# do you think



## ASLAN THE GREAT (Mar 2, 2005)

do you think that the up comeing narnia films will be biger then the lord of the rings ones if do post here..............................

yes or no ????????


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 3, 2005)

If the director is true to Lewis' Christian mythos, it will probably be at best ignored by Hollywood. Like The Passion of the Christ, however popular the film(s), they will be treated with contempt by the entertainment industry. 

Of course, if the director secularizes the story(ies) and brings forth a moral worldview diametric to Lewis', then it/they will probably be lauded to the skies. 

In the end, it will all depend upon whose "moral perspective" is presented. Trust me, that's how it will work out in the end.


----------



## Hammersmith (Mar 4, 2005)

I only hope they don't stick absolutely to the text. The BBC dramatisations did so, and while they are very dear to my heart, they were little more than the actors standing in various poses having lengthy conversations. Good literature directly translated to film does not make good film.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 4, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> I only hope they don't stick absolutely to the text. The BBC dramatisations did so, and while they are very dear to my heart, they were little more than the actors standing in various poses having lengthy conversations. Good literature directly translated to film does not make good film.


I disagree. The true art of scriptwriting when one is taking a written work to the screen is to take the story _as the author wrote it_ and make it into a visual rather than a written work. Just as a person who is translating a work from English to some other language must make certain changes to accommodate the new tongue, so a scriptwriter must do the same thing, taking what is written and "translating" it to a visual work. One need not lose _any_ of the author's meaning or in any actual way change the story or the characters. Rather one must make "pictures of words", as it were. 

But doing this isn't easy! A good scriptwriter is worth his or her weight in gold. However, it has been done very successfully in the past (Jaws, The Godfather, The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind etc.) and there's no reason why it can't be done again. The problem with the Chronicles that you mention is that the writers simply made a direct translation with little or no attempt to accommodate the visual medium and so it became rather stilted, "stagey" and lacking in the reality necessary for true cinema. I also believe that the budget probably mitigated against the sort of spectacular special effects we Americans have come to expect in "fantasy" films. Nonetheless, I would rather something like that series which remains faithful to Lewis' vision than a special effects spectacular that makes Aslan into nothing more than some sort of "super-hero" and not Narnia's Christ.

Of course, it is of the utmost importance that the writer _understand_ the author's meaning and _accept_ it. If the writer doesn't _want_ to send that message in the film, then he can make all sorts of changes both subtle and not so subtle that will undermine it even if the externals of the story remain pretty much the same. This, in my opinion, is what happened with LOTR.


----------



## Hammersmith (Mar 4, 2005)

That's exactly what I mean. The film cannot hope to reasonably include every single line of dialogue that the book gives, nor can it hope to faithfully depict each and every individual scene in detail. But while it has the potential to maintain the original message, feel and largely intact storyline, I will judge it to have been faithfully translated to the media of film.

On a side note, I heard a rumour that another author is rewriting the Narnia Chronicles and explicitly leaving out the Christian message. If this is true, what does everyone think about it?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 4, 2005)

The dialogue is not the problem. As an experiment, take one chapter of LOTR and remove everything that isn't "dialogue" and you will find precious little remaining even in those chapters which contain a lot of dialogue. Most of any written work is descriptive in nature rather than straight dialogue. Actually, aside from scenes that are edited out for reasons of time, a screenwriter could put in _all_ the dialogue and still have to make up _more_ for transitional scenes which in the book are described without dialogue and/or for "thoughts" that the characters do not speak aloud! 

Of course, it doesn't work if you leave in the dialogue but have some other character in the story speak it! Nowhere is that better illustrated than in LOTR in which Jackson plays "musical dialogue" among the characters, frequently changing not only the meaning of the words, but the nature of the person saying them! In no other thing was Jackson so "open" in his efforts to "rewrite" the meaning of the tale.


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 4, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> On a side note, I heard a rumour that another author is rewriting the Narnia Chronicles and explicitly leaving out the Christian message. If this is true, what does everyone think about it?


I think they are still in copyright, so it would have to be a disguised rip-off to get away with it, and it simply wouldn't be Narnia. If the justification is Tolkien's opinion that overt religion ruins myth, then it won't work. Tolkien removed all religious references from his own work, but it was not intentionally allegorical to start with. CS Lewis' Narnia Chronicles _are_ intentionally allegorical. If you remove the green threads from the Black Watch tartan, not only do you no longer see the colours of the Black Watch, but you no longer have tartan either.

And as for Aslan's original question: If the Narnia Chronicles are to match the Lord of the Rings, they must keep their original allegory as well as the gist of the story, for that is their essence. I suspect the budget is not so grand either, but I am happy to stand corrected there if necessary. I think the film will do well in the UK, as the generation who first watched the BBC series are just about right to have children of their own as their excuse for going to watch it (in addition to those who know the books, or of them); including many who would not be regular cinema goers. I have no idea whether the BBC production was aired in the USA, and if it was, how widely. This too might have an effect.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 4, 2005)

Lewis retold the story of creation and of God's involvement with it in the Chronicles of Narnia. It was allegory of a sort, but not a straight allegory as Narnia was not presented as "fictional" but, in fact, a "real" country (world) rather than a parody of this world. 

Of course, there could not be any such thing as a "recreation" of T.C. absent its Christian message. It would be akin to having Jaws take place in the Mohave desert or the Wizard of Oz take place in Pamona. T.C. simply _IS_ it's Christian message; it has no real meaning and makes very little sense outside of it.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Mar 5, 2005)

No matter about all that, unless it turns out absolutely hideously awful I can't wait to see them/it!


----------



## ASLAN THE GREAT (Mar 5, 2005)

Thank you eveyone for your posts.


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 6, 2005)

e.Blackstar said:


> No matter about all that, unless it turns out absolutely hideously awful I can't wait to see them/it!


And even if (judging by reviews etc) your worst fears are realised, I bet you will still be horribly fascinated enough to buy a cinema ticket. I know I will.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 7, 2005)

A friend of mine told me of a critique he read about the film. Now I don't know if the critic was addressing the film or the story, but he said something to the effect, "...if you can get past the Christian theme..." Let's hope that the problem with some people is that they indeed _have_ to get past the film's "Christian theme"! That would be a real step forward!


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 8, 2005)

Tempus omnia revelat! (time reveals all things)

The interesting thing about the attempt to remove all religious content, is that it is usually done by people who don't comprehend religious content, and so fail miserably to expunge it. That is why films like The Matrix are being used in Bible Groups; their applicability to deep religious concepts that are difficult to explain in any other way leave even their authors baffled.

And so it is with some trepidation that I will be queueing up to see this latest fantastical offering. Still, there's always The Goblet of Fire to look forward to if Narnia disappoints.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 9, 2005)

I read recently in a Christian magazine that the team on Narnia was making very high promises to keep everything intact, even and perhaps especially the worldview. Of course, film people can promise one thing and deliver something quite different, and if you really don't understand a worldview, you can totally screw it up without knowing it.

I mean, if I tried to write a play that was about Buddism somehow, knowing as little as I do about that particular religion/worldview, I would miss the point totally and perhaps emphasize all the wrong things about what they believe. 

I have again and again been frustrated by non-Christians who read Christian literature and interpret it through their lenses and then I think, "No, no, no, that wasn't the point at all." Christianity is a religion that in a lot of ways walks a fine line between justice (i.e. punishment) and grace (i.e. forgiveness). Christians have struggled amongst themselves for centuries trying to get the proper mix between condemning sin and loving the sinner. People outside the religion are even more doomed in attempting to portray us. I've seen both sides. If they like Christians they portray them as wishy-washy, all forgiving, turn the other cheek but never expect the bad to repent. If they don't like them they go the other direction and show us as judgemental, self-righteous and hypocritical.

It is possible, through careful study, to represent a group you do not belong to. If I went to a Buddist country, immersed myself in studying Buddism for a couple of years, talked to Buddists and priests of that religion, I might be able to truthfully and sincerely represent them in a play. Most writers are not willing to take this time with Christianity, and most writers fail miserably.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 9, 2005)

Well, Lewis's Christianity is "muscular" enough. He does not believe in "turning the other cheek" insofar as that means ignoring wickedness or "forgiving" wicked people who continue in wickedness. The aspect of repentence and forgiveness is certainly present in his stories, but then so are retribution and punishment for the unrepentent and/or the irredeemably wicked (like the White Witch and her followers). 

Therefore, even if a director and his screenwriter are not familiar with the totality of traditional Christian thought and doctrine, a fairly straightforward translation of Lewis's text relative to the basic plot, characters and dialogue are concerned should keep the films from going far wrong. Indeed, Jackson could have done the same with LOTR and saved himself a lot of grief and effort with all his "additions" - _and_ had better films when all was said and done.


----------



## ASLAN THE GREAT (Mar 9, 2005)

only TIME and tell what will happen


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 9, 2005)

Mrs. M, my issue is I don't think you can honestly have production without interpretation. No matter how much you swear to stick to text things that are not written are going to have to be dealt with, expressions on people's faces, music, acting, all that. It's going to have a huge impact on how people view the stories. Interpretation is going to get in one way or another. 

Now, I am not hoping for the authors to completely understand Christianity, but I would like them to understand Lewis's book, and hopefully they can do that. I think it is very possible. But we'll see.


----------



## Kelonus (Mar 10, 2005)

I read the beginning of the book and never finished it. I wish I kept the book, but I am waiting for the movie to come out in theaters, it looks interesting. I read a little bit of what the whole story is about.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 10, 2005)

From the _Telegraph_:



> Disney sets out to make 'The Passion for kids'
> By Chris Hastings and Charles Laurence in New York
> (Filed: 06/03/2005)
> 
> ...



So much for Hollywood (insofar as Disney is a part of Hollywood) "ignoring" the _Narnia_ series' Christian mythos . . .

What _is_ being ignored--or perhaps missed--in this thread are a few simple realities about book-to-film adaptations within the studio system. 

First, books and films are different media--it's not a question of the one "mirroring" or supplementing the other. We're just going to have to learn to live with that. 

Second, and following from the first point, you simply cannot lump the responsibility for the content of a film--especially a studio film--upon a Director-God (or Scriptwriter-God). A film is the product of multiple, competing interests and visions (producers, scriptwriters, directors, studios), and within that context, how felicitous a scriptwriter is to the original text is purely academic.

Third, at the end of the day, a studio-produced-and-backed film is a commercial venture (to the tune of $100 million, in the case of the Narnia film, if rumours are to be taken seriously). That remains the case no matter how many godless Communists dominate Hollywood. Corporate film-makers will beef up the Christian elements of the Narnia tales if they deem it profitable to do so--if it puts more "bums on seats." And as the Telegraph piece indicates, Disney _does_ deem that beefing up the Christianity in the Narnia films will put more bums on seats, especially with the aid of niche marketing. But never forget the key word here: _profit_.


----------



## HLGStrider (Mar 11, 2005)

You don't need to beef up Narnia's Christianity, AV. It is inherently Christian to anyone who understands the text. 



> And as the Telegraph piece indicates, Disney does deem that beefing up the Christianity in the Narnia films will put more bums on seats, especially with the aid of niche marketing. But never forget the key word here: profit.


 
But if Disney doesn't understand Christianity, I don't think it will do a good job representing it. That was my point. . .Though there seem to be enough Christians who have seen the film and given it good reviews that I think they have done a good job, whatever their motives.

Now, can anyone tell me how Polar Express had Christian credentials. I went to see that movie, and other than my baby sister getting her foot caught in the folding seat and screaming, it was an enjoyable experience (the foot was fine after being freed and being fed popcorn), but I saw nothing explicitly Christian about that movie. It had the word faith in it a few times, but I don't think Christianity teaches faith in Santa Claus. 

I do think Hollywood is learning that to profit you can't make fun of your audience's beliefs more than they can stand. As I said elsewhere, Christians have often been inaccurately and unfavorably (sometimes both, sometimes just one or the other, I'm not going to claim Christians are perfect people because we are anything but) depicted. As AV's article points out, the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Now occasionally we like to laugh at ourselves. Occasionally we will accept a well meant lecture on how we can be better people, but when the majority of films either insult our morality or directly insult us, we start to look for alternative entertainment.

Hollywood can provide this for us even if its beliefs aren't ours simply for looking for good stories that share our beliefs and faithfully portraying them. 

I will give a movie I think did that. _Because of Winn-Dixie_ is an excellent film. GO SEE IT! I am 20 and went with my Grandma who is in her late fifties, and we both loved it and we have very different tastes (I'm fantasy, she's true to life dramas). It is based on a book by Kate Di Camillo who may not be a Christian but who definitely was raised in an environment with them, definitely understands them, and definitely shows respect, even reverence, for our beliefs. The movie and book are very close. There were minimal deletions, and only two notable additions which were added to give more conflict but certainly fit the book. 

It can be done. Hollywood simply hasn't taken the time to do it.


----------



## Hammersmith (Mar 12, 2005)

All that I can see from that article is exploitation. The Passion was a huge triumph, financially, and many people described it as life defining. Is it any wonder that producers are turning to religiously oriented films?

Of course, Narnia is overtly Christian, but I fear that they might just go overboard in emphasising it in an attempt to pack in audiences.

Oh, and as a side note, I will take cyanide before watching _Because of Winn Dixie_


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 12, 2005)

You need have no fear of Hollywood and the entertainment industry (in their present state) going "overboard" with _any_ pro-Christian message. In fact, they will do just the opposite in most instances if they can. They cannot, of course, turn CoN into "anti-christian" films (remember, it isn't one story like LOTR), but 6 different books) but they will do their best to dilute the message unless the person making the film(s) is interested in presenting Lewis's "Chronicles" accurately. Yes, The Passion made lots and will probably make lots more with the release of the edited version in time for Easter this year, but Hollywood et al. are so _anti_-Christian that even their love of money can't overcome their hatred of the message.

If whoever makes these films sticks to the _meaning_ of the story as Lewis presented it, no one needs to worry about the message not getting through.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 14, 2005)

HLGStrider said:


> You don't need to beef up Narnia's Christianity, AV. It is inherently Christian to anyone who understands the text.



The "beefing up" was an allusion to Mrs M's reference to "muscular Christianity." 



> But if Disney doesn't understand Christianity, I don't think it will do a good job representing it. That was my point. . .



Here's the problem: how _are_ you going to represent Christianity in a way that will satisfy _all_ Christians--given that Christianity constitutes (if you'll pardon the expression) a "broad church" of ideas, perspectives and interpretations? There's a complexity there which the Hollywood machine finds very difficult to capture, which perhaps partly accounts for why it resorts to stereotypes: it's safer (in a financial sense, remembering that studio films are at the end of the day commercial enterprises) to do so. But that's a problem faced, you will find, by many groups: Jews, Muslims, black Americans, gays and lesbians, etc.



> As AV's article points out, the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Now occasionally we like to laugh at ourselves. Occasionally we will accept a well meant lecture on how we can be better people, but when the majority of films either insult our morality or directly insult us, we start to look for alternative entertainment.



As will, I'm certain, any other group (e.g. Muslims) that feels insulted, misrepresented or ignored by Hollywood. 

The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians, you point out. Well, so what? Has that not been the case for the last few centuries--and certainly throughout the period that something called "Hollywood" has existed? I don't think you will find that the majority of Americans identify themselves as evangelical or fundamentalist Christians--Christians in the "muscular" sense. I don't think you will find that the majority of Americans feel directly insulted by Hollywood films--or at least, they wouldn't feel insulted by the same things. I don't think you will find that the majority of Americans expect the media and entertainment industries to reflect their moral, political or religious views (and thus feel assailed when their views are not reflected). To speak of Americans who identify themselves as Christians in terms of "we" (that is, to argue that "we" are going to have the same responses to Hollywood films) is therefore highly presumptuous. It misses that complexity I was referring to, in the same way, perhaps, that Hollywood does itself.

And I'd hate to think that many people would enjoy a "well meant lecture on how we can be better people," whether that comes from a Christian or a secular humanist perspective. I hope that many would prefer instead to be challenged and stimulated. 



Hammersmith said:


> All that I can see from that article is exploitation.



I think you have an excellent grasp of what is happening here. Disney is pitching _Narnia_ to a particular niche market--evangelical Christians--for commercial gain, and in doing so is simply adopting a strategy employed by a certain political party which for the last two decades has pitched to the same niche market for electoral gain. In either case, said niche market--because it is viewed in such terms--is being exploited.

And the strategy is not failsafe: there is always the risk that if Disney and other Hollywood institutions concentrate to heavily upon seizing the "muscular Christian" market, they risk alienating other sectors of the audience.

But I think you should be careful about the kinds of conclusions you might want to draw from the financial success of _The Passion_. First, not everyone who purchased a ticket would necessarily have enjoyed the film, endorsed its portrayal of Christianity or even identified themselves as Christian. Second, the film was--to err on the side of understatement--controversial (especially given the contemporary political climate), and controversy tends to breed curiosity. Third, many screenings were block-booked; so any inductive conclusion about _The Passion_'s broader appeal inevitably falls prey to the fallacy of the _biased sample_: a theatre full of evangelical Christians cannot by definition represent a cross-section of the population. 



Mrs Maggott said:


> Yes, The Passion made lots and will probably make lots more with the release of the edited version in time for Easter this year, but Hollywood et al. are so anti-Christian that even their love of money can't overcome their hatred of the message.



The notion that Hollywood is "anti-Christian" presupposes a false dichotomy: that it can _either_ be pro-Christian _or_ anti-Christian and nothing else. This raises a problem of definition: what makes a film "anti-Christian"? Are films that are not explicitly pro-Christian, anti-Christian by definition? Certainly there are films that will, due to the nature of their content (explicit language, drug use, sexual scenes, horror, violence, nudity), appear offensive to certain Christians; but is it reasonable to conclude from this that the filmmakers have _deliberately set out_ to offend these Christians? 

Hollywood is a capitalist institution, and is therefore largely indifferent to Christianity (except, maybe, where the opportunity to turn a profit is concerned). This does not make it "anti-Christian" (or even "pro-Christian").


----------



## ASLAN THE GREAT (Mar 14, 2005)

Think You Evey One For Your Post


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 15, 2005)

I think that the only Christian that the director and writers should be concerned about "satisfying" is Lewis - if he were still with us, that is. As long as Lewis would have been satisifed with the film, then those who love the stories will also be satisifed. As for those who have a problem with _Lewis's_ "interpretation" of Christianity, well they wouldn't have been fond enough of the books to bother to see the films and therefore, their opinion would hardly be the criteria to meet!

Obviously, you cannot satisfy everyone - and not everyone who calls him/herself a "Christian" _is_ one according to Christ Himself ("Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord'......I never knew you!"). Lewis was a thoroughgoing "Traditional" Christian (with a capital "T"). He is considered one of the great theologians of the 20th century although he has fallen out of favor with many so-called "mainstream" Protestant churches who consider him to be far too "muscular" and "T/traditional". But as those holding this view would hardly be flocking to the theater to see his books brought to the screen, I would suggest that they are hardly the "audience" the film makers should be concerned about. But then, Hollywood is often quite clueless and we shall have to see what comes out in the wash, as they say.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 15, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> I think that the only Christian that the director and writers should be concerned about "satisfying" is Lewis - if he were still with us, that is. As long as Lewis would have been satisifed with the film, then those who love the stories will also be satisifed.


*BUT*, as you point out Lewis is no longer with us, so it is nearly impossible to say whether Lewis would be satisfied with the interpretation. (I say nearly, because it is a safe bet that if the filmmakers completely threw out the plot and characters and made up their own, Lewis would disapprove.) Individuals will decide whether the film's interpretation of Lewis's story matches their interpretation. They will accept it or reject it accordingly. I suspect that is what Arthur Vandelay is pointing out.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 15, 2005)

I understood the point A.V. was making but I think you are being a tad disingenuous to suggest that simply because Lewis isn't present, the film makers (director, writers etc.) would not be able to determine if he were (or were not) 'satisfied' with their efforts. Nor would they need to throw out almost everything he did (as you suggest) in order to _dis_satisfy him. After all, Jackson kept most of the superficial things of Tolkien's LOTR while changing the basic message almost entirely (despite what film defenders have averred). It wouldn't take much to do the same to Lewis while keeping all of the the outwardly recognizable plot and characters of the story(ies). 

As with Tolkien, Lewis' _meaning_ is conveyed by means of the characters, who and what they are and the _dialogue_ between and among them. After all, this is where the author is able to put voice to what he is trying to convey in the story. All one needs to do to make _significant_ changes to the story's meaning is to change the nature of the characters and then edit, change, invent and/or - as Jackson did - "move" the dialogue around and have different characters speak the lines in different situations. 

I am not suggesting that this is what will happen here. Much depends upon the good will and intentions of the people making the film. If they wish to actually convey _Lewis'_ meaning, they will be able to do so by remaining true to his characters including _what they say and to whom they say it_ - and they will be able to do so inspite of the need to edit things for the sake of the change in the medium. If, however, they wish to have all the "magic" of Narnia while conveying little or nothing of the true _meaning_ of that magic, well, as we have seen so clearly, they will be able to do that as well. Of course, the resultant film will be infinitely inferior to its source, but as that doesn't appear to bother too many people, it won't be that much of a drawback to these film makers either.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 15, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> I understood the point A.V. was making but I think you are being a tad disingenuous to suggest that simply because Lewis isn't present, the film makers (director, writers etc.) would not be able to determine if he were (or were not) 'satisfied' with their efforts. Nor would they need to throw out almost everything he did (as you suggest) in order to _dis_satisfy him. After all, Jackson kept most of the superficial things of Tolkien's LOTR while changing the basic message almost entirely (despite what film defenders have averred).


It doesn't seem that you understand the point. I included the idea of the fimmakers throwing out everything as a situation where almost everyone would agree that Lewis would not be satisfied. Jackson's films are a case in point. Jackson did indeed keep most of Tolkien's LOTR and many people feel it is true to most of the basic messages (there are certainly more than one) of the story. Other people disagree. The only person who could settle the question is Tolkien and he is long gone. Neither you, nor I, have the right to speak for Tolkien in this matter. We can only say if the films match our view of LOTR. On that we already know we disagree.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 15, 2005)

On the other hand, Lewis' "message" in CoN is far less subtle than Tolkien's. One may indeed with justification believe that Jackson has captured at least _part_ of Tolkien's message because LOTR had _many_ such "messages" and it was entirely possible to present some very _basic_ points (the good guys win) while missing other more subtle points. 

Lewis' stories, on the other hand, have no such "subtleties". CoN were _children's_ books and, as such, kept their message - like their heart - "on their sleeve" so to speak. Lewis not only made his Christian message abundantly clear, but reinforced it every chance he got! If that message is discarded or even "watered down", I doubt that even the most oblivious member of the audience who knows the books is going to miss the changes.


----------



## Greenwood (Mar 15, 2005)

Mrs. Maggott said:


> Lewis not only made his Christian message abundantly clear, but reinforced it every chance he got! If that message is discarded or even "watered down", I doubt that even the most oblivious member of the audience who knows the books is going to miss the changes.


But movies are not made for people who know the books they are based on. Like it or not, movies are basically a commercial operation and their first priority is to make money. Generally, the producers couldn't care less how closely the movie follows the material it is based on.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 16, 2005)

Frankly, I have never understood the implied assumption that "faithfulness" to the book is somehow diametric to commercial success. Of course films are made for profit. Indeed, most books are written for the purpose as well - or at least profit to the author and publisher is a strong incentive for writing/publishing a book. I can assure you, that faithfulness to a popular book will only _help_ a film's profit margin. I doubt if the Potter films (for instance) would have been very profitable had their makers gone out of the way to change the characters (and redistribute the dialogue) to the extent that Jackson did in LOTR. Of course, those changes would have been far more obvious than were Jackson's and so lovers of the books would have been in no doubt that significant changes had been made. Despite what the critics were wont to say, I don't believe that the films would have enjoyed much popularity if Columbus and his successor had followed Jackson's example and I also don't believe that it is necessary to depart fundamentally from a book in order to insure a film's financial success.


----------



## Eledhwen (Mar 16, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> But movies are not made for people who know the books they are based on. Like it or not, movies are basically a commercial operation and their first priority is to make money. Generally, the producers couldn't care less how closely the movie follows the material it is based on.


This is sad, but true. They are effectively taking the _branding_ that the book title becomes following its commercial success, and tweaking it into their own medium, i.e. film, in order to scoop the cream off the books' success. This misses an opportunity to bring the true story into visuals (I remember reading how excited J K Rowling was to actually watch a Quiddich match). It also _becomes_ the story. Anyone who has read the original Faerie stories behind much of Disney's output will know what I mean. You have to scour old book shops to find them, as most modern renderings follow the Disney script. Eventually, LotR will come out of copyright, and the free-for-all will begin. Our grandchildren will be served up all sorts of merde in the name of Tolkien, because the 'definitive' films didn't stick to the story.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Mar 16, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> This is sad, but true. They are effectively taking the _branding_ that the book title becomes following its commercial success, and tweaking it into their own medium, i.e. film, in order to scoop the cream off the books' success.



While it is necessary to make changes to bring any written work to the screen, that does not necessarily mean that the book has to be rewritten either in text or in meaning. Many books have been successfully brought to the screen with their meaning, characters and settings in tact. It is only when a particular director decides that _he knows better_ than the author how the story should be told, do we get the sort of thing that happened with LOTR.



Eledhwen said:


> This misses an opportunity to bring the true story into visuals (I remember reading how excited J K Rowling was to actually watch a Quiddich match). It also _becomes_ the story. Anyone who has read the original Faerie stories behind much of Disney's output will know what I mean. You have to scour old book shops to find them, as most modern renderings follow the Disney script. Eventually, LotR will come out of copyright, and the free-for-all will begin. Our grandchildren will be served up all sorts of merde in the name of Tolkien, because the 'definitive' films didn't stick to the story.



I once asked the question of how dangerous these films were going to be in future to the _true_ story of LOTR - and I think that the above pretty much covers the same concern. Once something is in place _visually_, it is very hard to "undo" it. I have no doubt that eventually, what most people think of as LOTR will contain a lot more Jackson than Tolkien in the mix, especially as fewer and fewer people read for pleasure - or, indeed, are able to "read" anything more complicated than a government form (which is complicated enough!).


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Mar 18, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> But movies are not made for people who know the books they are based on. Like it or not, movies are basically a commercial operation and their first priority is to make money. Generally, the producers couldn't care less how closely the movie follows the material it is based on.



And it is entirely possible, despite Mrs M's "assurances" to the contrary, that a film adaptation can follow a book as closely as possible--to the point that it reproduces verbatim _every word the characters say and to whom they say them_--and still be an inferior film. Cinema and prose are _different_ media: you can't expect the one to be the mirror image of the other. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?



Mrs Maggott said:


> I doubt if the Potter films (for instance) would have been very profitable had their makers gone out of the way to change the characters (and redistribute the dialogue) to the extent that Jackson did in LOTR.



Assuming that you are correct on the following points--(a) that the _Potter_ films are indeed "truer" to the _Potter_ novels than the _Lord of the Rings_ films are to Tolkien's book, and (b) that a film adaptation's felicity to the original text is directly proportional to its box office success--one would have to assume that the _Potter_ films have been _more_ successful at the box office than the _Lord of the Rings _ trilogy.

As it turns out, the films have had comparable box office success. Jackson's films have grossed $2,911,519,292. The Potter films have grossed $2,624,358,727. (Source: IMDB)


----------

