Alfonso Cuarón as alternative director of The Hobbit

[Passdagas the Brown]

[Note: I split this topic off from the DoS anticipation thread. - VtF]

The Russian site Henneth-Annun.ru reports that a DoS trailer is coming in early October. There has been previous speculation that it will be with the (reportedly amazingly good) Alfonso Cuarón film "Gravity" which is to be released on October 4. Hopefully the trailer will be out on the internet a couple of days before that.

Here is the discussion about it at IMDb (with a google translation from and link to the original).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1170358/boa ... /220030392

Ah, Alfonso Cuaron. The man that should have directed the Hobbit.

What might have been...

[Pearly Di]

You should try talking to Harry Potter purists, who are convinced that Cuaron ruined The Prisoner of Azkaban.

They're wrong, of course. Delightful film. Not perfect, but it has a sparkle that some of the other Potter adaptations lack.

I, too, would have welcomed a Hobbit directed by Cuaron.

I have no strong feelings about DoS. None. I expect that some things will delight me and other things irritate me. Which has been the unchanging nature of my relationship with all things PJ-and-Tolkien-related since December 2001!

[Passdagas the Brown]

The protestations of the Potter purists concern me not.

And while I share your opinion of 'Prisoners' as the best of the series, I came to my opinion on his suitability for the Hobbit helm from my appreciation of his directorial skills as displayed in 'Children if Men.' Also, if you listen to his commentary on the film, it is 1000% clear that Cuaron deeply understands the language of myth - including the visual language. There is more in a few sentences Cuaron has uttered about film and fantasy than in the hundreds of interviews and commentary from Peter Jackson, I'm afraid.

Tolkien deserved an adapter with an appreciation for myth and legend, and the capacity to translate that appreciation to the big screen. What he got was a man obsessed with gigantism - visually, narratively and emotionally, who shows only fleeting evidence that he understands Tolkien, and the ingredients that make for a timeless story.

Rant over. My apologies in advance to my good friend Voronwë!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No apologies necessary. Even though I am not convinced that Cuaron would have been the best choice for The Hobbit (I don't much like PoA, and have not seen, nor am interested in seeing, Children of Men), I always appreciate well-expressed and well-thought-out opinions that are on point.

As you well know.

[Pearly Di]

Children of Men is extraordinary.

Although extremely difficult to sit through. Cuaron took the coast and countryside of my beloved England, and turned them into a vision of hell. I've not ever been able to steel myself for a second viewing. Too harrowing. Thank goodness I didn't see it at the cinema, the film would have given me nightmares. I really don't do dystopia.

It does make me ponder how he'd have conveyed Mordor though. Wow.

Yes, he's way more subtle and elegant in his style than PJ.

But I will never be of the opinion that PJ was a complete disaster either ... because he wasn't. There are many things in both his LotR and his Hobbit that I like. (As well as stuff I don't.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Although extremely difficult to sit through. Cuaron took the coast and countryside of my beloved England, and turned them into a vision of hell. I've not ever been able to steel myself for a second viewing. Too harrowing. Thank goodness I didn't see it at the cinema, the film would have given me nightmares. I really don't do dystopia.

That does not suggest to me that he would be the right director for The Hobbit. Quite the contrary, actually.

[sinister71]

the thing with Potter though is the author authorized ALL the changes from book to film. If it didn't meet J.K. Rowlings standard or approval it was scrapped and they came up with something else either from the book or at her suggestion. I can respect those changes.

I think with LOTR Jackson got a great many things right honestly. The changes at least to me felt organic and natural. The Hobbit I feel the complete opposite. The changes feel like they are changed just for the sake of making them different. The context of many things so far in AUJ is all in relation to Sauron, from the assumption I got from the White Council meeting and Radagast's wandering. Which is just something I hate being pushed into a tale called the Hobbit. That's not what the story was about or should have ever been about IMO.

I personally think Cuaron could have done a great version of the Hobbit. It's not about what he has done with other films it's about what he could have brought to the table for the Hobbit. Which honestly IMO he could have brought a great many good things to the project. POA wasn't a bad film and if I remember correctly the author of the book wanted to change it up a bit. If she didn't she would have never signed off on the changes.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Although extremely difficult to sit through. Cuaron took the coast and countryside of my beloved England, and turned them into a vision of hell. I've not ever been able to steel myself for a second viewing. Too harrowing. Thank goodness I didn't see it at the cinema, the film would have given me nightmares. I really don't do dystopia.

That does not suggest to me that he would be the right director for The Hobbit. Quite the contrary, actually.

Cuaron has extraordinary range. There is no reason to believe that the dystopian England he showed us is how he would have treated Middle Earth! But he most certainly would have portrayed despair and horror much more convincingly than PJ, had he directed LotR.

The very Tolkienian thing that Cuaron does in Children of Men is his brilliant portrayal of a eucatastrophe - a soaring moment of hope at the very moment of total despair. As Pearly Di can attest, I am referring to the baby being carried out of the firefight. Unlike many other dystopian stories, this one has a thread of "hope against hope" or a "fool's hope" (aka a seemingly unreasonable rejection of despair) which is inspiring, and to my mind, very Tolkienian. It's a trek through Mordor, under a cloud of gloom, but that star in the sky still glitters. And hope ultimately emerges from the volcanic ash - in Cuaron's film, in the form of a woman on a boat, with a baby, the last one born in an infertile world.

The film also makes brilliant use of mythic archetypes (though set in the future) and also has a contemplative mood which reminds me of Tolkien's phrase (and I paraphrase) "one of man's deepest desires is to survey the depths of time and space." There's a lot of depth here.

This all makes the case for a Cuaron LotR, more than a Cuaron Hobbit, I admit. But Cuaron has proven very capable at producing lighter fare as well (though I would argue that the Hobbit, though written in a more child-like idiom, is certainly not 'light fare' as I believe PJ thinks it).

Voronwë, as a friend, I think you should watch Children of Men. I would be very interested in discussing it with you!

-PtB

[Passdagas the Brown]

the thing with Potter though is the author authorized ALL the changes from book to film. If it didn't meet J.K. Rowlings standard or approval it was scrapped and they came up with something else either from the book or at her suggestion. I can respect those changes.

I think with LOTR Jackson got a great many things right honestly. The changes at least to me felt organic and natural. The Hobbit I feel the complete opposite. The changes feel like they are changed just for the sake of making them different. The context of many things so far in AUJ is all in relation to Sauron, from the assumption I got from the White Council meeting and Radagast's wandering. Which is just something I hate being pushed into a tale called the Hobbit. That's not what the story was about or should have ever been about IMO.

I personally think Cuaron could have done a great version of the Hobbit. It's not about what he has done with other films it's about what he could have brought to the table for the Hobbit. Which honestly IMO he could have brought a great many good things to the project. POA wasn't a bad film and if I remember correctly the author of the book wanted to change it up a bit. If she didn't she would have never signed off on the changes.

Honestly, this is one of the main reasons I wish that Christopher Tolkien had stepped forward to demand a level of creative control. I think the Tolkien Estate could have functioned as a constructive "brake" on PJ's excesses of style. Disassociating himself was his prerogative, of course, but if his intention was to leave Tolkien's name "unsullied," I'm afraid the sheer popularity of the films will mar (or elevate, depending on your opinion of the films) Tolkien's name for some time to come.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Christopher Tolkien had no right or authority to demand creative control, or any say whatsoever in how LOTR or TH were adapted. Those rights were completely passed on by his father back in 1969. Rowling, on the other hand, was able to negotiate a deal in selling the film rights to the Potter books that gave her the right of script approval.

She now, I understand, has taken it a step further even, with the prequel films being based on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them, insisting on complete creative control, writing the scripts herself, despite the fact that she has no previous experience as a screenwriter. WB is taking a big risk, there.

Edited to add: As for Children of Men, I have no interest whatsoever. None. Zero.

[yovargas]

Edited to add: As for Children of Men, I have no interest whatsoever. None. Zero.

May I ask why? It's a truly great film.

As Pearly Di can attest, I am referring to the baby being carried out of the firefight.

One of the greatest scenes I've ever seen on film, IMO.

[sinister71]

Christopher Tolkien had no right or authority to demand creative control, or any say whatsoever in how LOTR or TH were adapted. Those rights were completely passed on by his father back in 1969. Rowling, on the other hand, was able to negotiate a deal in selling the film rights to the Potter books that gave her the right of script approval.

She now, I understand, has taken it a step further even, with the prequel films being based on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them, insisting on complete creative control, writing the scripts herself, despite the fact that she has no previous experience as a screenwriter. WB is taking a big risk, there.

From my understanding its not a prequel but just something based in the same world. and I completely agree WB is taking a big risk on something like that. But I have to give her props for making the deal she did for the Potter films since there will be no remakes or spin offs ever since it was a one time only deal. Something I wish Tolkien had done. Because then the Tolkien estate could have creative control over the films.

Like I said LOTR I love em I found them to be great filmms even though there were changes. Those changes felt genuine and like they belonged (well except the WK breaking Gandalf's staff, which made the EE) overall. But again like i said with the Hobbit they went the complete opposite direction relying more on OTT antics and modern day fantasy influences like Warhammer and WOW rather than gritty realism that Jackson did so well in the previous trilogy.

I would have rather seen a medieval world based on realism rather than some generic fantasy realm, relying on the visuals of the New Zealand landscape to sell these pictures as middle earth. Which is what i feel is basically being done.

I completely agree PtB that Jackson should have had someone to put the voice of reason in his head and hold him back from going OTT so much

[Passdagas the Brown]

Edited to add: As for Children of Men, I have no interest whatsoever. None. Zero.

But you haven't yet seen it, so how do you know?

To be perfectly frank, I find your dismissive reaction after my impassioned argument in its defense a little insulting!

Let me put it this way: If you are interested in Tolkien, and some of his more subtle themes (such as the life-destroying nature of despair) I think you would at least appreciate the thematic content of Children of Men. Trust me on this, if you will (plus, it won't take more than a few hours out of your life).

Honestly, knowing your excellent Tolkien scholarship and deep knowledge of his work, I think you might get something out of Children of Men.

Take it as a challenge. Watch the film, and then let's have a great discussion about it here at the Hall of Fire!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Edited to add: As for Children of Men, I have no interest whatsoever. None. Zero.

May I ask why? It's a truly great film.

As Pearly Di can attest, I am referring to the baby being carried out of the firefight.

One of the greatest scenes I've ever seen on film, IMO.

I'm with you there, yov!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Also, as I understood it, Peter Jackson offered the Tolkien Estate a level of creative input (despite not being obligated to), and the Estate refused. That is what I am basing my comments on.

[Lusitano]

Glad to be back. And Sinister is here as well! What a merry gathering of mischievous contrarians!:D


Ill try to address it shortly.


In the meantime, something you said Voronwë, has my curiosity levels reach Sherlockian heights : why no interest whatsoever? Is it the director that puts you off, the genre - dystopian science fiction- the actors- clive owen juliane moore and michael caine- or something else?


I only saw it once, at the theater, and what a fantastic cinematic experience it was! Oh, the way the director uses the camera to bring the audience inside the "action" just drew me completely in...

The car and bikers chase through the forest was one of most impressive moemnts i ever saw at the cinema. On television or laptop, i dont know, but at the cinema, .


In a different but somewhat similar way as he did with POA. I rememebr him describing how he wanted to use the camera movements and angles in as much a fluid a way as possible and we can see that he crafted a very tight, well edited and smoothly paced film, with original and evocative transitions.

POA contains the only Quidditch scene in the entire potter series i care a fig about, enjoy watching, admire and listen to , IE soundtrack music. John Williams had a role in that as well.


In my book, anything with Clive Owen, Cuaron or Michael Cane deserves a chance.

Funny little detail : i told someone to go and see it, it was really worh it....to no avail, due to stubborness or lack of interest, my counsell was disregarded...a year later, i hear that same person, exhalt its virtues to a colleague!

[sinister71]

Glad to be back. And Sinister is here as well! What a merry gathering of mischievous contrarians!:D

yep I'm here, playing nice and getting along just fine although you would swear that other places I used to be I was the spawn of Satan

[Voronwë the Faithful]

We're happy to have all of you here.

So in what way does reflecting on Children of Men illuminate what we may see in The Desolation of Smaug?

[WampusCat]

A contrarian opinion: I didn't care for the film of "Children of Men" because it strayed so far from the book, which I enjoyed. It was far from a purist vision.

Technically, the movie was excellent, but I much preferred the deeper philosophical approach of the book (at least that is my recollection of it).

[sinister71]

A contrarian opinion: I didn't care for the film of "Children of Men" because it strayed so far from the book, which I enjoyed. It was far from a purist vision.

Technically, the movie was excellent, but I much preferred the deeper philosophical approach of the book (at least that is my recollection of it).

didn't even realize it was a book... Learn something new every day but I do think the film was a good one.