So film criticism is the same as fan fiction. Gotcha

It's different because you're explicitly fucking with someone's art and redistributing it with your name attached against their will. I kind of hate remix culture though so I'm the wrong guy to ask.

Talking about and critiquing a work academically and offering suggestions is very different.

I should clarify, I'm ok with fan-edits if they're done for your own personal enjoyment. If I wanna take my purchased blu-ray of a movie, take the time to make a custom edit that I like, and burn myself a copy to watch at home, I think that's fine.  I have a serious problem with it when you then post that online (often-times on piratebay), and start promoting it and making it about yourself, and stupid discussions start up about what the "best" fan-edit is for a particular movie, and whatnot.

Is there a certain what-if curiosity around potential re-edits of some movies in rare cases? Sure. The attempt to re-create Tarantino's original structure for True Romance is one example. However, the problem is that usually the people trying to do this stuff are not good editors, and so 95% of fan-edits online are garbage. Often riddled with mistakes, glitches, nonsensical choices, all because having a copy of Finalcut made them think they know how to edit. I think that's very disrespectful to the filmmakers and editors who busted their asses to make the movie they made.

If you want to try this stuff as an editing exercise (and it can be a valuable exercise), knock yourself out, but keep it to yourself.

Last edited by bullet3 (2014-09-13 06:43:38)

There are a lot of things being said in very general ways here.

Your hostility suggests you are not a member of this subculture and you are making assumptions. The best way to distribute a fanedit is by file-sharing (as opposed to post or whatever). There is also not a single illegal thing happening when you share such a file with a small group, not for profit (in the USA, at least). By it's very nature, a re-cut is a transformative act and protected. Discussions about a 'best' edit are a bit tiring but usually it is someone looking to see what an edit could do for a movie they enjoy and they want a recommendation for where to start. People who have seen several edits of a movie do not generally, in my experience, waste pages of forums debating which is superior.

Listen to Trey more often. There are reasons for why decisions are made. They are not all good, but there are reasons. The 'art' doesn't always turn out as desired. A "Director's Cut' exists for many movies because the studio wanted one thing and the Director wanted something else. By your logic, future George Lucas is insulting past George Lucas by editing the movies he busted his ass to make. Spielberg too. Young George Lucas was fervently against colorizing movies and suggested legal action to protect movies from their creators. When the filmmakers themselves edit a movie years after the fact, after they have protested changing movies, I think it is ridiculous to claim it's disrespectful.

As for reasons, take The Hobbit. Jackson originally suggested something very different than what has gone to theater. He reasonable wanted a lower budget and 2 movies. A small couple of movies following closely to the book. For 'reasons', it is now a big budget trilogy of epic scale that has very little of the spirit of the book. Why not edit the trilogy into a couple or single movie? Why not cut the storylines that don't happen in the book? I say cut the dwarf-elf love story that completely negates the significance of the unique dwarf-elf friendship from LotR. Make the escape from the goblins quick instead of showing the highly improbable deaths of 150 goblins; and so on.

Since I don't enjoy the Hobbit movies as they are, maybe I will enjoy a fanedit. And, if a talented person already made one, I want to see it. I would really love to enjoy a Hobbit movie. If it isn't good, that's ok. I don't enjoy the originals, either.

Good for you. I'm waiting for a good fanedit. As for me, I put the Star Wars prequels into about 2 hours. Not a polished, final cut but I like it anyway. Also, I think you mean "I've already". Careful you don't become the crap editor bullet3 expects.

http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagai … ition.html

Last edited by Jp12x (2014-09-15 04:01:42)

You know, it would be fun if Jackson himself made an edit. There's the example of the anime Macross Plus. The creators wanted to do a movie, but the studio funding it insisted on four hour long direct to video episodes, so they could make more money. However, the creators structured their scenes so that after the main job was done, they were able to re-edit things down to their original vision with only a few new bits. The two hour version is much better, although the 4 episodes are also good.

I would actually like to see Guillermo del Toro and Jackson do an edit together. That to me would interesting, and perhaps closer to what Jackson was originally was thinking off, when pitching two films.

I was quite deliberate with the phrasing, as the starting process isn't over and I won't really have started until extended editions for Smaug and Battle are out.

The greatest hurdle with any fanedit is that it's based purely on what's available. Which is why I don't really buy that it's a form of film criticism, as you don't have access to all of the shot material that the filmmaker had.

I see what you're saying, I just think that with access to that limited set of material, all you can do is cut up and/or rearrange the pictures. You won't really know what else can be done and how much better it can be. Without access to the takes where Jake Lloyd was accidentally being a good actor, all you can often do is make something less shit. Takes and angles play a huge part in the editing process, and 'cutting shots/scenes' is such a limited vocabulary as you say.

To bring it back to the Hobbit, I've found real difficulty in excising 'offensive' material in the first movie, that awful Radagast sleigh chase sequence for example (which as shown makes no sense).

So, I enjoyed both movies. No, they're not nearly as good as LOTR, for many, many reasons. But I can enjoy them as part of the Middle-Earth history--instead of getting mad--because of this shameless retconning:

The Hobbit is "written" by Bilbo Baggins. He's far more fanciful and dramatic than Frodo, who "wrote" the Lord of the Rings. This character difference is obvious even in their portrayal in LOTR, and is highlighted by Bilbo's introduction in the first Hobbit film: the dwarf kingdom is not the greatest kingdom of Middle-Earth, but he kinda makes it out to be. This is to be expected from someone telling his own story and that of his best friends.

LOTR is far more grounded and "real" because it was written by the pragmatic Frodo (with additions by Sam), and therefore is a far more accurate account of events, with much less of the drama and embellishment contained in the Hobbit. This allows me to enjoy the Hobbit movies as fanciful tales (as, indeed, the book was), and the Lord of the Rings as more realistic "history."

Sure, movies are movies, and if it's a bad movie, it's bad. But I like 'em, and can preclude disappointment by remembering the above. After all, I really don't care for the book Hobbit, while LOTR is awesome. So there you go.

Well said. That is what I have felt since Unexpected Journey, and continue to think so, especially after watching the Extended Edition of DOS.

And, way to almost convince BDA of the positives of the film