Alfonso Cuarón as alternative director of The Hobbit

[sauronsfinger]

A great filmmaker is able to rise above the "standards of the day" and deliver something that blows critics and general audiences away. Despite my general dislike of the LOTR films, PJ succeeded in that with the trilogy.

He failed with AUJ, and it doesn't look like DOS is likely to fare any better.

The reviews from critics, the box office take, and the awards given by the professionals in the film industry are evidence that is exactly what happened with the Jackson LOTR films.

It is too soon to make a judgment about the HOBBIT trilogy since we have not seen the last two installments and we know that the films will be more adult - less silly - and more in the spirit of LOTR.

However, while the first film did not win the awards that the previous ones did, public box office was strong and the general consensus seemed to be that the film was three stars (out of a four star scale).

That equals success.

[Passdagas the Brown]

A great filmmaker is able to rise above the "standards of the day" and deliver something that blows critics and general audiences away. Despite my general dislike of the LOTR films, PJ succeeded in that with the trilogy.

He failed with AUJ, and it doesn't look like DOS is likely to fare any better.

The reviews from critics, the box office take, and the awards given by the professionals in the film industry are evidence that is exactly what happened with the Jackson LOTR films.

It is too soon to make a judgment about the HOBBIT trilogy since we have not seen the last two installments and we know that the films will be more adult - less silly - and more in the spirit of LOTR.

However, while the first film did not win the awards that the previous ones did, public box office was strong and the general consensus seemed to be that the film was three stars (out of a four star scale).

That equals success.

Re-read my post, sauronsfinger. I agree that LOTR was a commercial and critical success (though I maintain that it was the source material and the novelty of a 'good' fantasy film that is responsible for that, and not any extraordinary ability on PJ's part).

However, AUJ was by most standards a critical failure. I hope TDOS is different, but I doubt it.

[sauronsfinger]

A great filmmaker is able to rise above the "standards of the day" and deliver something that blows critics and general audiences away. Despite my general dislike of the LOTR films, PJ succeeded in that with the trilogy.

He failed with AUJ, and it doesn't look like DOS is likely to fare any better.

The reviews from critics, the box office take, and the awards given by the professionals in the film industry are evidence that is exactly what happened with the Jackson LOTR films.

It is too soon to make a judgment about the HOBBIT trilogy since we have not seen the last two installments and we know that the films will be more adult - less silly - and more in the spirit of LOTR.

However, while the first film did not win the awards that the previous ones did, public box office was strong and the general consensus seemed to be that the film was three stars (out of a four star scale).

That equals success.

Re-read my post, sauronsfinger. I agree that LOTR was a commercial and critical success (though I maintain that it was the source material and the novelty of a 'good' fantasy film that is responsible for that, and not any extraordinary ability on PJ's part).

However, AUJ was by most standards a critical failure. I hope TDOS is different, but I doubt it.

Which is like saying it was a four star meal in spite of the chef who actually prepared it.

What most critical standards labeling AUJ as a failure are you pointing to exactly?

[Passdagas the Brown]

The reviews from critics, the box office take, and the awards given by the professionals in the film industry are evidence that is exactly what happened with the Jackson LOTR films.

It is too soon to make a judgment about the HOBBIT trilogy since we have not seen the last two installments and we know that the films will be more adult - less silly - and more in the spirit of LOTR.

However, while the first film did not win the awards that the previous ones did, public box office was strong and the general consensus seemed to be that the film was three stars (out of a four star scale).

That equals success.

Re-read my post, sauronsfinger. I agree that LOTR was a commercial and critical success (though I maintain that it was the source material and the novelty of a 'good' fantasy film that is responsible for that, and not any extraordinary ability on PJ's part).

However, AUJ was by most standards a critical failure. I hope TDOS is different, but I doubt it.

Which is like saying it was a four star meal in spite of the chef who actually prepared it.

What most critical standards labeling AUJ as a failure are you pointing to exactly?

Well, a rotten tomatoes score in the 60s, for one. That kind of score is usually reserved for very mediocre films.

[sauronsfinger]

Looking at the site, there were 173 positive reviews of the film and 94 negative reviews. That is close to a two to one margin for positive. The over al rating was 65%. The audience rating was 82% - very positive and a collective 4.1 out of 5.

Obviously not what the LOTR films were but given the subject matter from the book - a rather good critical performance.

I would agree that the first HOBBIT film was not up to the level of the LOTR films. However, the source material must be considered as part of that difference along with some questionable decision like the terrible characterization of the Goblin King and the Radagast nonsense.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Given the subject matter from the books? Come on. If you take a classic book by a world-renowned author, adapt it to film, and it doesn't turn out that great, it's your fault not the author's! The Hobbit is a great adventure story. It takes a director with just a small amount of imagination to make it work on screen.

The truth is, PJ bloated his film with looooong stretches of heartless CGI action and dull as doornail subplots. He sucked much of the charm right out of the story. His main problem, IMO, was not trusting the heart of the story, and instead attempting an awkward set up for LOTR. Had PJ stuck with Bilbo, and fleshed out his character and motivations, the critical score would likely have been much higher.

And by any objective standard, a critical rottentomatoes score in the 60s is simply not a good one. Hundreds of films a year reach those modest heights.

And to bring it back to the subject of this thread, there is no doubt in my mind that Cuaron would have made a vastly superior film. PJ is not even in the same league.

[sinister71]

Looking at the site, there were 173 positive reviews of the film and 94 negative reviews. That is close to a two to one margin for positive. The over al rating was 65%. The audience rating was 82% - very positive and a collective 4.1 out of 5.

Obviously not what the LOTR films were but given the subject matter from the book - a rather good critical performance.

I would agree that the first HOBBIT film was not up to the level of the LOTR films. However, the source material must be considered as part of that difference along with some questionable decision like the terrible characterization of the Goblin King and the Radagast nonsense.

My problem with your assessment is you keep saying look at the source material. Jackson has altered the source material so that it barely resembles it. So we actually need to look at Jackson's presentation of the story... Just because the Trollshaws scene has Bilbo, 13 dwarfs, and 3 trolls with Gandalf showing up at the end, doesn't make it the same.That and the lead up to that sequence is completely different. Riddles in the dark similar but again also altered to show off the ring, making THAT the focus instead of Bilbo. Stone giants taken way out of context. Goblin Town completely OTT and again altered. With the story being stretched so thin into 3 films there was stuff that was completely left out such as the eagles eerie, which describes plot devices about the adventure.

IMO nothing should have been left out with a transition to 3 films. Jackson has decided to insert more made up content to alter what the Hobbit was about. Making the scenario more about Sauron's return than being about what the actual Hobbit story was about. I have issues with that. That is not what the story was about. It was an adventure tale about dwarfs getting their treasure back from a dragon which almost ended with a battle over said treasure had it not been for some goblins/orcs wanting revenge for the death of the Great Goblin.

Not so epic, I know, but IMO just as entertaining, I would have been fine just with 2 films briefly glancing over DolGuldur leaving it vague while keeping all the details of the actual Hobbit story. For me that would have been perfectly acceptable.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I would argue that the story in TH book, as is, can make for a very epic film. Don't buy the notion that simply because it's not about an all-powerful Dark Lord, that it's not "epic."

In my view, the insertion of the Sauron plotline makes Middle Earth seem smaller, and the story less epic. Plus, the Dol Guldur plot, at least in AUJ, seems so irrelevant to the main story as to induce significant head-scratching among those who don't know the lore so much.

I used to think the Dol Guldur plotline could be well-integrated, but I now realize it was a mistake. At least, it was a mistake to have PJ do it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My first choice was always a single film that just covered the story in the book. I don't know that it would have been "epic" (I don't really even know what that means anymore). But it could have been very good.

[Passdagas the Brown]

My first choice was always a single film that just covered the story in the book. I don't know that it would have been "epic" (I don't really even know what that means anymore). But it could have been very good.

Agreed. Strangely, I was one of those that believed three films might be a good thing, because it would allow PJ to spend more time with the characters, balancing out his penchant for long scenes of generally mindless action. Instead, he took that extra time as license to drag out a lot of the nonsense.

To me, it's an astounding missed opportunity.

PJ is operating without a reality check, given his success with LOTR and financial success with AUJ, and I believe this is exactly the kind of thing he wants. So not much hope for DOS.

[sauronsfinger]

Over these last 13 years, one of the main dividing lines I have seen in these discussions is the acceptance that a book is not a movie and a movie is not a book. Another is the acceptance that motion pictures are first and foremost a business venture and not an art form.

Now I have seen the response to that thousands of times --- yes yes yes yes yes we accept that a film and a book are two different things. But now let me tell you the top ten reasons why if the movie was more like the book it would have been better. Got it. Heard it. Know it well.

I am glad that Jackson decided to add other Middle-earth material and produce something which was beyond the initial HOBBIT text. Lets face it - JRRT himself tried to do a more adult version but was stymied for one reason or another.

Yes - we get more action. That is the nature of the motion picture business in the 21st century. Sorry but that is just reality.

Yes - we get stuff beyond the book - but this is a franchise after all and the purpose of the franchise is to sell more tickets.... after all the thing is costing some $600 million dollars and they want to maximize profit as any business does on an investment of that magnitude.

Lets wait until we see the entire HOBBIT trilogy on screen before we decide on its over all quality shall we?

[yovargas]

As a general point - I dislike the oft-cited criticism against "moar action!". There's nothing wrong with big action scenes and many movies have had many fun, exciting, and memorable action over the years (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and The Matrix immediately come to mind). LOTR had tons of amazing action sequences and I certainly do not think it was the worse for those. Unfortunately, I found all the action in AUJ dull and uninspired. The problem with many movies, IMO, is not too many action sequences, it's simply too many bad action sequences.

[sinister71]

I would argue that the story in TH book, as is, can make for a very epic film. Don't buy the notion that simply because it's not about an all-powerful Dark Lord, that it's not "epic."

In my view, the insertion of the Sauron plotline makes Middle Earth seem smaller, and the story less epic. Plus, the Dol Guldur plot, at least in AUJ, seems so irrelevant to the main story as to induce significant head-scratching among those who don't know the lore so much.

I used to think the Dol Guldur plotline could be well-integrated, but I now realize it was a mistake. At least, it was a mistake to have PJ do it.

I quite agree, middle earth does feel smaller with the inclusion of Sauron as the root of all evil. A world as vast as middle earth you would think have multiple sources of bad things. Not just one centralized being in charge of it all.

[Passdagas the Brown]

As a general point - I dislike the oft-cited criticism against "moar action!". There's nothing wrong with big action scenes and many movies have had many fun, exciting, and memorable action over the years (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and The Matrix immediately come to mind). LOTR had tons of amazing action sequences and I certainly do not think it was the worse for those. Unfortunately, I found all the action in AUJ dull and uninspired. The problem with many movies, IMO, is not too many action sequences, it's simply too many bad action sequences.

I generally agree with this, and feel that the action in LOTR was generally handled better. Cuaron includes lots of action in his films, but they are simultaneously visually and emotionally powerful. That is why I specify "mindless action" rather than just "action." It's a straw man to say that I oppose action itself. However, in AUJ the action was bad for a variety of reasons.

1. A lot of it was overly CGI and rather false-looking.
2. The fakery of the action was compounded by unrealistic physics and low consequences
3. There was little emotional dimension to the action. Though this wasn't the case with the Out of the Frying Pan scene, that was spoiled via overdone junk (hanging from someone's foot who is hanging from a wizards staff who is hanging from a fallen tree that is hanging over a cliff - seriously?)
4. It overstayed its welcome. Faaaar too long.
5. It was poorly shot - Goblintown is full of insane fast-flying cameras, the Troll fight is totally uninteresting and the warg chase before Rivendell is dull as dishwater. Compare the action here to some of the action in Game of Thrones, for example. That may be TV, but its directors mop the floor with PJ and company in that regard.
6. It hangs on a very thin narrative. There seems to be little at stake, rendering the scenes a bit boring.
7. There are too many action set pieces, leaving you exhausted and bored by the time another one pops up.
8. Some of it was laughably ridiculous. The Stone giants set piece was so ludicrous, it destroyed suspension of disbelief.

So again, I love good action in a good movie. But in AUJ, PJ gave us bad action. A lot if it. And it generally made AUJ a bad film.

A movie is not a book, but there are lots if directors that would have done a better job (and some who may have made it worse).

Here's to hoping for a Cuaron remake in 2025.

[yovargas]

Though this wasn't the case with the Out of the Frying Pan scene, that was spoiled via overdone junk...

I know you didn't get through the fan edit but their cuts here were a serious improvement on this scene. I recommend at least watching the last 20-30 mins of it.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Though this wasn't the case with the Out of the Frying Pan scene, that was spoiled via overdone junk...

I know you didn't get through the fan edit but their cuts here were a serious improvement on this scene. I recommend at least watching the last 20-30 mins of it.

Will do, yov. I remember thinking that there was a decent scene in there somewhere. Particularly since visually, it's hard to go wrong with fire and moonlight and huge eagles.

[Elentári]

Whilst I would not the dispute the need to see the rest of the trilogy before making a judgement, I think that DoS will be make or break time for most of us...

Having PJ direct TH seemed the best option at the time, for all of us who loved LotR and wanted a matching pair, so to speak, but in hindsight we should have realized that no "artist" wants to recreate a previous piece of work exactly...there is no creative satisfaction in that for them. The one thing we were guaranteed is that the production design would match for the best part. The main difference this time is the presentation - the saturated colour, fairytale aesthetic and most of all, the change from film to digital HFR.

The fairytale aesthetic I think would work for a single film of TH (and more so if it had been made first.) We've already seen from the trailers that the colour saturation has been reduced for DoS, and no doubt by TABA it will match the look of LotR more closely in that sense. This is something that he and GdT talked about in interviews and PJ has obviously kept. However, the crystal clear HFR and CGI laden appearance just means, despite real actors and the occasional location shoot, it looks as though the whole film has been created on a computer- which is the sad way film-making is going.

I think PJ's biggest mistake was the split to three films. That seems to be the point where he lost all restraint and started to believe that his invented material deserved the prominence of Tolkien's creation. On top of that we have his penchant for juvenile humour and the grotesque…and as sf points out, the penchant of today’s moviegoing public for OTT action sequences. As much as we want to blame PJ, in many respects he is just giving the majority what they want…one can see that from other message boards and forums. For those of us who hated the peculiar repetition of moments fromLotR (Gandalf banging his head, the slo-mo Ring falling onto fingers, others profess to have loved those little nods.

Somehow PJ's TH comes across as trying to be all things to all people- the fairytale feel for those who wanted just TH, kept Bag End pretty much perfect for the literary fans, and the epic feel for those who wanted LotR II. Trouble is, for many it’s ended up as something and nothing – neither fish nor fowl, I believe is the expression…In hindsight, would making the choice to stick to one approach have been a braver decision?

[sauronsfinger]

Whilst I would not the dispute the need to see the rest of the trilogy before making a judgement, I think that DoS will be make or break time for most of us...

Having PJ direct TH seemed the best option at the time, for all of us who loved LotR and wanted a matching pair, so to speak, but in hindsight we should have realized that no "artist" wants to recreate a previous piece of work exactly...there is no creative satisfaction in that for them. The one thing we were guaranteed is that the production design would match for the best part. The main difference this time is the presentation - the saturated colour, fairytale aesthetic and most of all, the change from film to digital HFR.

The fairytale aesthetic I think would work for a single film of TH (and more so if it had been made first.) We've already seen from the trailers that the colour saturation has been reduced for DoS, and no doubt by TABA it will match the look of LotR more closely in that sense. This is something that he and GdT talked about in interviews and PJ has obviously kept. However, the crystal clear HFR and CGI laden appearance just means, despite real actors and the occasional location shoot, it looks as though the whole film has been created on a computer- which is the sad way film-making is going.

I think PJ's biggest mistake was the split to three films. That seems to be the point where he lost all restraint and started to believe that his invented material deserved the prominence of Tolkien's creation. On top of that we have his penchant for juvenile humour and the grotesque…and as sf points out, the penchant of today’s moviegoing public for OTT action sequences. As much as we want to blame PJ, in many respects he is just giving the majority what they want…one can see that from other message boards and forums. For those of us who hated the peculiar repetition of moments fromLotR (Gandalf banging his head, the slo-mo Ring falling onto fingers, others profess to have loved those little nods.

Somehow PJ's TH comes across as trying to be all things to all people- the fairytale feel for those who wanted just TH, kept Bag End pretty much perfect for the literary fans, and the epic feel for those who wanted LotR II. Trouble is, for many it’s ended up as something and nothing – neither fish nor fowl, I believe is the expression…In hindsight, would making the choice to stick to one approach have been a braver decision?

A most excellent post. Very well said.

The film is not without faults and its easy to spot them and you pointed out several. I too prefer the actual look of film - probably because it is what we are used to and there is the whole "shock of the new" which plagues developments like this making the old and comfortable "better" in our eyes.

[sauronsfinger]

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

[Passdagas the Brown]

Good points, all around.

I think El hits the nail on the head when she says that the movie tries to be all things to all people. There's an old saying that a camel is a horse made in committee. AUJ is a camel, IMO. It feels like a committee-made film that's preemptively trying to please everyone, while ultimately pleasing a lot of people only a little.

But beyond that, PJ's most egregious mistake, IMO, was an over reliance on CGI, a lack of restraint when it comes to action, and a very thin character arc for Bilbo, which is likely the result of splitting the film in three.

Something tells me that a two-film Hobbit, closing with Bilbo's escape plan for the dwarves, would have been far more emotionally powerful.