![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#1 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness
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: Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Home. Where rolling green hills and clear rivers are practically my backyard.
Posts: 595
![]() |
As I once saw someone put it...
Quote:
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.
__________________
One (1) book of rules and traffic regulations, which may not be bent or broken. ~ The Phantom Tollbooth |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
from Findulias
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Home. Where rolling green hills and clear rivers are practically my backyard.
Posts: 595
![]() |
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.
__________________
One (1) book of rules and traffic regulations, which may not be bent or broken. ~ The Phantom Tollbooth |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
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..... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
shadow of a doubt
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Back on the streets
Posts: 1,125
![]() ![]() |
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?
__________________
"You can always come back, but you can't come back all the way" ~ Bob Dylan |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by Sauron the White; 03-20-2008 at 01:36 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Flame Imperishable
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Right here
Posts: 3,928
![]() ![]() ![]() |
I just hope LOTR won't end up like that
__________________
Welcome to the Barrow Do-owns Forum / Such a lovely place
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Odinic Wanderer
|
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Home. Where rolling green hills and clear rivers are practically my backyard.
Posts: 595
![]() |
__________________
One (1) book of rules and traffic regulations, which may not be bent or broken. ~ The Phantom Tollbooth |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]() 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: Quote:
Then this bit from Spliced: The Patience of making "The English Patient" Quote:
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. Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
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 Quote:
Last edited by Sauron the White; 03-21-2008 at 03:25 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
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.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
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. Quote:
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. Last edited by Sauron the White; 03-22-2008 at 08:28 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
from Bethberry
Quote:
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 Quote:
Quote:
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. Last edited by Sauron the White; 03-22-2008 at 11:59 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | ||||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 03-22-2008 at 01:10 PM. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | ||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
Quote:
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. Quote:
I have no idea what cinematic heart means to anybody but the coiner of that phrase. Its akin to discussing the "spirit" of something. It may have some meaning to the person who uses that phrase, but it is hardly something which has universal meaning, application or is widely understood. It certainly sounds wonderful and I picture a crescendo of violins as the words are uttered. It sounds wonderfully romantic and certainly makes one all pink and glowey. But it means nothing to me. I have given the specific examples of two great films that were not at all faithful to their source material. Despite that, they are much beloved and are considered great films of high quality. If you take the contrary position, that there is a relationship between a films success and quality when compared to how faithfully it follows its source material, please present your list of films and explain why my examples are exceptions to that rule. You and anyone else are free to reject the Oscars, Bafta's, Golden Globes or any other award bestowed upon a film. That is your right. You and anyone else are free to reject box office revenue numbers as evidence of a films success and polularity. That is your right. You and anyone else are free to reject the overwhelming opinion of professional film critics who highly praise a film. That is your right. But those are the accepted standards of measurement by which the film industry measures its own product. The people who make film, who live by film, and who understand film best, use these scales of measurement. Faithfulness, whatever that gossamer term may mean to whoever wishes to use it, means little to nothing to a films success or quality. Like what you want for whatever reasons you want to like it. That is fine. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
Bethberry
I want to give you more in response than my dismissive in the post above. You said that Quote:
This is taken from a list The Top Ten Historically Inaccurate Films. The commentary is brief but to the point. There has been much written on other sites about the failure of these films to be faithful to thier main source material. GLADIATOR Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub. (Box office success and award winner.) 300 Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos. (Big box office success.) APOLCALYPTO This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migranes. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs. -( quality film, good reviews, mediocre box office however) BRAVEHEART Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died. (Good box office, good reviews, award winner) If this is not enough, I can provide much more. Last edited by Sauron the White; 03-22-2008 at 03:37 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |||||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Come to think of it, Life of Brian was not terribly faithful to its source book either. But that was part of its point, wasn't it? Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#21 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
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 Quote:
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 Quote:
For your benefit, and to clear the air, I will quote directly from my own post which opens this thread. Quote:
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? |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Dearie me, I am confused, as I am certain that the first post here directed the complaint to various and sundry persons who placed their aesthetic standards on Tolkien's books:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Sauron,
I have said this before and I rather suspect I shall have to say it again: this is a grey area. You insist it's a black and white, either-or situation. It isn't. Yes, people adapting a book to the screen have to change things. But how faithful to the original should they strive to be? A lot? A little? Not at all? This is a difficult question, and probably one on which there will never be universal agreement. I don't know the answer myself. Neither do you. I think it's something we can discuss– which you never do, that I've noticed. Instead you repeat, "Movies are different from books". Then you switch to an appeal to authority and remind us all that the movies were popular and won awards, which according to you is the ultimate stamp of quality. Now, as I have said, I do like the LotR films– and I'm insulted! As it happens, I formed my own opinion. All by myself. I like some films that are popular, some that are unpopular– some that win awards and some that don't. (And just so you know, I thoroughly disliked "Gladiator".) You attack people for using faithfulness as a criterion– but how is "majority rules" more valid? Some great films have been popular and/or have won Oscars. So have some not-so-great ones. And really, how do you expect to sell a bunch of highbrow nerds on the general principle that the majority is automatically right? ![]()
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Loremaster of Annúminas
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,316
![]() ![]() ![]() |
I might suggest that history and fiction are apples and cinderblocks.
A history is not a story, it has no inherent form or structure, it is merely events that happened in the way events do. To make a story of it, whether an historical novel or a play or a film, requires considerable messing around. Nobody faults Shakespeare for rewiting history to suit his dramatic ends- but then nobody (with sense) accepts Will's plays as factual either.
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
Mr. Hicklin
Are you saying that - in your opinion - if one makes a movie from actual real life events, then one need not be faithful to the persons, events, times, and other important factors that impact the narrative? Are you also saying that - in your opinion - a work of pure fiction deserves a higher standard of faithfulness in its adaption to the screen than an actual real life happening deserves? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
A new day means a new approach . . .
First, let me reiterate my assumption that this question of faithfulness is best discussed in terms of literary adaptation. Certainly StW's complaint against the Downs' community faults their/our recourse to the Book. History is a much broader canvas and as the example of LoA demonstrates, the source material itself--Lawrence's book Seven Pillars of Wisdom--can be questioned by recourse to other historical documents. History is written largely and mainly by the victors and a little research will turn up a variety of points of view. A book, however, usually has but one author and in the case of film adaptations the adaptation is dependent upon legal right to do so. Such a legal control does not exist with the larger canvas "history", although those who lived any history filmed will of course claim the right to discuss authenticity, fidelity, faithfulness--whatever word they wish to use. For my points, I assumed that StW's use of "source material" was a mere synonym for "book" rather than an opening up of the question to any source material. That point I think is too large for the issue here, which after all devolves upon how three films adapted a three part book. This has nothing to do with any unfair intent of redefining Sauron's point to stuff it into my point, but is a legitimate interpretation of the issue at hand. As Nerwen points out, definitions of successful movies can vary. And, indeed, change over time. WoO barely made a profit in its initial screenings; indeed, it became the well loved movie it is largely as a result of its anual screening on television. And, as I will show with some of the links following, even appeals to popularity or majority rules will show inconsistent choices. First of all, The British newspaper The Guardian some two years ago held a vote on Greatest Film Adaptations. Here's an analysis of the results: from paper to celluloid And here's The Big Fifty readers chose from. Note that LotR did not make the cut to this top fifty. (That exclusion can of course be discussed.) What is intriguing about this exploration of film culture (based on newspaper readers) from The Guardian is that choice of top adaptation was not dependent upon the prime point which StW implies, success as in awards and profits. Another point to note is that fidelity of adaptation is not a pecadillo of the Downs community, but has been a topic of discussion in film going back to such early stalwarts as Griffith. While the topic can often be described in terms of book purists rightly (or wrongly) bemoaning the loss of what makes the book grand, the subject is open to many more questions, not merely the essentialist one of "a film is different from a book." Indeed, there are studies which categorically reject that argument. Here's a link to D. Cartmmell's highbrow studyAdaptations: from text to screen, from screen to edit. Here's a link to StW's favourite source: the Wikipedia on Film Adapation Here'a a link to Brian McFarlane's Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. It could be argued that fidelity or faithfulness depends to some extent on how the director and producers see the target audience for the film: do they want to capture the book market only or do they go for 'virgin' viewers? But that's just one criterion to consider. To say that faithfulness to book has nothing to do with popularity or success of a movie is a claim that overlooks many discussions of the issue, especially when even the definition of quality in movies can be so variously argued, as Nerwen again points out. Indeed, the grand thing about the topic of adaptation is that it can be viewed from so many different angles, no one of which is the absolutely correct one.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 | ||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
The idea that adaption of source material to film is a very wide subject with a variety of angles and avenues to be explored is one that I would agree with. When I first posted the thread on LAWRENCE, and again with the OZ thread, I used the term source or source material to describe the original origin of the eventual film. With LAWRENCE we have a combination of both the real life of Col. Lawrence and the events that surround him as well as the book written about him The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. I see where other writers such as Lowell Thomas wrote about Lawrence and felt that some of their work crept into the film without acknowledgement or credit or payment.
With WIZARD OF OZ, we have one clear literary source, the book by the same name written by L. Frank Baum. But in both cases, we have films which were made and based on sources other than the inventions and creations of a screenwriter creating something out of whole cloth. Both were adaptions from source material. I would like to answer several points raised in the latest post from Bethberry. Quote:
With all due respect, I started both threads and I defined the scope of the issue at hand. I decided to discuss "source material" to include the sources from real life for a film like LAWRENCE, the biography used to help create LAWRENCE, and the pure fictional work of Baum for OZ. We could add JRRTolkien and LOTR to that list also since it has been discussed and cited by both sides. So unless someone wants to start another thread severely restricting this debate to literary fiction adapted to screen I will continue with my original purpose. Mr. Hicklin borrows a wonderful phrase saying that I am comparing "apples and cinder blocks". A beautiful turn of words I must agree. However, I think it over broad since both are true examples of "source material" in that they are not the creations of screen writers working with a blank page and only their imagination. Quote:
So in the case of OZ, it was not money, or reviews or awards which made the film loved and successful. With this in mind, and remembering that OZ was one of the two main films I am using here to support my main point, I would say that it is not altogether fair to say that I use this standard of money,awards and reviews to define a films success. Quote:
I never meant to imply that Downs members are alone or distinct in this regard. But I would go one step further. There are many people here who know ten times what I know about the books of JRRT. I marvel at the breadth of knowledge and scholarship that resides here. While I have read the books many times, I have just scratched the surface compared to many others here. And, all that knowledge, all that devotion, all that love of the source material - in this case the print work of JRRT - has proven to be a handicap which prevents some from truly enjoying the films. All the weight of that knowledge has simply denied some the ability to suspend disbelief and go with the flow of the movie. Inside, they wage a fight as an inner voice screams "thats not right".... "it did NOT happen that way" .... "that character did not say that" ..... and so on. The person who views the films without having read the book has no such weight to bear. The person who has read the book once or twice probably has no such weight to bear. I would say that the JRRT expert on the Downs is in the same boat with the Civil War expert finding fault with Griffiths, or the Baum expert finding fault with MGM's film, or any other such example. Quote:
Given the high cost of making a majaor motion picture, most studios would have to go beyond the mere book audience especially for big budget spectaculars such as LOTR or OZ. They need both to make a profit -- and lets face it, that is the prime reason a film gets made. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I think we've lost as much as we've gained. Middle-earth is in some ways a much bigger place since Tolkien passed, but in other ways it's much smaller, because the 'unexplored vistas' have now become defined limits. We can now argue over the most intricate aspects of Middle-earth because we know so much. And I sometimes think we've crossed the line which divides 'so much' from 'too much'. Some of the magic has departed - in the main because CT's work has deluged us with the manuscripts. And yet... I suspect that much in the movies would have annoyed me just as much if I had only known LotR & TH. But perhaps I'd have tolerated them more - even liked them maybe - simply because without all the 'secondary works' Tolkien's creation would have been a much smaller part of my life & I'd perhaps have more perspective. I often ask myself whether, if I lost all my Tolkien books I'd bother replacing any other than TH & LotR - & the answer is I honestly don't know. But, 'There's no real going back', so none of that is really relevant I suppose. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
You see, I wasn't offended at Arwen at the Bruinen or the omission of Tom or the shift in timing of Boromir's death. I was not offended by anything because it changed the books. I was instead bored by things which failed to develop the movie trilogy as a consistently conceived, imagined and portrayed work of art. They weren't faithful to the tragic/mythic splendor of vision which they first promised/proclaimed (and which is coincidentally Tolkien's vision). So they offended me not because they violated the books per se but because they muddled the vision of the movies. Some viewers, no doubt many, were happy simply with a rip-roaring fantasy adventure flick. Good for them. I'm glad they enjoyed watching two wizards break dancing. I'm glad they enjoyed seeing Galadriel effaced by special effects which turned her moment of supreme temptation and victory into a wow event. I'm glad they laughed at Gimli. But the tragic representation of a dwarven culture lost in Moria, well, for me, that figure cannot easily be made the butt of jokes. Yes, I think Jackson failed to do justice to Tolkien's vision, something far larger and grander than can be encompassed by the omission of a few characters or the inclusion of some invented ones. It was an aesthetic failure because he couldn't or didn't want to hold that vision consistently throughout the movies. So, you see, it isn't simply a case of being unfaithful to the source but of being unable to create a consistent work of art. I suppose I would say that there are more than one cinematic hearts beating in Jackson's movies, and they ain't beating rhythmically or in sync. from my perspective of course.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
Bethberry --- your point about both Dwarven humor and the Wizards duel is taken and agreed with. I certainly would not have done it that way myself. However, despite reading many different people criticize the Galadriel sequence over the years, I have read it and reread it and it seems that it is one of the most word for word copied from the book scenes in the film. Even the special effects transformation is there in the book. Could you explain what you see wrong with what Jackson put on the screen with that scene.
Davem - I enjoyed your post looking back, It certainly is cause to think. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
When Frodo is injured with the morgul knife at Weathertop, he is actually experiencing the wraith world and the special effects priviledge the viewers to show them his experience--and it is clear that this is his experience which the other hobbits cannot see/share. But Galadriel doesn't actually put on the ring, she only imagines what will/would happen. But the special effects make it appear to have really happened. It isn't just Galadriel's prediction, or Frodo's special sight as a Ring-bearer, it becomes a done deed. It is a difficulty with expressing interiority in film. And if you go back to read the book--which you are saying is a no-no to experience the movie--it's clear that the only two people in the book who experienced any special sight--the Eye--are Frodo and Galadriel. Sam clearly says he didn't see Galadriel's ring--he saw starlight shining on her finger, so he would not have seen Galadriel perilous and wonderful and terrible. In the book, too, what Frodo sees is the light of the Ring of Adamant, not this terrible vision. Yet that is what the audience sees. It just doesn't work for me as her prediction. I should say, too, that it made me think of Gandalf's temptation scene. We were given Gandalf's words and Ian's acting there, but Galadriel's temptation relied on special effects rather than acting, rather than seeing the character work out the consequences of her character with the Ring's power. To my mind this drew attention to the presence of the special effects rather than to the actual experience being played out. So for me it fails both as a movie scene/character depiction and as a "faithful" adaptation of the book. It is possible to take things word for word and still get 'em wrong.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
Would it surprise you if I said I could not disagree more? Probably not.
I only referenced the book since that seems to be the starting point at which most Downers who criticize the films begin. I assumed that if Jackson did the scene as written, that would eliminate any criticism. When I read that page, its pretty much exact as written. I understand your explaination as to why it does not work for you. But sitting in a theater without the text there is no problem at all with what is depicted. You say its all special effects and not acting. I did not see it that way. I looked at it as a proper blend of both that produced a very memorable scene. And on a purely personal selfish note, I collect all the figures from the film and have to tell you that despite her amazing history, Galadriel is one very dull figure. However, Galadriel Entranced (which is what they call it) is one extremely dramatic and beautiful figure. But that has nothing to do with the film but just my own personal bias. Quote:
But thats just me. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
shadow of a doubt
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Back on the streets
Posts: 1,125
![]() ![]() |
Is this developing into a resonable debate of how well PJ adapted certain scenes from the book? I certainly hope so.
I have to agree with StW that the Galadriel scene was a faithful (and for me, poignant) adaptation of the very same scene in the book. Had she just told the movie-viewers what might have happened if she took the ring the scene would have lost a lot of its dramatic effect. And Gandalf's temptation scene, as I remember it, was also very faithful to the book IMO.
__________________
"You can always come back, but you can't come back all the way" ~ Bob Dylan |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
The other main point, which apparently I do need to repeat, is that my dissatisfaction with the scene was with the scene as scene and not as book adaptation. It happened as I sat in the darkened cinema experiencing the film the first time. I didn't bring the books with me into the cinema and I wasn't sitting there, finger following line after line, with a pen flashlight, desperately, madly, fiendishly trying to find fault with this upstart New Zealander. I was really, really hoping to be entertained and for the most part for the first film I was. But after that scene, I might have thought what a shame that Peter Jackson didn't paste "WHAM BAM POW" across the screen in case anyone missed the point about how scary and powerful this Ring thing is. Holy fletcaves, Fletgirl! As I said earlier, there are many who are happy with such scenes, and let them be happy, including both StW and skip. But your pleasure with the scene does not mitigate against my displeasure. You obviously got more of your money's worth than me, well done! ![]()
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 03-24-2008 at 09:47 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 903
![]() |
Obviously every ticket purchaser decides for themselves if the film worked for them, and then to a lesser degree, if each and every scene, character, and line worked for them. I have been going to films for 50 years and have seen thousands of them one way or another and I have never yet seen a complete film where something could not have been done a bit differently to my tastes. But them I taught high school for 33 years and nobody paid me a penny for my opinion about how to make a better film.
I do think that even though you did not bring the text to the theater and review it with a mini-flashlight line by line as you describe, in a broader way you did. This is something we discussed yesterday, the weight of superior knowledge about LOTR and JRRT and his writings. It is a bit of a handicap compared to someone who goes in cold without that wonderful kwoledge. But that is neither here not there as far as if the scene worked for you. In the end, a film is judged by me for its totality. Sure, I can fault all the Gimli jokes, the green scrubbing bubbles of the Dead or any other individual scene. Overall, I was more than happy with the totality of it all. I remember in the 70's driving in crowded cars to fantasy conventions and discussing how we wanted the films done. I never expected to get the high quality which I saw on that screen. For me it worked very well. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]()
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Interesting interview with Adam Tolkien here http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/..._Interview.php
His comments on the movies are worth considering: Quote:
What's really interesting to me is his statement that CT stopped working on any Tolkien related material because of the films. It seems that if it hadn't been for the movies we'd have had CoH earlier, & perhaps other stuff as well. If nothing else I think this puts paid to the idea that Adam is opposed in principle to movies - he just wishes they had been done differently - he even says he would have liked a series of films. For movie fans this may offer some hope - Adam doesn't seem to share his father's view that LotR is unsuitable for visual representation. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | |
shadow of a doubt
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Back on the streets
Posts: 1,125
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
To be honest, I'd love to see a more arty LotR adaptation, with a stronger focus on the darker and more grown-up undercurrents of the work, and this we may yet see at some time in the future. But as it were, there's no way the movies were going to be anything other than spectacular blockbusters (or failed attempts), catering to a huge audience of people who, for the most part, haven't read the books. Like StW I thought they were much better than anticipated, although I too have my gripes.
__________________
"You can always come back, but you can't come back all the way" ~ Bob Dylan Last edited by skip spence; 03-26-2008 at 11:04 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,506
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hmmm...interesting conversation. Adaptations are certainly susceptible to criticism based on their flagrant misuse, twisting or abandonment of source material (LotR being a prime example); however, the making of a movie sometimes requires a heightened or altered approach to the original story due to many factors (not the least being a director or leading actor's ego, but time constraints, pacing and monetary considerations also apply). Personally (and I think this discussion can only remain on an opinionated level), I take adaptations on a case by case basis, and make an informed decision on whether I liked the movie, as opposed to having read the book, and whether or not flights of fancy from the source material hurt the production.
For instance, I found the adaptations of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Blade Runner were actually better than the books. I thought that The Name of the Rose and The Exorcist were excellent adaptations, but I liked the books better. I consider Lawrence of Arabia and The Seven Pillars of Wisdom both classics and enjoyed both immensely (but one for the filmmaker's art, and the other in historical context). The recent Narnia movie was very faithful to C.S. Lewis' book, but the movie was actually infused with more humor than the source, and was fleshed out in a manner that enhanced the story. As far as LotR, I was far more upset at PJ Jackson for what he brazenly plopped into the movie, rather than what was omitted from the source material. In a historical context, one could say there is very little factuality or faithfulness in the scripting of many of Errol Flynn's movies, but I have most of them on DVD. *Shrugs* P.S. The movie Gladiator seems to be based more on the 1964 film The Fall of the Roman Empire (which also had Commodus die in gladiatorial combat as opposed to being assasinated), rather than on historical records, which are decidely scarce regarding his reign. However, Commodus did often engage in gladiatorial combats in the arena.
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. Last edited by Morthoron; 04-02-2008 at 08:51 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |