[Sauron the White]

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.

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.

I understand the point Bethberry makes in saying that my definition of "source material" is too broad and should be limited to literary adaptions alone. And if I were trying to eliminate many of the examples at my opposites disposal, I certainly would take the same tact. By ruling out anything other than pure literary fiction, it certainly limits the playing field and some of my examples go out the window.

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.

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.

I have repeatedly used box office revenues, awards and critical reviews to show the success of LOTR. And you could do the same with many other films including LAWRENCE. But as you pointed out so well, OZ does not fit into that straight-jacket. You rightfully recounted that upon its release in 1939, the film only did so-so business and barely made a respectable profit. It took several releases over the next two decades for the film to be branded as a financial success. And you also wisely pointed out that repeated showings once a year on TV was really put the film into the beloved category in the hearts and minds of so many people.
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.

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.

I agree 100%. I am sure that Civil War experts took great issue with the portrayal of Griffith's version of things in BIRTH OF A NATION. I would guess that the OZ book fans found much fault with almost every version of their beloved book including the much praised 1939 version. As great as TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is on screen, I have no doubt that many serious fans of the print version cringed when some of their favorite scenes or lines were cut from the film, characters combined, motivations changed or characters were simply too young,old, tall, fat or just plain wrong.

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.

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?

First of all, I am still not clear on how anyone can actually define or standardize something as vague as fidelity or faithfulness..... but lets go with the statement as written. I think this is a most interesting observation. Do they want to capture the book readership market or do they want a virgin audience? Or a question not asked - do they want both?

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.