Alfonso Cuarón as alternative director of The Hobbit

[Pearly Di]

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

Perhaps we should take this discussion to a more general film discussion thread ...?

Whether or not you ever see Children of Men, Sir V, the others here have made excellent points about Alfonso Cuaron's range. He has a lightness of touch that PJ lacks. Which means he is very adept at handling both mythic horror and mythic 'eucatastrophe' (that wonderful Tolkienian word). His Hobbit would have been as fascinating as Del Toro's ... and probably much better and less dark. (Cuaron directed another children's classic in 1995, A Little Princess, and although the film put my purist teeth on edge, it is extremely well made and has all his signature moves of gorgeousness, whimsy and emotion. Rowling liked it so much that he was one of her favourite choices to adapt and direct her own stories. I agree with you that WB are taking a big risk allowing her to write the screenplay for this latest HP outing - which interests me very little.)

I think Sinister has a point about the changes in PJ's Hobbit feeling less organic and natural than those in his LotR. Not that I don't also vigorously critique his LotR changes, but The Hobbit in some ways does feel more ... artificial? Can't quite put my finger on it. I enjoyed it but not with the same level of passion as LotR inspired in me - despite Freeman's Bilbo being the best hobbit characterisation!

Anticipating DoS ... well, I'm looking forward to seeing it. That's really all I can say.

[yovargas]

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

Probably none but that's no reason to so bluntly ignore some friendly suggestions and inquiries.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sorry yov. I actually responded to PtB privately (he had also written to me privately), and I had forgotten that you had also inquired in the thread. The truth is, I'm just not a movie person. The last movies that I have seen, in reverse order, are AUJ, Star Trek Into Darkness, all of the Potter films in one large batch, Avatar, Star Trek reboot, and RotK. I just don't have any interest in the subject matter of Children of Men. I'm sure it is a very good movie, but it does not appeal to me.

Meanwhile, if in fact "probably none" is the correct answer, these posts are going to be moved out of this thread.

[sinister71]

I think Sinister has a point about the changes in PJ's Hobbit feeling less organic and natural than those in his LotR. Not that I don't also vigorously critique his LotR changes, but The Hobbit in some ways does feel more ... artificial? Can't quite put my finger on it. I enjoyed it but not with the same level of passion as LotR inspired in me - despite Freeman's Bilbo being the best hobbit characterisation!

Anticipating DoS ... well, I'm looking forward to seeing it. That's really all I can say.

Honestly I think it was the over use of CGI and the artificial sets, too much green screen IMO. I know its a standard in cinema today but in LOTR there were at least full sets in most of the shots with just certain aspects being green screened. There were just many more practical effects in LOTR that got ignored this time around for CGI and Mo-Cap. Plus it doesn't help that most of the action is larger than life and impossible in the real world. LOTR kept that to a minimum. In the Hobbit it runs rampant.

People say Aragorn going over the cliff is one such thing that proves Jackson did unrealistic stunts in LOTR but I have watched cliff diver videos on youtube where a diver rolled down the whole cliff face to hit the water and survived only bruised and battered much like Aragorn. So I don't include that scene as being OTT. But I do count scenes like Legolas shield surfing, taking down a mumakil by himself to be of a similar caliber as the majority of AUJ.

That is part of the artificial feeling of AUJ for me in comparison to LOTR...

Completely agree Freeman is the perfect Bilbo. For me I think its the little quirks of his personality that define him as the character. Even before he was ever announced to be a choice for Bilbo I thought of him. Hitchhikers guide while not being a great film was what made me think he was perfect for Bilbo

[yovargas]

But I do count scenes like Legolas shield surfing, taking down a mumakil by himself to be of a similar caliber as the majority of AUJ.

He kept those kind of moments almost entirely to Leggy which worked for me since the elves are clearly meant to have special and remarkable talents. The AUJ "gravity doesn't matter" dwarves don't quite have that excuse.

[Elentári]

But I do count scenes like Legolas shield surfing, taking down a mumakil by himself to be of a similar caliber as the majority of AUJ.

He kept those kind of moments almost entirely to Leggy which worked for me since the elves are clearly meant to have special and remarkable talents. The AUJ "gravity doesn't matter" dwarves don't quite have that excuse.

Agreed completely.

The other things is the fast moving, intercut camera action in the action sequences, (Trolls fight, Goblin Town etc.,) and the plunging, twisting camera angles such as we got in the Erebor prologue - I know that was used similarly in LotR with the shot from the top of Orthanc down, down into the depths of the forges of Isengard, but I felt it was down to excess in AUJ, and is one of the things that makes me dizzy when I'm watching. I also find it annoying because the camera doesn't linger on anything long enough for you to take all the detail in.

I know Shelob's Appetite used to complain about PJ not letting the LotR movies "breathe", but compared to AUJ, LotR seemed to have a lot more "quiet" moments. Of course there were a such moments in AUJ, including the fabulous "Morning after the night before" in Bag End, but after that first 45 minutes the pace does seem rather more frantic, (even allowing for the White Council.) EE will contain a few more reflective moments such as the Elrond/Bilbo clip we've already seen.

[sinister71]

But I do count scenes like Legolas shield surfing, taking down a mumakil by himself to be of a similar caliber as the majority of AUJ.

He kept those kind of moments almost entirely to Leggy which worked for me since the elves are clearly meant to have special and remarkable talents. The AUJ "gravity doesn't matter" dwarves don't quite have that excuse.

Agreed completely.

The other things is the fast moving, intercut camera action in the action sequences, (Trolls fight, Goblin Town etc.,) and the plunging, twisting camera angles such as we got in the Erebor prologue - I know that was used similarly in LotR with the shot from the top of Orthanc down, down into the depths of the forges of Isengard, but I felt it was down to excess in AUJ, and is one of the things that makes me dizzy when I'm watching. I also find it annoying because the camera doesn't linger on anything long enough for you to take all the detail in.

I know Shelob's Appetite used to complain about PJ not letting the LotR movies "breathe", but compared to AUJ, LotR seemed to have a lot more "quiet" moments. Of course there were a such moments in AUJ, including the fabulous "Morning after the night before" in Bag End, but after that first 45 minutes the pace does seem rather more frantic, (even allowing for the White Council.) EE will contain a few more reflective moments such as the Elrond/Bilbo clip we've already seen.

All things I think were done to show off the 3D and virtual environments. Nothing more other than to impress with the latest greatest new technology IMO. I really do hate feeling that way but those were the choices Jackson made this time around which many people I have spoken with find off putting about AUJ. I found the stylistic departure of AUJ in comparison to LOTR quite shocking, with the lack of gravity and impossible actions of all the characters. I could live with the amount of OTT stuff in LOTR because it made the character performing them extraordinary and special (even though the rest of the elves seems plain and normal in their fighting skills and all got wiped out in Helm's Deep) as an attribute to his race.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think Sinister has a point about the changes in PJ's Hobbit feeling less organic and natural than those in his LotR. Not that I don't also vigorously critique his LotR changes, but The Hobbit in some ways does feel more ... artificial? Can't quite put my finger on it. I enjoyed it but not with the same level of passion as LotR inspired in me - despite Freeman's Bilbo being the best hobbit characterisation!

Anticipating DoS ... well, I'm looking forward to seeing it. That's really all I can say.

Honestly I think it was the over use of CGI and the artificial sets, too much green screen IMO. I know its a standard in cinema today but in LOTR there were at least full sets in most of the shots with just certain aspects being green screened. There were just many more practical effects in LOTR that got ignored this time around for CGI and Mo-Cap. Plus it doesn't help that most of the action is larger than life and impossible in the real world. LOTR kept that to a minimum. In the Hobbit it runs rampant.

People say Aragorn going over the cliff is one such thing that proves Jackson did unrealistic stunts in LOTR but I have watched cliff diver videos on youtube where a diver rolled down the whole cliff face to hit the water and survived only bruised and battered much like Aragorn. So I don't include that scene as being OTT. But I do count scenes like Legolas shield surfing, taking down a mumakil by himself to be of a similar caliber as the majority of AUJ.

That is part of the artificial feeling of AUJ for me in comparison to LOTR...

Completely agree Freeman is the perfect Bilbo. For me I think its the little quirks of his personality that define him as the character. Even before he was ever announced to be a choice for Bilbo I thought of him. Hitchhikers guide while not being a great film was what made me think he was perfect for Bilbo

A major issue, IMO, were that some scenes were completely green-screened (and in some cases 100% digital). The environment, the bad guys, everything. There are a few shots in Goblintown that allegedly have zero live action content.

And despite what PJ might think, it shows. Glaringly.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Sorry yov. I actually responded to PtB privately (he had also written to me privately), and I had forgotten that you had also inquired in the thread. The truth is, I'm just not a movie person. The last movies that I have seen, in reverse order, are AUJ, Star Trek Into Darkness, all of the Potter films in one large batch, Avatar, Star Trek reboot, and RotK. I just don't have any interest in the subject matter of Children of Men. I'm sure it is a very good movie, but it does not appeal to me.

Meanwhile, if in fact "probably none" is the correct answer, these posts are going to be moved out of this thread.

I'm sticking to my pitch: If you like Tolkien, you'll at least appreciate Cuaron's Children of Men, if only for its moment of eucatastrophe (my favorite of Tolkien's invented words). Even if you don't ultimately enjoy it, you'll find a certain amount of value in it.

Can't wait for you to watch it, and join in the conversation!

[Beutlin]

Just passing by:

Before I begin I should probably point out that I have only seen two of his films “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Children of Men”. I have also seen “Paris, je t'aime” but I cannot remember the segment which was directed by him. I have not seen “Y Tu Mamá También” and as of now I do not know if I will see “Gravity”.

I am part of the generation that grew up with “Harry Potter”. “Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone” was probably the first “large” book I read, I guess sometime between 1998 and 1999. I still remember horribly mispronouncing the characters’ names because I did not any English at the time whatsoever. And of course, I can fondly look back at the midnight premiere of the fourth novel “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” in 2000.

When the first film was released I felt somewhat disappointed. Even back then I thought the film was too much of an orthodox adaption, often leaving the impression of a theatre adaptation of a famous novel. A couple of weeks later my dad convinced my brother and I to watch “The Fellowship of the Ring” and my enthusiasm for the “Harry Potter” pretty much died (or to say the least was greatly reduced after that.). That did not stop me from reading all the sequels and watch all the adaptions, of course. “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” did not really improve my impression of Chris Columbus either.

I really liked “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban” though. The film had a wicked sense of humour, contained more mature elements, and generally felt like it was made by a director with an unique (or at least personal) vision. It probably also helped that the film did not contain so many bad child-actor moments as the first films (Looking at you, Rupert Grint!). I also very much enjoyed seeing “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”. Newell’s instalment was probably not as enchanting as Cuarón’s “Prisoner” but it had a lot of teenage angst and a marvellous Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort.

When I first saw “Children of Men” it took me by surprise. I was merely watching TV and suddenly this dark Sci-Fi film came up. I guess I will not be the first to point out what makes this film so unique: the single-shot action sequences. I am a sucker for realistic depictions of action and violence in films, so these scenes truly got my attention.

Nevertheless I would point out that apart from the action sequences the film did not really leave a lasting impression. I thought the basic concept of the story (global human infertility) was laughable to say the least. If you want to create a realistic science-fiction film, a film with political and ethical implications, your basic concept should be, well, realistic and not another McGuffin. On top of that the film is full of in-your-face Christian symbolism (look it’s the Virgin Mary!).

I still would have liked to see him as the director of “The Hobbit”. I do not understand though how one can watch “Children of Men” and think: “You know what, that guy would be ideal for The Hobbit”, even if you liked the story.

[Dave_LF]

Well; PtB did say he thought Cuaron would be better for Rings than Hobbit, and specifically mentioned the Mordor sections. Children had a certain dreamlike quality to it that doesn't seem right for Rings (except perhaps Lórien?), but naturally the guy is capable of playing more than just one note.

Jackson's films are fun, but I would certainly appreciate seeing the stories given a more mature, artistic treatment in the future should anyone ever get the urge to try again.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I thought the basic concept of the story (global human infertility) was laughable to say the least. If you want to create a realistic science-fiction film, a film with political and ethical implications, your basic concept should be, well, realistic and not another McGuffin. On top of that the film is full of in-your-face Christian symbolism (look it’s the Virgin Mary!).

The key point is in your assumption that Cuaron wanted to create "a realistic science-fiction film." In fact, he had no such intention, and that is made clear in his commentaries. Cuaron is far more interested in myth, the archetypes that inhabit myth (Michael Cain's character is a sort of tragic Gandalf, if you will) and in thematic elements of life and lifelessness, than he is in presenting realistic speculative fiction. The film is far more fantasy than it is science fiction, IMO.

To me, the "global human infertility" thing was akin to what might have occurred had Sauron had his way - a "wraithing" of the human population. Pale people, lingering on in life, but with no hope for the future (in this case, no children). A despairing race.

It is most certainly, however, a metaphor, and not meant to present us with a possible reality.

I do not understand though how one can watch “Children of Men” and think: “You know what, that guy would be ideal for The Hobbit”, even if you liked the story.

Because, IMO, I think Cuaron has something of a Tolkienian sensibility. At least, he seems very interested in deeply exploring many of the same themes. Plus, I feel him films have a tone that is right for Middle Earth. There is a simultaneously realistic, and yet "faerie" or "dreamlike" tone to Cuaron's films, that I think is appropriate.

And he can lighten and darken far more seamlessly than PJ, IMO.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Has Cuaron ever expressed any liking at all for Tolkien's work?

[Beutlin]

The film’s main themes might be labelled mythical, but the film’s style and visuals very much evoke realism. And I think Cuarón, intelligent as he is, would agree that a film’s visuals and cinematography are more important than its story or even mythical allusions. “Children of Men” pretty much looks like the best BBC war documentary ever created. Cuarón tried to show as honestly as possible how the world would react to a sudden complete stop in human births. I would therefore argue that his approach to this basic concept was first and foremost to invoke realism. And I would also argue that most critics lauded the film because of that. The film reintroduced a sense of personal despair to the audience; compare that to so many sci-fi films that similarly are about the end of the world or humanity’s fate, but cannot offer a single memorable and meaningful scene. Just look at the recent “Total Recall” reboot for further proof. “.

And Cuarón’s approach to “Children of Men” would deeply trouble the Tolkien purists here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200702262351 ... id=1563932

Q: And you didn't read the P.D. James novel?

A: I was very clear of the movie I wanted to do. I didn't want to second-guess myself or sidetrack. So I asked [co-screenwriter] Tim Sexton to bring the book and rescue the stuff that would be relevant for the movie we were trying to do. It wasn't about, "Oh, I have this, I don't want to touch the book." No, actually, I was very keen to find whatever would help our story, as long as it was the movie I [desired to do].

[WampusCat]

It was very clear that he never read the book, just took the concept and ran with it. That was my problem with the movie, and I feel sure I would have felt the same if he had taken a similar approach to Tolkien.

[Pearly Di]

I am concluding from this discussion that Cuarón, should he ever wish to adapt a Tolkien tale, would make a highly accomplished, visually arresting and very memorable film which would work very well AS A FILM.

But he would not, necessarily, be faithful to Tolkien. He might succeed, though, simply because of what he did with Azkaban.

To sum up:

His Little Princess was ... um, OK, faithful to the spirit of Frances Hodgson Burnett's story (one I adored as a child), but a bit more saccharine and also overly politically correct. I didn't appreciate the story being moved from Edwardian London to 1900s New York, for starters.

But Jo Rowling loved it! Go figure.

His Children of Men is an amazing film. And, yes, distressing. That film presents Britain in the near future as a fascist, racist, militaristic state - a surreally over-the-top presentation but also hard to shake off. Certain nightmarish sequences in that film have stayed with me, e.g. that incredible car chase through the woods.

His Prisoner of Azkaban is very faithful to the source material (despite the shrieking of HP purists who miss the point) and a delightful film to boot.

Perhaps, though, we can finally start laying to rest the fond notion that talented directors like Del Toro and Cuarón would be more faithful to Tolkien than Peter Jackson!

This myth takes a long time a-dyin'.

[kzer_za]

I like Children of Men a lot and own the DVD, but I don't really see the connection with The Hobbit. I do think something like the city fight at the end would be a very interesting way to film the Battle of Five Armies (keep it completely focused on Bilbo's perspective), but there's nothing Tolkien about the general tone of the movie at all to me.

Maybe I should see Azkaban - do I need to watch the rest of Harry Potter to appreciate it? I enjoyed the books, but not really enough to commit to watching through eight movies!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Has Cuaron ever expressed any liking at all for Tolkien's work?

I'm not aware of him saying anything publicly about Tolkien. Honestly, I don't find that to be relevant to his suitability for adapting Tolkien's work to the screen.

Furthermore, I am sure that a Cuaron Tolkien film would be less "literally" faithful than PJ's adaptations, but far more "tonally" faithful. that's primarily because I believe Cuaron's visual and narrative aesthetic is more in line with how I feel Tolkien should be adapted.

[Passdagas the Brown]

The film’s main themes might be labelled mythical, but the film’s style and visuals very much evoke realism. And I think Cuarón, intelligent as he is, would agree that a film’s visuals and cinematography are more important than its story or even mythical allusions. “Children of Men” pretty much looks like the best BBC war documentary ever created. Cuarón tried to show as honestly as possible how the world would react to a sudden complete stop in human births. I would therefore argue that his approach to this basic concept was first and foremost to invoke realism. And I would also argue that most critics lauded the film because of that. The film reintroduced a sense of personal despair to the audience; compare that to so many sci-fi films that similarly are about the end of the world or humanity’s fate, but cannot offer a single memorable and meaningful scene. Just look at the recent “Total Recall” reboot for further proof. “.

And Cuarón’s approach to “Children of Men” would deeply trouble the Tolkien purists here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200702262351 ... id=1563932

Q: And you didn't read the P.D. James novel?

A: I was very clear of the movie I wanted to do. I didn't want to second-guess myself or sidetrack. So I asked [co-screenwriter] Tim Sexton to bring the book and rescue the stuff that would be relevant for the movie we were trying to do. It wasn't about, "Oh, I have this, I don't want to touch the book." No, actually, I was very keen to find whatever would help our story, as long as it was the movie I [desired to do].

That's not what I got from the various commentary on the film from the director and writers, so I'll have to disagree.

In nay event, I think this:

The film’s main themes might be labelled mythical, but the film’s style and visuals very much evoke realism.

Would be a highly appropriate way to adapt LOTR, at least. LOTR, though obviously mythological, has a deep sense of historical realism and verisimilitude.

And to put it bluntly, the Hobbit could have benefited greatly from a sense of "physical realism," at the least. The excess CGI, and consequenceless action (Goblintown being the main offender) hurt the film greatly for me.

In summary, Cuaron has great range. He would probably have chopped up LOTR and the Hobbit a bit more than PJ, but I strongly believe he would have done a better job of capturing their spirit.

Call me a "tone" purist, rather than a literal one.

[sauronsfinger]

Having been a student of movies for well over fifty years now, it is obvious that there is no single director who has the entire package and is without fault. Every great director - and in that group I would include Griffith, Eisenstein, Ford, Capra, Wyler, Lean, Spielberg, Scorsese and Eastwood... all have their strengths and their weaknesses.

One does not get the softer human touches of a Frank Capra and at the same time get the hard gritty reality of a Scorsese or Eisenstein.

The same is true of Jackson in the Middle-earth films. What he does really well is in capturing the epic sweep of the tale and the look and feel of a real place that you can actually believe in because it is so multi-layered and detailed. It looks more real than real life normally does. He brings Middle-earth to life and makes it real.

Yes - he has weaknesses - my personal peeve being the tendency to appeal to the 12 year old boy in inane humor and sometimes characterization - the Great Goblin comes to mind as does Radagast - but I accept that as his quirk in order to feast upon the rest.