MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[Sauron the White]

Originally Posted by StW
Can you disprove my premise with concrete examples showing us that there is a direct relationship between a films success and quality and its faithfulness to its source material? And please explain how examples such as OZ, LAWRENCE and even LOTR are exceptions to the rule.

response from Bethberry

Forgive me, it was a few posts back now, and the sun's well past the yard arm here, but I don't think you proved that their success was due to their unfaithfulness? You simply showed they didn't adhere slavishly to the books which inspired the movies.

Where did I say that their success was "due to their unfaithfulness"? Now you are simply making this stuff up as you go along to try to weaken my argument. I never said that. My point was the exact opposite. The success of a film has nothing to do with their faithfulness.... or unfaithfulness for that matter. Its irrelevant since it has nothing to do with either film quality of public support in terms of buying tickets.

And you make crack wise all you want but I have provided factual documentation with concrete examples to support my claim but you have provided nothing on a similar plane. You have neither disproved the use of examples I provided nor have you provided any alternate support for your own ideas. You simply say you reject my idea and want to go on about it.

In poking fun of my list of a few historically inaccurate films you say

but I thought the discussion was about literary adaptations

Again, you attempt to redefine my main point to better suit your response. I never indcated that we were only discussing literary adaptions. We are discussion primary source material that led to being adapted as a film. Go back and look at my thread on LAWRENCE and you will see that.

For your benefit, and to clear the air, I will quote directly from my own post which opens this thread.

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.

Please note that I never limited my point to literary sources. The term source or source material can be anything from a persons real life, historical events to anything fictional that provided a basis to make a film.

I am happy to discuss this with you but I only ask that you abstain from attempting to redefine my main points to better suit your arguments. It does neither of us any good and fails to meet the actual issue here.

I respectfully ask you again: I gave you at least two concrete real examples of very beloved and praised films which were not at all faithful to their source material. Why do the examples of OZ and LAWRENCE not show that a films success is not dependent on its adherence to being faithful to its source material?