MIddlearth, OZ and faithfulness

[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.