It would be interesting to see Cuaron's take on it for sure, but I don't believe he would have included any more exposition or memories about Tom Riddle than Yates did. Cuaron uses exposition sparingly in his films and often conveys things visually, which Yates actually did a few times with the exposition, especially concerning Draco's mission in the film. I really don't think the script would have changed much if Cuaron had directed it, but visually I am sure he would have put his stamp on it.
Did you know that Cuaron has praised Yates' direction on Potter? If I recall the interview I read correctly, he said Yates' films had a "quiet poetry" about them which he liked, and he was jealous at his vision of the dementors and their smoke effects (I think he meant the death eaters).
reply
share
benelli86
8 years ago
No, I didn't know that. It actually surprises me.
The third movie has always been my favorite. I always hoped that Cuaron would return to the franchise. I never understood why they didn't have other directors after Yates, especially after the weak fifth movie. Sure, it made a lot of money, but I thought it was the weakest one.
Yates is the main reason why my expectations for the Newt Scamander's movies aren't very high. I really hope he isn't going to direct all 5. I know he has already confirmed that he's also doing the second movie and I was expecting him to do the entire trilogy, but now that it has been announced that there are going to be five movies, I'm hoping that he stops after the second one.
reply
share
TheBigYawn
8 years ago
I agree about OotP. I think Goldenberg's involvement contributed to its mediocrity considering I really enjoyed Yates' other movies which Kloves penned. Yates' direction also feels far more assured in the last three. I know some find his style dreary or sterile or whatever, but personally I like his clean aesthetics. In some ways it feels a bit Kubrick-esque to me.
That said, 9 Yates directed Potter movies is too much. I hope he leaves after the second to give other talented directors a chance to bring their vision to the table. I doubt Cuaron will return, but he would be the perfect director for this. PoA has always been my favourite film in the series.
reply
share
themodmazza
8 years ago
I definitely agree that the script for OotP was the problem with that film. No director could have made it work.
reply
share
TheBigYawn
8 years ago
Its only saving grace was ultimately some great casting choices. Imelda Staunton carries most of the film and makes it mildly engaging to watch despite being a mediocre film
reply
share
themodmazza
8 years ago
I think part of what Imelda Stuanton so good, was those horrendous pink costumes.
reply
share
TheBigYawn
8 years ago
Yeah, the costumes and production values were topnotch as always.
reply
share
Troyal1
8 years ago
The 3 hour cut might have worked.
IMO HBP is the worst out of all them.
reply
share
TheBigYawn
8 years ago
Is that 3 hour rumour true though? If so it seems stupid to write such a lengthy script to begin with knowing WB would never allow a 3 hours Potter film. Goldenberg needed to find a better rhythm. He could have started the film in the court room for example and used exposition to convey the dementor attack. Or intercut the scene with flashbacks of the dementors to show how Harry is telling the truth. The first 15 minutes are a waste of screentime as is considering the story really picks up when Harry is being questioned at the ministry. Then you could cut to Harry walking through the Ministry of magic to establish the setting, cut to mr. Weasley picking him up there and taking him to the headquarters. Sirius would be re-established in the next scene and Harry meets Hermione and Ron. It's just more economical storytelling in my opinion.
reply
share
AlpenglowMemories
8 years ago
There was an old Slant article saying WB didn't want any of their upcoming movies to be too long after a three-hour one flopped, and OOTP was said to be one of those films. Another had a quote from Yates saying he had a three hour cut of OOTP which he was going to cut about 40 minutes from. But he's also said this:
"Look, I'd put everything in if I had the time and the money, but I don't. I have to serve the form I'm working in—a two or two-and-a-half-hour film. You have to serve that shape, that rhythm, that pace. You want to retain the tonality of what's in the book; that's incredibly important because that's why these stories are so popular. But at the end of the day, you can't second-guess what everyone else wants. You'd drive yourself mad. So I find things that I respond to in the material and pursue that. In Order of the Phoenix it was Harry's isolation and anger. I stripped out all those lovely subplots down to a clear through line; you could follow his story and feel for him. In Half-Blood I adored the sexual and emotional politics. But it's obviously a job where you're going to get kicked. I can deal with that."
So who knows?
reply
share