MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[Sauron the White]

Recently, I started another thread, Lawrence of Middle-earth. In it I quoted from Wikipedia on all of the changes that were made when doing the much loved film LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. I believe it helps put the lie to the complaint heard here far too often that "the LOTR movies were not faithful to the books and thus were not very good". For some reason, few people cared to post.

My point is that a good film is not dependent on a faithful adaption from its source. It mattters not and is no real consequence.

I picked LAWRENCE because it is generally heralded as one of the great films of all time. Now, here is yet another. In 1939, MGM gave us THE WIZARD OF OZ. It is based on the book by L. Frank Baum. The film is both highly thought of by the experts (see AFI Top 100 Films of All Time) and the public who have loved it for decades now. However, it was not anything approaching a faithful adaption from its source material.

Here is the information from Wikipedia:

Differences from the original novel
Main article: The Wizard of Oz book to film comparison
The film expands the Kansas section, creating several characters (the farmhands, Miss Gulch, and Professor Marvel) that do not appear in the book. It also interprets the Oz experience as a dream, in which many of the characters that Dorothy meets represent the people from her home life. By contrast, in the book, her adventures in Oz are unambiguously meant to be real.

Nearly all of the Kansas characters have matching counterparts in Oz, and therefore most of the cast playing characters in Kansas play matching characters in Oz. Frank Morgan plays Professor Marvel, the Wizard, and several other people in the land of Oz. Margaret Hamilton plays both Miss Gulch and The Witch of The West (and The Witch of the East, a "cameo" part). Ray Bolger plays Hunk and The Scarecrow. Jack Haley plays Hickory and The Tin Man while Bert Lahr plays Zeke and The Lion.

Though the final film was far more faithful to Baum's original book than many earlier scripts (see below), the movie still had several notable differences. Due to time restraints a number of sub-plots from the book were cut. In the original, Dorothy and friends encounter a "Dainty China Country" where everyone is made of china, fight a gang of odd-looking "Hammer-heads," vicious half-tiger half-bear "Kalidahs" (who are referenced in the film in passing by the Scarecrow), and liberate an animal village from the rule of an evil spider king. None of these episodes appear in the movie, though the china country was invoked in the design of the Emerald City.

Likewise, some characters were merged or simplified for the purposes of the movie's plot. The film's character of Glinda is actually a composite of two book characters, the (nameless) Good Witch of the North and Glinda, the Good Witch of the South, who does not appear in the novel until the very end, and Burke's performance is a combination of the grandmotherly, less powerful Witch of the North and the young-seeming, wise, powerful, and dignified Glinda. In the novel, the Wizard likewise takes on various forms to fool and terrify Dorothy and friends – giant head, winged lady, terrible beast, and ball of fire - but in the film, he only takes the form of the giant head combined with the fire aspect. However, a moment edited out of the film, in which the Carriage Driver at the Emerald City reversed his moustache to become the Guard, implied that the Doorkeeper, the Carriage Driver, and the Guard at the Emerald City were all actually the Wizard in disguise. This implication is given credibility in the film by having all four characters played by Frank Morgan.

In the novel, the Emerald City was a trick created by the Wizard in order to inspire fear and respect - everybody in the city had to wear glasses with green glass which tricked them into believing that the Wizard had turned the city green. In the movie, the city really was green, and nobody needed to wear any glasses.

In contrast, Dorothy's family is given a much larger role in the film than in the novel.

A notable visual change made to the film was the changing of Dorothy's silver shoes to ruby slippers, to make them visually dazzling against the yellow brick road on the Technicolor screens.[3] Baum's original world was made dramatically more colorful overall; in his original story the different areas of Oz only had one color each, with the Munchkin country being entirely blue and the City of Emeralds being entirely green.

The Wicked Witch of the West was much more cowardly in the novel, afraid of the dark, never left her castle, and carried an umbrella rather than a broom, for water would cause her to melt. The witch's skin was pale from lack of blood, but not green. She was also missing an eye, covered with a patch, with the other described "as powerful as a telescope". Her presumably blond hair (based on the original illustrations) was tied in three pigtails.

Perhaps the most severe change is that of Dorothy becoming a damsel in distress figure needing to be rescued by her male friends. In the novel, Dorothy administers the rescue of her friends after she has dispatched the witch. Her behavior toward the witch in the novel is much more aggressive; in the novel, the Silver Shoes can be taken off with no harm, and the witch trips Dorothy in order to be able to do this. Outraged, Dorothy deliberately douses her with the bucket of water, though still unaware that this will cause the Witch to melt.

The famous line that Dorothy repeats in the movie that sends her back to Kansas occurs rather early in the novel. When she is getting acquainted with the Scarecrow, Dorothy explains that she would rather live in Kansas than the Land of Oz because, “There is no place like home.” The line does not recur in the novel.

The final words of the Wicked Witch of the West were also modified. In the movie, the Witch repeats, “Ohhh, look out! Look out! I'm going!” and then a final "Ohhhh....", which fades out. In the novel, her final words are “Look out – here I go!”

There were also some other changes that served to keep the movie flowing. In the novel, it took Dorothy five nights and six days before finally reaching the Emerald City. After reaching the city, it took Dorothy and her friends an additional four days to plead their cases before the Wizard and then they spent one more night before setting out to kill the Wicked Witch of the West. Thus, Dorothy was in her eleventh day in Oz before setting out to kill the Witch. Then, after the Winged Monkeys brought Dorothy to the Witch, Dorothy spent several more days as the Witch’s servant before she was actually able to kill her with the water. In the movie, it is never actually stated how long it takes Dorothy and her friends to reach the Emerald City, nor how long it takes them to get to the Witch's castle. The only reference to the amount of time Dorothy has spent in Oz is at the end, when Dorothy exclaims, "But that's just the trouble Uncle Henry, I did leave you! And I tried to get back for days and days!", to which Aunt Em responds, "There, there , lie quite now. You've just had a bad dream".

------------------------------------------------------------------

Combine this with the lesson of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. A great film does not have to be slavishly faithful to its source material to work on screen and be embraced and loved by the public. Faithfulness means little compared to all of the other things that truly determine the success of a film.

[Finduilas]

As I once saw someone put it...

There is a reason that the Lord of the Rings has been hailed by some as the greatest work of fiction of the last century. There is a reason why it is loved by millions of avid fans world wide. Clearly, Tolkien's story carries it's own weight.

Was Wizard of Oz ever the greatest work of fiction of any century? And Lawrence? I personally hadn't heard of it. And I didn't know that Wizard of Oz was a book untill just a few years ago. What does that tell you?

Okay, so this post is a bit sarcastic, but considering how little I've said lately on this part of the forums I feel I have a small right to be sarcastic.

STW, PJ's lotr made a lot of money. Tons of money. Millions of people like it. Would they have liked it less if PJ had stuck more to the books? I am reasonably sure that 50% of the people on this forum who pick on it so much, would pick on it a ton less if little things had been book worthy. Why did Minas Tirith crumble so easily? Why were the women and children still in Minas Tirith? Why did Denethor run from his death? Why did Theoden flee to Helms Deep? Why did Arwen go instead of Glorfindel? Why did Frodo send Sam away? Why did... Okay, I've ranted long enough.

Don't you see? If PJ had changed less, we would be more forgiving. At least, I would be.

[Sauron the White]

from Findulias

Was Wizard of Oz ever the greatest work of fiction of any century? And Lawrence? I personally hadn't heard of it. And I didn't know that Wizard of Oz was a book untill just a few years ago. What does that tell you?

Oz was a very loved and successful series of books that were very well known before the film was put to screen. As far as the "greatest" who knows and who can say? Not I. What does it tell me that you did not even know Oz was a book until recently? Just that, like all of us including myself, we all have a great deal to learn.

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Oz was a very loved and successful series of books that were very well known before the film was put to screen. As far as the "greatest" who knows and who can say? Not I.

I've read The Wizard of Oz. I personally prefered the book to the movie, but then, there are very few book/movie combinations that I couldn't say that about. Reason I don't complain is, why should I? No one is telling me that who ever made the movie had a right to do what ever he pleased. No one is trying to tell me it couldn't have been better. And, Wizard of Oz isn't among my top ten favorite books. Why? It wasn't that great.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

What does it tell me that you did not even know Oz was a book until recently? Just that, like all of us including myself, we all have a great deal to learn.

I just hope LOTR won't end up like that

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I guess I better post in here. . .simply out of fear of which movie STW will chose as an example next time if we do not reply.

Anyways I doubt many people would disagree with you when you say that it is possible to make a good movie that is based on, but not faithfull to a book.

I like LotR movies as they are great intertainment and at times it does take me to that magical universe that Tolkien created, but as a LotR fan I am not pleased with all the changes.

Lets say for an example that I thought that Troy was a fab movie that I absolutely loved and at the same time I was a fan of the Iliad, then I would not put Troy on to watch the Iliad as it is simply not faithfull enough.

What I am trying to say is that there is two sides too this. . .a movie can be a good movie without being a good adaption of the books and as Tolkien fans what most of us wanted when we went to see LotR was a good adaption. I

[Finduilas]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I just hope LOTR won't end up like that

Not with my kids.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I believe it helps put the lie to the complaint heard here far too often that "the LOTR movies were not faithful to the books and thus were not very good". For some reason, few people cared to post.

.

Ok - who has said, on this forum or anywhere else, that the LotR movies are not very good because they were not faithful to the books? I thought they were ok. There were bits that I found quite impressive - especially on a first viewing. Unfortunately there were also bits that I found annoying, unnecessary & pointless. Now I can't summon up the energy to even care about them. If other people feel differently I don't have any problem with that.

Yes, books & films are different things. Yes, even the most faithful adaptation will inevitably change some things. No-one has ever said any different.

Perhaps the reason so few people cared to post is that the discussion has been had so often on here that no-one has anything to say that they haven't already said three dozen times.....

[skip spence]

You started a thread recently that few people bothered to post on. Dissapointed that few people posted on that thread you then decide to start a new thread just like the previous one, with exactly the same message.

Why?

[Sauron the White]

davem... I was paraphrasing the objections to the films. However, the idea has been expressed here many times that as adaptations, the films were not very faithful - or faithful enough in some eyes - and that is the standard that renders the films not very good in the eyes of some. I will search some past threads to find that for you.

You do not have to go very far to find people evaluating things on the basis of FAITHFULNESS. Here is something written by a rather intelligent and informed member of this board who is praising a different adaption and pointing it out its faithfulness. Apparently, being faithful to the text was something important to this poster and influenced thier high opinion.

And that's the point I'd emphasise - it is possible to produce a brilliant, beautiful, powerful & faithful adaptation of LotR. Its just that PJ didn't manage to do it, whereas Sibley, Bakewell & the BBC did.

This was from the thread - Greatest Sin of Peter Jacksons . In fact, this poster felt that the word FAITHFUL was so important, more so than the other qualities that they cited that they took the trouble to highlight in bold red coloring. Obviously, faithfulness, was rather important to them and how they evaluated adaptions of JRRT into other mediums.

There was an entire thread devoting to complaining how the movies should have been more faithful to the books where posters voiced their opinion on this very subject.

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=14331

Why Cant Movies be like books? I believe that was the thread title. The presumption being that the simple act of being more like the book somehow, someway would have made the films better just for that one reason. I do not make up this stuff.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Recently, I started another thread, Lawrence of Middle-earth. In it I quoted from Wikipedia on all of the changes that were made when doing the much loved film LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. I believe it helps put the lie to the complaint heard here far too often that "the LOTR movies were not faithful to the books and thus were not very good". For some reason, few people cared to post.

My point is that a good film is not dependent on a faithful adaption from its source. It mattters not and is no real consequence.

I picked LAWRENCE because it is generally heralded as one of the great films of all time. Now, here is yet another. In 1939, MGM gave us THE WIZARD OF OZ. It is based on the book by L. Frank Baum. The film is both highly thought of by the experts (see AFI Top 100 Films of All Time) and the public who have loved it for decades now. However, it was not anything approaching a faithful adaption from its source material.

. . .

Combine this with the lesson of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. A great film does not have to be slavishly faithful to its source material to work on screen and be embraced and loved by the public. Faithfulness means little compared to all of the other things that truly determine the success of a film.

I for one don't recall seeing the Lawrence of Middle earth thread, so it must have been posted on one of the many days that I was too busy in RL to check out the Downs and I'm such a slouch that I don't actively search all the new stuff when I return. Aren't you all lucky that I didn't take up that gauntlet.

But in honour of this new testament to your stalwart efforts to defend the films (and I mean that as a positive acknowledgement of your persistence), StW, let me take some time off on this holiday and holy day to provide some thoughts about your dismissal of faithfulness as the significant attribute about movie adaptations of books.

I do so by offerring another example of an adaptation, an example which I hope Rune will forgive: The English Patient. I do so because Ondaatje does what Tolkien does (despite the obvious differences between writers); both give us exquisite visual images and complex themes within chronological leaps.

Many, many people thought Michael Ondaatje's novel of the same name could never be filmed. Yet Anthony Minghella accomplished the near-impossible. He did so with many changes, omissions, distortions, but he did so in order to create a cinematic experience that was faithful to the readerly experience.

And rather than follow my own rambling ideas how this is possible, I'm going to quote from a variety of sources which explore, each in its own way, this tantalizing oxymoron of faithful difference.

First, here's a snippet of what the Director said about his purpose:

Originally Posted by Minghella

In a 1996 interview with The Associated Press, Minghella said the film was the pinnacle of his career at the time: “I feel more naked and more exposed by this piece of work than anything I've ever been involved with.”

He said too many modern films let the audience be passive, as if they were saying, “We're going to rock you and thrill you. We'll do everything for you.”

“This film goes absolutely against that grain,” he said. “It says, ‘I'm sorry, but you're going to have to make some connections. There are some puzzles here. The story will constantly rethread itself and it will be elliptical, but there are enormous rewards in that.”'

Interesting there that Minghella rejects the blockbuster action flick mode in favour of demanding more complex cinematic experience.

Then this bit from Spliced: The Patience of making "The English Patient"

Ondaatje's book has almost a religious following and adapting it to film was an exacting process, Minghella said. Staying true to the book was important, yet the medium of film demands such a vastly different approach.

"It's a book that is so complicated, so fragmented, so persistently narrative and so beautiful that I think a lot of people thought I was bombing to even try to do it. But I just had such a dream of what the film could be like."

His dream has been met with a very positive response from critics and from the author, who was so taken with the film that he accompanied Minghella, Zaentz and some of the actors to the press junket in San Francisco.

Staying true to the book was something always in Minghella's mind, if not to the outright details, to the core experience of the novel.

Ondaatje has some very interesting things to say about the adaptation in this Salon interview: Ondaatje on image and plot.

And, finally, let me quote from an Obituary notice on Minghella. This is from The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, March 19, 2008. I'm not sure this is in any online version.

Originally Posted by Ben Child, "His Oscar for The English Patient brought unaccustomed acclaim"

The project began to take shape even as Mr. Minghella picked up the book for the first time. He read it in one sitting. 'When I put the book down,' he later wrote, 'it was dark, and I had no idea where I was.'

It was the beginning [of] a long and twisting journey. 'I began working on this film because I'd loved a novel I'd read,' he said. [b]'My ambitions didn't go much beyond that. I just wanted to live inside a world I'd inhabited as a reader[/b.]' [my bolding]

. . .

The script, however, was a conscious departure from the novel. Given the book's non-linear plot, Mr. Minghella realized he could never write a traditional three-act film. Instead, he took the novel's basic conceit of four strangers converging on a Tuscan villa in the waning days of the Second World War, and emphasized the story's two main love stories. In the process, Mr. Ondaatje's story was given greater structure and a firmer chronology. While Mr. Minghella was responsible for plucking out the cinematic heart of an impressionistic, non-linear novel, he said Mr. Ondaatje was an indispensable navigator.

. . .

The result, wrote Rock Groen in The Globe, was an almost perfect model for adapting a high-brow book to the commercial screen. 'In whisking Michael Ondaatje's stylish prose off the page and putting it in front of the camera, the picture does for its literary source what few adaptations have--not only straightening the narrative twists into a more accessible line, but actually clarifying the most significant of the novel's recurring images and complex themes.'

There I think we have operational explanations of what faithfulness means. Jackson didn't make Tolkien more meaningful and understandable, he made him more like George Lucas. That's probably faithful to Jackson's own imagination, but it ain't faithful to that core experience Minghella described, of "wanting to live inside a world I'd inhabited as a reader."

[Sauron the White]

Bethberry - I underestand your post about the ENGLISH PATIENT and the thoughts of the director. I accept that without dispute. J.K. Rowling apparently feels that the POTTER films are faithful to her books, after all she has a role in the process and continues to do film after film and seems quite happy about it. So, yes, it can be done.

It is not my contention or position that you cannot make a movie that is more or less reasonably faithful to its source material. My point is that it is irrevelvant and means nothing to the success or quality of the film as both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ show. And I would add the LOTR films to those. Further, it is irrelevant and silly to judge the quality of a film by some imiganary scale of "faithfulness" since the rest of the world cares little about it since it matters not to the final quality of the film.

I am sorry but I cannot due your post justice because I have not read or seen THE ENGLISH PATIENT. I have seen brief snippets of it on cable and - no offense to you - I did not like what I saw very much, and was not inspired to invest any time in it. The infamous SEINFELD episode where Elaine Benis, bored to distraction, screams at the theater crowd watching the film "how can you people watch this stuff" comes to mind. But to each their own.

So please do not take my refusal to join in a discussion of TEP as a sign of disrespect to you or your post. I simply have no idea about it. And it does nothing to impact the point of my post either way.

You did say this in closing

Jackson didn't make Tolkien more meaningful and understandable, he made him more like George Lucas.

I see very little in common with Jackson and George Lucas. Lucas clearly cannot direct human beings in any sort of personal interaction and emotional exchange. He has made one good film that does that - AMERICAN GRAFFITI - and the rest are comic books come to life. (THX had some moments) Jackson goes far beyond that and I think that is one reason why he was rewarded with the Oscar while Lucas has only the rewards of the bank account.

[Nerwen]

Hmmn. Two things: I should say Lucas has been a strong influence on Jackson. When I saw the theatrical release of The Fellowship of the Ring, I was strongly reminded of Star Wars –which I like, so I don't mean that as an insult.

I wouldn't call subtlety the strong point of either. I thought Jackson's films were very good overall– arguably the best fantasy films ever made– but now that you mention it, the characterizations are done in broader strokes than in the original, and I think that does contribute to a Star Wars-esque comic book feel.

But look, StW, you've made this films-and-books-are-different-mediums argument over and over... and to be brutally frank, I think you're using a bit of a "straw-man" tactic– is anyone saying that an adaptation has to be identical to the source?

What people are saying is that they would have preferred Jackson to stick closer to the original story. Some think this would have actually made the films better– others would have liked them to be more faithful anyway. Like it or not, fidelity to the original is something people tend to want in adaptations. It's not unique to this forum.

[Sauron the White]

Nerwen - of course nobody has used the term IDENTICAL. But the idea of a far more faithful adaption has been brought up many times as I hve indicated in quotes and thread links in my post above.

The problem with that is simple. How do you measure such things? Is there a objective scale of agreed upon measurement which pronounces the purity of such changes from one medium to another? Of course not. In the end, this reality will always permit complaining, carping and fault finding with any adaption in the minds of some viewers.

My point is that there is no relationship at all between faithfulness and film quality. So to use faithfulness as a criteria in judgement as to if a film is good or not is fundamentally flawed and unfair. Judge the films as films. There is plenty to praise and also to find fault with just on that basis alone. Judge something by what it is - not what it is not.

Like it or not, fidelity to the original is something people tend to want in adaptations. It's not unique to this forum.

Of course that is true. But it is a demand that cannot be ever measured or clearly identified one way or the other. Its merely another excuse to keep complaining about something which can never be proven or quantified or measured. A book and a film are two different things. Accept that and then judge something on the basis of what it is - not what it is not.

In the end, faithfulness means little or nothing regarding the success, quality or public acceptance of a film. WIZARD OF OZ shows that. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA shows that. The three LOTR films show that.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It is not my contention or position that you cannot make a movie that is more or less reasonably faithful to its source material. My point is that it is irrevelvant and means nothing to the success or quality of the film as both LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ show. And I would add the LOTR films to those. Further, it is irrelevant and silly to judge the quality of a film by some imiganary scale of "faithfulness" since the rest of the world cares little about it since it matters not to the final quality of the film.

If it is irrelevant, then why do directors and producers (and authors when they are still alive and working with the directors) discuss faithfulness and proclaim it as something they desired to acheive, even with, as The English Patient shows, many changes are essential? Why did Jackson and his writers loudly claim they were being respectful of and faithful to Jackson? Why bother if it is irrelevant?

Further more, there is no evidence that "the rest of the world cares little about it". While many viewers might not have read the original works and might not be aware of the changes, it is entirely possible that "the cinematic heart" is what beats in the two and what makes both so appealing to readers/viewers.

Originally Posted by StW

I am sorry but I cannot due your post justice because I have not read or seen THE ENGLISH PATIENT. I have seen brief snippets of it on cable and - no offense to you - I did not like what I saw very much, and was not inspired to invest any time in it. The infamous SEINFELD episode where Elaine Benis, bored to distraction, screams at the theater crowd watching the film "how can you people watch this stuff" comes to mind. But to each their own.

I haven't seen the film either. Seeing it is irrelevant to the point that in a context where major changes were deemed essential, both director and author strove to explain how those changes were made to accommodate the differences between book and film yet at the same time they sought to be "faithful" to an essential book experience.

Side note to Rune: Your example of Troy brings up the excellent point of translation. Whether from Greek to English or book to film, what is involved is the art and skill of interpreting or translating.

Originally Posted by StW

Jackson goes far beyond that and I think that is one reason why he was rewarded with the Oscar while Lucas has only the rewards of the bank account.

I suppose you have access to the thoughts of the Academy voters?

Originally Posted by StW

The problem with that is simple. How do you measure such things? Is there a objective scale of agreed upon measurement which pronounces the purity of such changes from one medium to another? Of course not. In the end, this reality will always permit complaining, carping and fault finding with any adaption in the minds of some viewers.

It is really a red herring to say that adaptation cannot be measured and so to claim that adaptation cannot be discussed or is not relevant. Art is not measurable on any absolute scale and the reason why people create and have and enjoy art is very different from the reasons why they explore science and philosophy and management accounting. Each book and each movie is unique and every experience of adaptation will have to be accommodated to that uniqueness. Might as well ask Minghella to explain what "cinematic heart" is.

What it comes down to it the right of any viewer/reader to have opinions and feelings about a movie or a book, whether those statements are unique and personal or whether they reflect some large commonality with other viewers. That's why people discuss art, for the sake of discussion, to carry on the initial experience, to understand the initial experience, to boldly take that experience where it has not gone before.

[Sauron the White]

from Bethberry

why do directors and producers (and authors when they are still alive and working with the directors) discuss faithfulness and proclaim it as something they desired to acheive, even with, as The English Patient shows, many changes are essential? Why did Jackson and his writers loudly claim they were being respectful of and faithful to Jackson? Why bother if it is irrelevant?

It may have significance to the creative team behind the movies and an aid in making the movie, although I think much of it is lip service and political correctness to those close to the source material. After all, do you think anybody is going to buy a property and then announce to the world that they intend to change almost everything and they care nothing about the original source? To some extent, this type of public bowing down before the source is like saying "I'll call you" after your business is done with that evenings hot date.

But you miss the point. I have repeatedly stated that how faithful a film is to its original source material is irrelevant to the quality or success of the movie. It means nothing or little. How do we know that and how can I state that so emphatically? I have provided you with links to two of the most successful and beloved films of all time - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ. Both are on many experts all time best list and the prestigious American Film Institute ranks both in its Top Ten of All Time. If you carefully read the Wikipedia articles for both you will see that both films deviated greatly from the source material and were not slavishly faithful to it. The job of both Victor Flemming and David Lean was to make a movie that was as good as they could make it. They did that. That is not my opinion. That is the test of time since both movies have been around and beloved for decades now.

If those examples are not enough for you, just look at the success of the LOTR movies as measured by the standard industry measurement tools, a) box office revenues, b) response of professional film critics, and c) industry awards of excellence. That is how the world and the film industry keeps score of a films success. Nobody uses a scale of faithfulness to the source material.

When I mentioned Jackson winning Oscars for his directorial efforts while Lucas was neglected you wrote

I suppose you have access to the thoughts of the Academy voters?

I do not have to read anyones minds or thoughts. All I have to do is the same as you or anyone else. Simply check the results of their ballotting where they did make their thoughts clear to the world. Motivation means little next to results and the historical record. And that record is quite clear for anyone to see. You can access the official website - or hundreds of others to get Oscar results.

What it comes down to it the right of any viewer/reader to have opinions and feelings about a movie or a book, whether those statements are unique and personal or whether they reflect some large commonality with other viewers. That's why people discuss art, for the sake of discussion, to carry on the initial experience, to understand the initial experience, to boldly take that experience where it has not gone before.

I mostly agree with this statement. Anyone can have any subjective opinion they want to regardless of what it is based on or if it is logical or if it makes any sense compared to objective facts. I never said otherwise. My point is that to first invent a standard which is irrelevant to the way a film is measured, and then applying that standard to something, and pronouncing it wanting for those reasons, is meaningless to anyone other than yourself. It would be prudent to not try to foist it off on the world and claim its significant because the world has spoken loudly and clearly that they simply do not care. The standard which means so much to some, the standard which is impossible to quantify or measure, means next to nothing to the rest of the world.

How do I know that?

The historical record tells me that loudly and clearly in film after film. There is absolutely no relationship between a films success or quality and the faithfulness of the film to its original source material. If there is a relationship, I would love to see evidence of that. I have provided all here with the contrary evidence and used two of the best beloved and critically praised films of all time to illustrate my points.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It may have significance to the creative team behind the movies and an aid in making the movie, although I think much of it is lip service and political correctness to those close to the source material. After all, do you think anybody is going to buy a property and then announce to the world that they intend to change almost everything and they care nothing about the original source? To some extent, this type of public bowing down before the source is like saying "I'll call you" after your business is done with that evenings hot date.

This of course is not evidence in support of your claim but a strawman--er, straw-woman?--arguement. It speaks more to your rhetoric than to the actual topic under discussion.

Originally Posted by StW

But you miss the point.

No. I just don't accept it.

Originally Posted by StW

I have provided you with links to two of the most successful and beloved films of all time - LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and WIZARD OF OZ . . . .

If those examples are not enough for you, just look at the success of the LOTR

Two or three examples do not a hardfast rule make. And, anyway, LoA and WoO demonstrate what Minghella called "cinematic heart".

Originally Posted by StW

Nobody uses a scale of faithfulness to the source material.

It's you who miss the point here, that objective scales are not of major importance in discussing art.

When I mentioned Jackson winning Oscars for his directorial efforts while Lucas was neglected . . .
I do not have to read anyones minds or thoughts. All I have to do is the same as you or anyone else. Simply check the results of their ballotting where they did make their thoughts clear to the world. Motivation means little next to results and the historical record. And that record is quite clear for anyone to see. You can access the official website - or hundreds of others to get Oscar results. [/quote]

But you were ascribing a motive and now you are saying motive means little. The history of the Oscars is full of anomalies where winners are now ignored and films that were overlooked or not even nominated have come to be more highly regarded. For all we know, at the time of the initial success of SW, the Academy was filled with voters whose dislike of space fantasy and adventure was not yet overruled by the money factor while by the time LotR hit the circuits, voters recognized that blockbusters provide money to finance more films. (And, anyway, the one which won is not largely or generally acknowledged as the best of the three films.) The Oscars are no more an objective standard than any business award. They are little more than a popularity contest amongst people in the business in one country. Nor are they the sole business award. There's a reason why Cannes remains important to the film industry and a reason why independents like Sundance exist.

Originally Posted by StW

My point is that to first invent a standard which is irrelevant to the way a film is measured, and then applying that standard to something, and pronouncing it wanting for those reasons, is meaningless to anyone other than yourself. Don't try to foist it off on the world and claim its significant because the world has spoken loudly and clearly that they simply do not care. The standard which means so much to some, the standard which is impossible to quantify or measure, means next to nothing to the rest of the world.

Gosh, little did I know that when we make comments here on the Barrow Downs we are foisting them on the world. Does this little corner of Middle earth really receive that many hits a day and do we really march off to other sites demanding to be heard by linking to our comments here? No, I think we're just happy to muddle around in our dark barrow watching others fulminating anathemas. It passes the time of day.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I thought Jackson's films were very good overall– arguably the best fantasy films ever made– but now that you mention it, the characterizations are done in broader strokes than in the original, and I think that does contribute to a Star Wars-esque comic book feel.

Yes, I think you've identified one similarity. I think that Lucas, however, was better able to integrate humour with the dramatic elements of the story.

EDIT: Cross posted with StW--or, well, I posted while he edited. Sauron, the discussion here seems to come to this: I don't accept your initial definition or premise of the issue and you don't accept mine.