Folio editions, and the later editions which combine both - apparently King Lear is famed for that, and I've come across modern editions that have both and a combined edition, just in case anyone wanted to know ...
So I figure that in the case of anything that includes drama, multiple editions and variations are the norms, not the exception - seriously, how often has anyone heard Handel's entire Messiah, instead of partial performances?
For my part, I figure that the Tauriel-Kili almost-romance in The Hobbit movie trilogy is something that doesn't add to the story, is based on the Arwen-Aragorn story of The Lord of the Rings, and can be easily excised without affecting it at all.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Oct 3 2024, 9:06am
Post #18 of 18
(65395 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well...never underestimate the hubris of Internet Tolkien purists, it's all I can say. //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
