Alfonso Cuarón as alternative director of The Hobbit

Post by **Eldy** » Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:55 pm

sauronsfinger wrote:I do agree that the next two installments will be more along the lines of the LOTR trilogy and love that idea.

I have to disagree here. IMO, one of the biggest flaws in the conception of The Hobbit trilogy is that PJ wanted to make The Lord of the Rings Prequel Trilogy more than he wanted to adapt The Hobbit. This opens up TH to all of the flaws that movie prequels usually suffer from and leads it to feel more redundant. Cases in point: the endless prologues and flashbacks to make the world seem "larger", turning Thorin into Aragorn Jr., the very jarring combination of (PJ's attempts at) child-friendly humor with relatively severe fantasy violence.

The most optimistic thing I can say about this topic is that maybe PJ will strip out even his attempts at conveying the youthful tone of The Hobbit in the next two films and just go full LOTR Lite. But I don't think that's particularly likely, or worth celebrating even if it does happen.

Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:33 pm

In my view, the Hobbit book is indeed a mix of youthfulness and great seriousness. My main issue is that PJ does not seem to have done a good job of portraying either the youthfulness, or the seriousness. Instead, we get something in the muddy middle. A film that includes vicious and consequential battles between orc and dwarf by their ancient homeland, ping-pong CGI dwarves hop-scotching through Goblintown, solemn discussions about Sauron in Rivendell, marijuana jokes, and a wizard on a bunny sled. It's all so jumbled in style and substance, and it all hangs on a very thin narrative structure.

I do not see that going away. Yes, PJ and company are going to move in a darker direction as the films progress. But I don't think this "mix" is going away. In fact, I think PJ attempted such a mix in the LOTR films - perhaps to a lesser degree. Had he a larger budget, and greater certainty of success, I think he would have given us a lot more of the CGI silliness we saw in AUJ. After all, his ROTK did include a lot more such silliness than TTT. And I would argue that TTT also included more of that than FOTR.

The more confident PJ has gotten, the more willing he has been to push the envelope of the suspension of disbelief. Right now, he's riding high and he's confident. And he's going to do whatever he wants.

Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:16 am

I largely agree with that, and think it is well said. But I also still am looking forward to much in the coming films, particularly the iconic scenes with Bilbo and Smaug. Jackson generally has a good record with iconic scenes, from Gandalf and the balrog on the Bridge, to Boromir's death, the destruction of the ring, good morning, and riddles (but not Éowyn and the Witchking).

Post by **Passdagas the Brown** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:02 am

Honestly, I can't help but look forward to those scenes. If even one of them is done competently, it will be worth the price of admission.

Speaking of Cuaron, Gravity, which opened just three days ago, is not only enjoying a 98% critics score at rotten tomatoes, but it has already raked in $55 million in North America.

To me, this goes to show that an inventive director can buck the "standards" for what makes a blockbuster lucrative, and still make loads of cash.

People may think that talking down to audiences is necessary for a successful blockbuster, but that's simply not the case.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 12:54 pm

After seeing Gravity:

The movie is a bold, awe-inspiring, visionary spectacle that pushes the visual potential of film to places it has never, ever been before. It is wholly unlike anything you've ever seen before.

It's also......kind of clunkily written with several bits of utterly unnecessary cheap Hollywood-esque sentimentality*. Much of the music suffered from the same cliched syndrome - distractingly sentimental, obvious, and on-the-nose (there are parts of the soundtrack that practically scream "this bit is sad!!!" and "this bit is happy!!!" at you; to which I wanted to scream "shut up, I know!" in response).

It left me thinking it might work better as a near-silent film.

So I conclude that either a) Cuaron was not given entirely free reign on the tone of his bold $100 film experiment or b) Cuaron has his share of appreciation for cheap Hollywood sentiment. Either way, I'm not convinced now that Cuaron would've been any more thematically successful at telling this story than PJ. But damn could he have made some jaw-dropping action sequences.

*Minor spoiler:

Hidden text.

Post by **Passdagas the Brown** » Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:01 pm

Just saw it, and agree that there's some mawkishness in there that wasn't necessary. However, I chalk that up to serious fear among the studio suits that a film set entirely in orbit had to pull hard at the heartstrings from time to time. But honestly, if was still far less heavy-handed than much if what PJ concocted as "emotional." Think about all the glaringly obvious musical cues for "sadness" or "longing for the Shire" that we got in LOTR, for example.

I still go back to Children of Men as the main driver of my opinion on Cuaron's suitability for tackling Middle Earth. That film has a narrative structure, and a set of mythic, archetypal and thematic conceits, that I believe are similar to LOTRs. And, I still think that in terms of tone and style, Cuaron is much closer to what I would call the film-maker equivalent of Tolkien.

Post by **Passdagas the Brown** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:26 am

Okay, so I saw Gravity again, and I have come to the conclusion that Cuaron is a genius. Not because the narrative was anything special, but because he is a master at striking at the heart of things through images and simple story-telling. The one great accomplishment of the film is the following:

MASSIVE SPOILERS below (highlight to view)

Hidden text.

Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:38 am

Psst, we have spoiler tags that you can use to hide spoiler text (I will edit your post).

Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:43 am

I have more interest in seeing Gravity than I do Children of Men. And yes I understand that you and others believe that Children of Men has more relevance philosophically to Tolkien (I'm sure with good reason), but I simply have more interest in the subject matter of Gravity. And it is almost universally asserted that Gravity makes the best use of modern cinematic tools of any film yet.

Post by **Passdagas the Brown** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:13 am

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:I have more interest in seeing Gravity than I do Children of Men. And yes I understand that you and others believe that Children of Men has more relevance philosophically to Tolkien (I'm sure with good reason), but I simply have more interest in the subject matter of Gravity. And it is almost universally asserted that Gravity makes the best use of modern cinematic tools of any film yet.

Actually, I think Gravity is just as relevant to Tolkien's work as is Children of Men. It's about life, lifelessness (or deathlessness), and the rejection of despair. Plain and simple. And for me, that's at the root of Tolkien's work.

Cuaron is a kindred spirit to Tolkien, if you ask me (and I know noone has).

Also, though I understand you have spoiler tags, I have absolutely no understanding of how to implement them.

UPDATE: Oh, right. The button that says "Spoiler."

Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:28 am

For some reason, the Spoiler tags button doesn't appear in the Quick Reply window, and you have type them to use them when using that window. The button only appears when you either hit the "quote" button on people's posts, or the "Post Reply" button at the bottom of the thread. I don't know why that is.

Post by **Passdagas the Brown** » Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:44 pm

I never thought I would say this, but you absolutely must see Gravity in 3D.

Also, the 1st DOS trailer showed in front of Gravity, and I have to say something against type (i.e. positive).

Smaug, on the big screen and in 3D, looked absolutely terrifying. I really like the way he looks.

Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:04 pm

Cauron's comments about 3D were very interesting. He was very critical of the way that the technology has been used, but I think he was mainly referring to films that weren't filmed in 3D but were converted afterward. In any event, I have almost universally heard that Gravity makes the best use of 3D technology of any film yet. And it does seem to be that it would be conducive to the subject matter.

It is really odd that most people are reporting seeing the first DoS trailer in front of Gravity, rather than the more recent one. I thought the whole point of producing this latest trailer was to show it in front of DoS.

In any event, I'm glad to hear that you like the way Smaug looks. I hope that carries through to the real thing!

Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:58 pm

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Cauron's comments about 3D were very interesting. He was very critical of the way that the technology has been used, but I think he was mainly referring to films that weren't filmed in 3D but were converted afterward. In any event, I have almost universally heard that Gravity makes the best use of 3D technology of any film yet. And it does seem to be that it would be conducive to the subject matter.

It is really odd that most people are reporting seeing the first DoS trailer in front of Gravity, rather than the more recent one. I thought the whole point of producing this latest trailer was to show it in front of DoS. In any event, I'm glad to hear that you like the way Smaug looks. I hope that carries through to the real thing!

"Conducive to the subject matter" is the key point for me. A film set primarily in space benefits from a super crisp image, a proper use of 3D technology, and a very fluid camera.

A fantasy film set in a forgotten world of long ago loses something significant with digital photography, 3D and hyper-swooping cameras.

The somewhat faded, "I found this reel of film in an old treasure chest" look of LOTR was definitely the right way to go for Middle Earth. PJ's approach with TH is almost exactly the opposite, and IMO, it's not very convincing.

I was also very confused to see trailer #1 in front of Gravity, but glad to see Smaug's face in that format. For me, it looked like the most impressive CGI I've seen yet - better even than the cave troll of Moria, which I always thought was LOTR's most convincing CGI beast.

Post by **kzer_za** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:07 am

I do think it's rather unfortunate that traditional special effects, forced perspective, and miniatures (LotR was actually pretty old-fashioned in embracing these things, even as it pushed the boundaries of CG) have been dropped for The Hobbit "because 3D."

I will be seeing Gravity in 2D tomorrow. I've actually never seen a movie in 3D and am nervous to try even for this one - besides, it's already scheduled with a friend.

Is Prisoner of Azkaban worth seeing on its own? I like the Harry Potter books well enough, but I don't really want to watch the whole "octology"!

Post by **Passdagas the Brown** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:10 am

kzer_za wrote:I do think it's rather unfortunate that traditional special effects, forced perspective, and miniatures (LotR was actually pretty old-fashioned in embracing these things, even as it pushed the boundaries of CG) have been dropped for The Hobbit "because 3D."

I will be seeing Gravity in 2D tomorrow. I've actually never seen a movie in 3D and am nervous to try even for this one - besides, it's already scheduled with a friend.

Is Prisoner of Azkaban worth seeing on its own? I like the Harry Potter books well enough, but I don't really want to watch the whole "octology"!

Yes, Prisoners is worth watching on its own. IMO, you don't really need to watch any of the others, as they are comparatively mediocre.

Some Potter purists may disagree with that, but you know what they say about Potter purists.

Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:16 am

I'm not remotely a Potter purist, and PoA is my least favorite of the HP films. The constant impression that I had was that the filmmaker was more interested in showing off his filmmaking chops than in telling the story, or developing the characters.

Post by **Passdagas the Brown** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:31 am

It's interesting. I have heard you say that before, but to me, PoA got both the visual and narrative storytelling aspects just right. The character development may have seemed slighter on the surface, but I think it was simply less heavy-handed. Cuaron is indeed quite economical with character development, as he prefers to tell a character's story primarily through images, but I found his choices to be spot on. Anything more would have been excess fat, IMO.

And you know, Tolkien was quite economical with character development as well. So Tolkien + Cuaron = kindred spirits.

Also, let me manage expectations. If you like traditional character development in your films, Gravity won't necessarily deliver. But if you let the images and the immersive nature of the film tell the story - even the characters' story - I think you'll get far more out of it. In that sense, it was almost a deeply spiritual experience for me (and I'm an agnostic).

Let's just say that Cuaron uses the main tool of film - the moving image - as his primary story-telling device. I once heard him say that if he didn't operate that way, he might as well just be a writer. In that sense, he is most certainly more of a "show don't tell" guy.

But that is very different than him "just trying to show off his film-making chops." That's not it at all. He just tells cinematic stories differently than many film-makers. Rather than treating his films like plays, he treats them like films!

Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:03 am

So much comes down to personal sensibilities. I am not a cinephile and don't have the same appreciation that you do for the language of film. That is, perhaps, why I am more tolerant of Jackson's OTT style; it doesn't offend my sensibilities, and allows me to appreciate the aspects that he does well.

Post by **kzer_za** » Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:07 pm

Well I am a film person, and based on Children of Men I'm not convinced on Cuaron as an alternative director (and I am a fan of that movie). Will post more on that after I see Gravity.