A poll of sorts... A film's subject matter

[Tancred]

Does the closeness of a film to its' subject matter count against it?

It's a question that has cropped up in my mind once or twice on this thread... mostly by reading opinions on the Lord of the Rings films, which are indeed superior fantasy films but occasionally differ from the book, but recently by johnny's rather damning opinion of the 'wrongness' of Enemy at the Gates.

What do you think? Is being faithful to the original events a film may be trying to capture paramount? Does merely being 'based' on a true story cut it? Or should nothing stand in the way of making what is, essentially, a thing made to entertain?

Tanc

[Barry the Sprout]

The only thing I have a problem with is films revelling in their accuracy, or being celebrated for it, when they aren't. I have no problems with films that are openly and unashamedly inaccurate. I just don't like films to claim the banner of historical accuracy when they aren't entitled to. It always puts me off a film because I feel like i've been tricked or something...

[antryg]

I think it is hypocritical when a film shows gratiutious nudity, uses very vulgar language, is explicit in it's showing of violence because they want to be real and then change all the facts in a "historical" movie because they are just telling a story.

A character is shot and dies. That advances the plot. Seeing blood and brains splatter because that's what it would really look like doesn't advance the plot. Being accurate in inconsequential details that bring people in (see the blood it's cool) and then completely changing the historical accuracy of the movie is crazy. (WW2 actually occured so it really doesn't matter if we show the Italians bombing Pearl Harbor so that the movie will do better in Japan.)

[Iron_Ranger]

Well said Antryg..

Heres what I think. I dont think the miniscule (err...probably not spelled right) details matter all that much. Like for instance..Johnny said in the Enemy at the Gates threat that Zaitsev was mor asain looking..Well does it really matter? What matters to me is the fact that (to my knowledge) he was raised in the urals, learned how to shoot by hunting wolfs and all that.

However, yeah completely changing the facts around (Italians bombing Pearl Habor) is wrong.

But then again, if you want historical accuracy, watch a documantary. Not a Hollywood Flim..

*shrugs*

[homer]

In my opinion a movie can never be really true to a book it is based on; that is why they always say, “based” on the book. In order to follow a book exactly, the movie would have to be monumentally long. Just the dialog alone would be impossible to duplicate exactly. It would also be necessary to have a running commentary so you would know what the characters are thinking; in a book this is easily written down, not so in a movie.

The director and screenwriter have to make an interpretation of the book and base the movie on that.

Originally posted by antryg: A character is shot and dies. That advances the plot. Seeing blood and brains splatter because that's what it would really look like doesn't advance the plot. Being accurate in inconsequential details that bring people in (see the blood it's cool) and then completely changing the historical accuracy of the movie is crazy. (WW2 actually occured so it really doesn't matter if we show the Italians bombing Pearl Harbor so that the movie will do better in Japan.)

I have, what I believe, is an exception to this. The first fifteen or so minutes of Saving Private Ryan was some of the most gruesome scenes I have seen in a movie. I do feel that this violence plays an extremely importance part in the movie. This violence is not changing the historical value of the event; it is enhancing it for the viewer. War is gruesome and this movie shows you that.

[elianne]

they'd never have that problem if they only tried to make films out of good stories in the first place.

if it needs changing then
1) its not very fair to change it just to fit the hollywood ideal
and
2)it isn't movie material in the first place so why try changing it? get something better suited instead. then perhaps we wouldn't have so many bad films.

[Wulfere]

Yes a movie that is true to a book would be long, but it wouldn't be soo long that people wouldn't want to see it. I would have sat through FotR and TTT if they had been 5 hours long.
You must realize that alot of a book is description of things that could be shown on the screen without the minutes of narration needed to describe what people would already be seeing. Some books would require alot of narration because the action and dialog is in the characters head, But not all. Since my job requires nearly no thought at all, I spend alot of time listening to unabridged audiobooks. I constantly visualize how a movie could be made from a book. Some things would have to be changed, but a great deal would not. It boils down to cost though and the movies that could be made won't be. Primarily because they would be so terribly expensive.