So What Do Think A Stanley Kubrick Produced and Directed LOTR Trilogy Would Have Been Like?

B

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
24,511
In 1969 the Beatles approach Stanley Kubrick about producing a LO+TR film but he declined . Now, in the is scenario where doesn't bother with Eyes Wide Shut or AI and doesn't die of a heart Attack inage 70 in 1999 but lives , takes on the LOTR trilogy instead of Peter Jackson . How different would his version have likely been from Jackson . What do you think a Stanley Kubrick interpretation of Tolkien Trilogy would have been like ?


Thoughts ? :)
 
I think tonally it would have been much darker and without the jokes.
But I'm guessing that Kubrick would have included Tom Bombadil.
And it would have taken 15 years to film.
 
Taking his version of The Shining as a benchmark, I think he would have significantly streamlined the story LOTR. I agree it would have been much darker. Cinematically, it would probably have been a technical triumph but the changes and significant pruning of the story would have upset most fans of the trilogy. It might have been condensed into one movie rather than a trilogy because I don't see Kubrick as the type to commit himself to multiple movies. In fact, I can't remember him ever making a sequel to one of his movies.
 
To be fair, Two Towers and Return aren't sequels, but part of the same single story.

Although, I agree that it is highly unlikely that he would have been persuaded to turn it into three movies. The Hobbit would definitely have only been one.

As for what they would look like? Aesthetically different to Jackson, but closer to Tolkien's intention. As mentioned, much darker, with far more threat from the Black Riders, orcs and other fell beasts.

Whilst Jackson's cinematography perfectly captured the places of Middle-earth, there was far more humour and far less threat than there was in the book.

Also, the whole thing would have been shot in the UK.


To be honest, I would like to have seen a Terry Gilliam LOTR - now that would have been a spectacle to see.
 
"You've... always been the ringbearer, Mr Frodo."

and of course

"Here's Smeagol!"
 
paranoid marvin said:
To be fair, Two Towers and Return aren't sequels, but part of the same single story.

Although, I agree that it is highly unlikely that he would have been persuaded to turn it into three movies. The Hobbit would definitely have only been one.

As for what they would look like? Aesthetically different to Jackson, but closer to Tolkien's intention. As mentioned, much darker, with far more threat from the Black Riders, orcs and other fell beasts.

Whilst Jackson's cinematography perfectly captured the places of Middle-earth, there was far more humour and far less threat than there was in the book.

Also, the whole thing would have been shot in the UK.


To be honest, I would like to have seen a Terry Gilliam LOTR - now that would have been a spectacle to see.
Click to expand...

What I think best describes Kubrick's film making is epic, visually stunning and joylessly dark. I think he would taken LOTR and removed everything that made it worthwhile. What he would he put in its place would have not worth watching.
 
Last edited:
CupofJoe said:
I think tonally it would have been much darker and without the jokes.
But I'm guessing that Kubrick would have included Tom Bombadil.
And it would have taken 15 years to film.
Click to expand...

Yes because Kubrick was very fond of excessive numbers of retakes. :)
 
Last edited:
KGeo777 said:
Dr. Gollum: Or How I learned to stop worrying and love the One Ring.
Click to expand...

Hm, I wonder what LOTR would have looked like if Francis Ford Coppola had directed it. :) He probably, have casted Sonia Coppola as Arwen and Marlon Brando as as Saruman. God , I can just seing the Nazgûl on dragons attacking Gondor to the music of Wagner Ride of Valkyries.:unsure::eek:
 
A cross between Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal? I think it would have been a tough ask and incredibly expensive - and likely nowhere near as popular at the box office.

All things considered, I think we were quite fortunate to get a version as good as Jackson's. It's not perfect, has a few annoying omissions and is far too liberal with Tolkien's vision at times. It also misses out the Scourging, which defeats the whole object of the story. But it at least keeps to the spirit of the story, and has some wonderful cinematography.

I think that at some point we will see a new animated version, but - in this case - there will never be anything to compare with the written word, and that is perhaps for the best.
 
paranoid marvin said:
A cross between Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal? I think it would have been a tough ask and incredibly expensive - and likely nowhere near as popular at the box office.

All things considered, I think we were quite fortunate to get a version as good as Jackson's. It's not perfect, has a few annoying omissions and is far too liberal with Tolkien's vision at times. It also misses out the Scourging, which defeats the whole object of the story. But it at least keeps to the spirit of the story, and has some wonderful cinematography.

I think that at some point we will see a new animated version, but - in this case - there will never be anything to compare with the written word, and that is perhaps for the best.
Click to expand...

II remember the first time I was a movie preview for LOTR. I was surprised because I'd had no idea that it was coming to the big screen.
 
I don't see why Kubrick couldn't have made a good film of LOTR, although it might not have been the adaptation that fans wanted (could anyone actually do that?). Before LOTR, Peter Jackson had made a lot of horror-comedy, some coarse slapstick and one very good but strange film, Heavenly Creatures. It's not exactly an obvious path to directing Tolkien. Kubrick was very respected and more traditional.

Kubrick's films do contain some humour, but it's often dark and incidental. I think he would have found the sentimentality of LOTR offputting: I doubt that he could have made the Shire very convincing. There's very little whimsy in his work, even in the fantastical stuff.
 
I wonder who would have made a really good adaptation of LOTR, apart from Jackson? I reckon John Boorman might have been good, on the basis of Excalibur. Perhaps Powell and Pressburger or Cavalcanti might have worked: both A Canterbury Tale and Went The Day Well? have a good feeling for the countryside, although the results would probably look quite dated now.
 
I speculate how Italy would have done it. They often had dwarves as comedy relief in things like peplum movies so I imagine they would shift the emphasis to human characters and reduce the hobbits' role.
And the Shire would look suspiciously like Italian forests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Looking for a good Pulp story or novel by Walter B.Gibson ,Earl Stanley Gardner and HP Lovecraft. Book Discussion 13
Vertigo Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson Reviews & Interviews 4
R Stanley G Weinbaum and "Shirt-Sleeved Solar Systems" SFF Lounge 2
MattyB Stanley Kubrick RIP Obituaries 13
GOLLUM Main Stanley Kubrick Exhibition - Melbourne Conventions and Events 2

Similar threads


Back
Top