Scenes you would cut

Many critics have criticised the length of the film but have said that it could be edited into a decent two hour film.

I am curious which scenes people think are superfluous and should have been cut from the movie. Obviously it is hard for any of us to know which scenes are necessary for what is to come in the next two movies. The only scene that I would cut is the scene with old Biblo and Frodo on the day of the party from fotr.
Joel Miller
12-15-2012 06:03 PM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

D P.

D P

I would cut the prologue and pretty much everything involving the white council - especially the parts with Rdagast, who was like a reject from Narnia.

I actually wouldn't cut the stuff introducing the dwarfs. That was fun and in the spirit of the book.

Dec 17 - 05:50 PM

Micah Lefevre

Micah Lefevre

The white counsel was super boring. Talk about beating us over the head about things we already know happen. It was such a bad idea. Bringing back characters from LOTR for no reason other than fan service.

Dec 17 - 04:19 PM

Sebastian Diaz

Sebastian Diaz

its an adaptation for the book which happens to have same characters???

Dec 17 - 05:03 PM

D P.

D P

But it has nothing to do with the story of the hobbit!

Dec 17 - 05:48 PM

Sebastian Diaz

Sebastian Diaz

its an adaptation for the book which happens to have same characters???

Dec 17 - 05:03 PM

Sebastian Diaz

Sebastian Diaz

its an adaptation for the book which happens to have same characters???

Dec 17 - 05:03 PM

Dana Phillips

Dana Phillips

I didn't mind the prologue with Ian Holm narrating about Erebor that was fine. I really don't think all the conversation with Elijah wood's Frodo was necessary. Some of that could be cut. He still could have narrated the prologue. I also would have cut out the Stone Giants and left that for the DVD edition. The rest of the film, including Radagast, I would have kept.

Dec 16 - 12:37 PM

Facebook User

Facebook User

I WOULD CUT THE WHOLE MOVIE AND THROW IT IN TRASH.

Dec 16 - 08:08 AM

ThoroughlyEntertainOrDie

Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die

asshole this is a thread for people who have seen the movie. you obviously haven't seen it cause you keep talking shit about it. if you had seen it, you probably wouldn't talking about anything besides how great of a movie it was so BACK OFF from this one please.

Dec 16 - 08:15 AM

Facebook User

Facebook User

YOUR A STALKER JUST LIKE ZACHARY WHY DONT YOU GO STALK ANOTHER CHILD TO RAPE YOU CUNT AND BACK THE FUCK OFF OR I WILL RIP YOU A NEW ASSHOLE WITH A MACHETE.

Dec 16 - 11:32 AM

Serena Celestine

Serena Celestine

I personally really enjoyed the scene with the old Bilbo and Frodo, I thought it was a nice link between the Hobbit and the LotR trilogy and, as a LotR fan, it was quite heartwarming to see some of the LotR cast appear in the Hobbit, if only for a few minutes. Honestly, I don't think this film is as 'padded out' as the critics make it out to be. Lots of things happen, there actually are hardly any dull moments. I think the critics were expecting this film to be exactly like LotR, and were unprepared for the lighter, less doom and gloom storyline. I think that's where their problem lies; they want more hardcore action, and if they read the book they would know that that simply isn't The Hobbit.

Dec 16 - 07:23 AM

Beleg72

s long

Lets face it as soon as it changed from 2 to 3 films alot of fans and most critics became negative cynics- aloot of reviews read like they'd made their minds up before viewing and wanted to dislike it. The fact that the score is now lower than some far worse movies is insulting to all the hard work that went into this. Also 60% is the line for a movie to stay fresh-so why when a critic gives 3/5, 2.5/4, both at the 60% level-do they choose to give rotten? RT should make it clear to them that 60% or higher is fresh.

Dec 16 - 05:30 AM

Beleg72

s long

everyone moans about the 3 hr length but excluding the credits the actual film is 2hr 30min- no longer than skyfall and DK Rises- both of which where alot more boring in their slow parts(something all movies have)I loved the link to FOTR with old Bilbo and Frodo-and it lasted 5 mins or so no longer. The Bag-end party was great-very true to the book with the songs etc. The 2 history scenes were fine and added to the understanding of Thorins character. Trolls were fine-like the book(which may not suit the more serious style of the LOTR films this has-but it was fine) Rivendell-no longer than FOTR-fine) I didn't like the stone giants -but only cos it was stupid in the way no one died or got injured-it would have been ok if the company had just witnessed the fight and not ended up in it. so would change that-not cut it. The other-OTT bit was when they fell-for ages on that Goblin wooden-structure-someone would have broken something -or died, so that would be cut as it was OTT. Had bo problem with Azog though wonder how he's gonna be handled in the next two films as we've already seen photos of Bolg-his son and leader of the orcs at the battle of 5 armies- so is Bolg still gonna be in charge by then or Azog? It would have been better for Thorin to get revenge on Azog by killing him then have Bilbo try to rescue him from the other orcs. Having both Azog and Bolg as main orcs might work though-we'll have to see.

Dec 16 - 05:18 AM

Beleg72

s long

everyone moans about the 3 hr length but excluding the credits the actual film is 2hr 30min- no longer than skyfall and DK Rises- both of which where alot more boring in their slow parts(something all movies have)I loved the link to FOTR with old Bilbo and Frodo-and it lasted 5 mins or so no longer. The Bag-end party was great-very true to the book with the songs etc. The 2 history scenes were fine and added to the understanding of Thorins character. Trolls were fine-like the book(which may not suit the more serious style of the LOTR films this has-but it was fine) Rivendell-no longer than FOTR-fine) I didn't like the stone giants -but only cos it was stupid in the way no one died or got injured-it would have been ok if the company had just witnessed the fight and not ended up in it. so would change that-not cut it. The other-OTT bit was when they fell-for ages on that Goblin wooden-structure-someone would have broken something -or died, so that would be cut as it was OTT. Had bo problem with Azog though wonder how he's gonna be handled in the next two films as we've already seen photos of Bolg-his son and leader of the orcs at the battle of 5 armies- so is Bolg still gonna be in charge by then or Azog? It would have been better for Thorin to get revenge on Azog by killing him then have Bilbo try to rescue him from the other orcs. Having both Azog and Bolg as main orcs might work though-we'll have to see.

Dec 16 - 05:18 AM

Beleg72

s long

everyone moans about the 3 hr length but excluding the credits the actual film is 2hr 30min- no longer than skyfall and DK Rises- both of which where alot more boring in their slow parts(something all movies have)I loved the link to FOTR with old Bilbo and Frodo-and it lasted 5 mins or so no longer. The Bag-end party was great-very true to the book with the songs etc. The 2 history scenes were fine and added to the understanding of Thorins character. Trolls were fine-like the book(which may not suit the more serious style of the LOTR films this has-but it was fine) Rivendell-no longer than FOTR-fine) I didn't like the stone giants -but only cos it was stupid in the way no one died or got injured-it would have been ok if the company had just witnessed the fight and not ended up in it. so would change that-not cut it. The other-OTT bit was when they fell-for ages on that Goblin wooden-structure-someone would have broken something -or died, so that would be cut as it was OTT. Had bo problem with Azog though wonder how he's gonna be handled in the next two films as we've already seen photos of Bolg-his son and leader of the orcs at the battle of 5 armies- so is Bolg still gonna be in charge by then or Azog? It would have been better for Thorin to get revenge on Azog by killing him then have Bilbo try to rescue him from the other orcs. Having both Azog and Bolg as main orcs might work though-we'll have to see.

Dec 16 - 05:18 AM

Mary Cieslak

Mary Cieslak

CUT:
-Bilbo and Frodo's long intro; why not just start where the book starts?
-Much of the endless talking in Bilbo's house; the stuff about the dwarves who would or would not join is pointless, and much of the dialogue from anyone other than Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin is pointless.
-Orcs and wolves on the plains; barely advanced plot.
-the unfunny fart jokes and miserable dialogue from the stone-Trolls.
-cut down the conversation between Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond, and Galadriel; #1 rule of cinema: SHOW, don't just TELL!!!
-similarly, cut conversation between Gandalf and Galadriel.
-ALL SCENES from the Thorin vs. whatsisname, the White Orc. What a pointless revenge plot: he's already got a vendetta against Smaug AND the elves, why not develop THOESE conflicts, which are far more central to the story, instead of this thinly based, deeply unsatisfying plot thread?!
ADD/DEVELOP:
-Smaug/Lonely Mt backstory; This flashback felt as though it was on SPEED, and yet it's the reason the dwarves are making this journey in the first place!!! Show more of the majesty of the Lonely Mt, this place that we're trying to reclaim!
-The spider scene, the Mirkwood elves/imprisoned dwarves scene, and the river barrels scene; all three would have easily advanced Bilbo's character, his importance to the mission, and his relation to the rest of the dwarves. Better than Bilbo randomly becoming a great swordsmaster against the white orc. Much better way of resolving the Thorin-Bilbo conflict than with Bilbo's silly, preachy speech in the film.

Dec 16 - 01:06 AM

Andrew Davis

Andrew Davis

The spiders and the barrel scenes will be in the next film. However, I agree with a lot of the stuff that you want to cut. It would've been better to cut some of that stuff and have a shorter movie.

Dec 16 - 01:49 PM

Market Man

Eric Shankle

Definitely agree here, especially with Sarauman and Galadriel. They really didn't need to be in the film; they don't contribute to the story in any way.

Also agree with Bilbo randomly becoming sword master orc fighter. Had they cut Galadriel, Sarauman, Frodo and old Bilbo, stone giants, Radagast, Azog, they could have fit the spiders in for Bilbo to prove himself along with elves. I agree, that would have worked MUCH better.

Dec 16 - 03:45 PM

Robert Lenski

Robert Lenski

Azog the pale orc. Exactly. He won't do anything relevant until the Battle of the Five Armies anyway.

Dec 17 - 01:49 PM

Robert Lenski

Robert Lenski

We haven't gotten to Mirkwood yet. Have you seen it yet?

Dec 17 - 01:50 PM

Robert Lenski

Robert Lenski

Actually the prologue was totally needless!

Unlike the Fellowship's that showed a distant history with legendary characters, this is showing basically what will see in the future!

That's showing too much and leaving no new surprises for the 2nd!

Dec 17 - 01:53 PM

Alex Maverick

Alex Maverick

Well, you need to see the prologue to understand why the Dwarves are going on this journey.

Dec 17 - 04:02 PM

Noah Abraham G.

Noah Abraham Goucher

Haven't seen the movie, but I'd cut anything that WASN'T in "The Hobbit."

Dec 15 - 11:15 PM

Market Man

Eric Shankle

Stone giants is the biggest one I would cut. Had absolutely nothing to do with the story. Here are other scenes I would cut and why.
-Dwarves burping. That was dumb I'm sorry. Also get rid of the first song they sing.
-Galadriel and Sarauman. They served no purpose in this film. All they did was talk and talk but they never make a plan of action.
-The troll scene could have been cut down a little. All the snot humor ruined it.
-Radagast. He doesn't do much and is kind of annoying.
- Bilbo and Frodo scene. Completely pointless and it went on for far too long.

Dec 15 - 11:14 PM

Serena Celestine

Serena Celestine

It's been 13 years since I read The Hobbit and the trolls turning to stone was one of the main scenes I remembered from the whole book, so I was glad that Jackson included it. All of your other points, though, I agree with, apart from the Bilbo/ Frodo scene. I liked the tie in with LotR and it was nice to see some old cast to introduce the film, plus it was 5 minutes tops.

Dec 16 - 07:30 AM

Robert Lenski

Robert Lenski

Azog, don't forget.

There wasn't much too him and he beyond overstays his welcome by the 3rd scene already. He does nothing but pad the movie.

In fact, don't reveal he's actually alive until the Goblin King tells them and I still think he should be kept in the shadows in wolf/eagle scene.

He's obviously not going to do anything of real significance until he actually kills some of the company in the Battle of the Five Armies.

Dec 17 - 01:48 PM

Mike Kellermeyer

Mike Kellermeyer

I think that the mountains turning into humanlike creatures and throwing boulders at each other was completely superfluous. The Brown Wizard didn't lend much help to the party or the story. The running fight scenes with the Orcs went on and on. Kill a few Orcs, have a coupla close calls and move on. It portrayed the Orcs as Middle Earth's most star crossed wanton murderers. By my approximate count the company out-killed the Orc hordes by nearly six thousand to zero. Or so it seemed. Book much better than the movie. Just sayin'.

Dec 15 - 08:34 PM

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

I personally liked the stone giants, even if the scene was pointless. And the stuff with the Brown Wizard was setting up events later in the films that deal with Dol Goldur.

Dec 15 - 08:43 PM

Ben Burnum

Ben Burnum

I agree with Kyle. The minute I saw the troll scenes I was thinking that it really served no purpose in the book, and thought the same about the on screen depiction as well. How did it add to the plot Pretta Livia? It shows Bilbo's intelligence, for sure, but we see a lot of that in the movie already. I am interested in why you think it is necessary to the point that you would say "fuck you" to someone.

Dec 15 - 08:32 PM

Pretta Livia Alvez Sylvestre

Pretta Livia Alvez Sylvestre

Ben burnum say that to JRR Tolkien one the greatest writer in the 20th century he's the one who wrote the book, u fucker. Hey tolkien why did u put the troll scenes on the book, i wanna know because i am a fucking hater, an idiot..

Dec 15 - 08:59 PM

Pretta Livia Alvez Sylvestre

Pretta Livia Alvez Sylvestre

Ben burnum the scene with the fireflies in the fellowship of the ring, what the purpose of that scene tell me. and so on and so on u fag

Dec 15 - 09:10 PM

Beleg72

s long

No trolls, no Sting sword or Glamdring or Orcrist, it was also Bilbos first show of his hidden courage and growth as a person. If he hadn't made this first step would he be able to do all the other things that are to come.

Dec 16 - 05:23 AM

Justin Buell

Justin Buell

I would actually add some scenes: Gandalf visiting a younger Bilbo, more Bilbo in the Shire, and more Bilbo in Rivindell (finding Narsil, talking to Elrond).

Can't wait for the Extended Editions.

Dec 15 - 07:37 PM

Zach Wisz

Zach Wisz

Holy moley i completely forgot about the Narsil we saw in the first trailer! That will be great in the extended edition. but after all, in the book, that chapter is titled "A Short Rest", and for good reason.

Dec 15 - 09:07 PM

Justin Buell

Justin Buell

I don't get the "quick, get to the action" mentality with movies these days.

Some of the greatest films ever made had NO ACTION. Just dialogue.

Dec 15 - 09:18 PM

Zach Wisz

Zach Wisz

well, this was the hobbit we're talking about. the book is actually quite loaded with action. and since narsil wasn't even in this book, it's quite understandable that Jackson cut it out from the final product.

Dec 15 - 09:20 PM

Justin Buell

Justin Buell

Maybe, but Bilbo felt completely in the background during the Rivendell scenes. He should have had a moment or two.

Dec 15 - 09:34 PM

ThoroughlyEntertainOrDie

Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die

I agree with you justin. i think it would have been good to see bilbo discovering rivendell a bit more, but my guess is that peter jackson didnt want to mirror the fellowship of the ring and have them stay there for too long. he had to move the story along, i guess, so there could be more action sequences for the dumb masses.

Dec 15 - 09:38 PM

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

I enjoyed all the scenes from the movie, but they could have cut some of the walking shots and maybe trim some of the chase scenes a bit.

Dec 15 - 06:11 PM

Zach Wisz

Zach Wisz

i agree, there were a few moments in the movie that might elicit a "oh the hobbit is just another 3 hrs of walking" quote from haters.

Dec 15 - 09:22 PM

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

and yet the entire first half of the book is essentially them just walking. But that's beside the point. The chase scenes specifically could have been cut a little bit, especially the one right before they reached Rivendale.

Dec 16 - 01:15 PM

kyle Knaus

kyle Knaus

For starters the stupid troll scene where they capture the dwarves and make toilet jokes for 15 minutes. Serves no purpose

Dec 15 - 06:05 PM

Pretta Livia Alvez Sylvestre

Pretta Livia Alvez Sylvestre

Fuck hou kyle knaus that scene was awesome

Dec 15 - 06:14 PM

Zach Wisz

Zach Wisz

if they cut that out it would just be another 15 of walking. i suppose you wouldn't want to watch 15 minutes of mere walking, would you Kyle? suppose not...

Dec 15 - 09:25 PM

Mark Soto

Mark Soto

I'm going to guess you never read the hobbit. The Trolls scene was almost exactly as it is in the book. Like it or hate it. If it was cut you would have alot of upset people asking where the trolls are.

Dec 15 - 11:14 PM

Serena Celestine

Serena Celestine

Agreed. It's the scene I remember most from the book.

Dec 16 - 07:31 AM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

It's NOT almost exactly like it is in the book; the book is clever and witty as is, no need to dumb it down with low-brow humor. But alas that is Peter Jackson's specialty.

Dec 16 - 01:24 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile