[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

You do not accept it because you choose not to accept it out of faith or belief or just plain refusal without grounds.

No. Please stop proffering motivations to me and consider the explanations. Otherwise I might not be able to stop myself from making up Really Silly Reasons.

Originally Posted by StW

My premise is supported by fact and example that is beyond challenge to the facts.

Okay, right, I really cannot stop myself. . . Nobody expects the Spanish, ah, er, challenge. Our chief weapon is faith...faith and belief . . . and refusal ... refusal . . . Our two challenges are faith and belief and rufusal ... ruthless refusal.... Our *three* challenges are faith and belief, and ruthless refusal...and an almost fanatical devotion to Tolkien.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our challenges.... Amongst our propositions...are such elements as .... I'll come in again.

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by StW

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.

Funny, the way you describe it, I would expect to hear a raspberry. Metaphors, though, tend not to have 'universal meaning', as they are intended to create new meaning.

Originally Posted by StW

So allow me the opportunity to give you many more. These are four films which did rather well at the box office, and some of which also were critically praised as good films. Two of them even won Best Film of the year awards.

This is taken from a list The Top Ten Historically Inaccurate Films.

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.

First you must find... another shrubbery! (dramatic chord) Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must place it here, beside this shrubbery, . . . Ah, dear. Again, forgive me, for the same reasons above, plus it's now much lower over the yard arm . . . but I thought the discussion was about literary adaptations. Examples of films filled with historical inaccuracies are . . . something completely different.