Lawrence of Middle-earth

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I say this, not because I'm in the anti-movie camp, but because it seems to me that your way of thinking is just as rigid, if not more so, than that of the book purists. Maybe you should accept that some people just don't like the films?

Exactly. This thread is about the merits of PJ's LOtR movies, not about Lawrence of Arabia or the importance of accuracy to source material. I don't think anyone here would suggest that PJ should have made the film using the book as a manuscript with all the dialogue carboncopied and with a narrator for the prose. Of course you have to make changes to adapt a book to a screenplay. And no, a film should not be judged based primarly on how faithful it was to the source material. But undoubtebly this will be important to many hardcore fans of Tolkien as I'm sure it was for the familes of people depicted in LoA too.

[ArathornJax]

Whether a film is true to the source or not I believe comes down to what is the purpose of the film? Is the purpose like Gods and Generals to be accurate and show as accurate as possible the events of a period of time or like Gettysburg which tried to show the events of one day (both based on historical fiction and both movies got many things right, but historians will tell you many things were wrong)? Or is the purpose of the movie to entertain with a good story, good script and good acting (and allow the studio to make good money)?

I think if you look at good movies they do differ from the source material that they are based on. No biggie as the purpose I feel is to entertain and for the movie to make money (more the better for all usually).
Gladiator is another movie you can look it. It is far from true to the source material, though elements and themes exit that are close to the source. Isn't The Godfather also sharing this? I believe and correct me if I am wrong, that Silence of the Lambs varied from the source material. Same with Saving Private Ryan (and the story it is was based around). etc. Do they lose their entertainment value because of that? Nope. I think that is the key. If a movie has a good script/writing, good directing and acting, and audiences relate or connect with the movie, and perhaps it touches an important theme or two, the movie is usually successful and considered highly successful (there are those movies that are just for entertainment and profit also).

In the end this comes down to personal preference. Some may only like a literary source while others may like both interpretations, while for others only the movie adaptation will suffice. Each their own. As for me I choose . . . . and that is what important to me, what I choose, while I respect what others choose even if I disagree.

[skip spence]

I watched The Cinderella Man yesterday and came to think ot this thread.

In this excellent movie Russel Crowe plays Jim Braddock, a down-and-out boxer struggling to pay the rent in the middle of the great depression. He then gets a chance to fight a highly rated contender as a last minute replacement, and sensationally beats him. Eventually he even gets a shot a the heavyweight title agaist Max Bauer. It was something in the portrayal of Bauer that caught my attention. He was mainly portrayed like a malicios monster, for ex. telling Braddock's wife she was going to become a widow (Bauer did in fact kill one man in the ring and another man he fought died some months afterwards), and like an arrogant if charismatic playboy with a hollywood smile. But there were always a few redeeming moments for the character, and in the end of the film he was given a scene where he respectfully congratulates the triumphant Braddock.

I got interested in the real Max Bauer and googled him. He seemed a nice enough bloke, who was deeply affected by the deaths he caused, or might have caused. Bauer son was also upset by how his father was portrayed and accused director Ron Howards of making him a villain as a contrast to the hero Braddock. And I think it was clear that Howard on the one hand did want to demonize Bauer for dramatic effect but on the other hand also did not want to be disrespectful to the memory of Bauer by falsely portraying him as a monster. This tension actually made made him a good movie character, probably much better than either the true and perhaps likeable Max Bauer or a wholly evil bad guy type.

Where am I going with this? Well, maybe that every movie based on a source material, be it a book or real events, will have parts that some people with a emotional attachment to the source material will be unhappy about. This is almost unavoildable as a movie adaptation requires making changes to several key parts of the source material. A good screenplay I think finds a balance between being true to the source material and finding a satisfactory dramatic structure fitting for the big screen. But some people with a close association to the source material or a part of it will always dislike any adaptation that makes their area of special intest seem of less worth. And from their point of view (which is also mine at times), this is very understandable. Of course Max Bauer's son didn't like the portrayal of his loved father. I did though.

Anyway, you can't please everybody but yet this is what a big hollywood film tries to do. And this doesn't please everybody either. PJ had a difficult task and and on the whole he completed it very well IMO.