Topic: Historical accuracy - Fixing the script.

[Achim]

Ok, I'm probably not doing myself a favor by showing my complete lack of culture but...........     Robin Hood is supposed to have really existed ?  I always thought it was a story  

I thought you accepted it as a (possibly) real person, since you were discussing historical accuracy. Not really important for fictional characters, is it?

Robin Hood like Arthur is a legend, so all we know about him is based on word of mouth or more accurately songs, from down the centuries. In truth there is likely a man or perhaps an amalgamation of several from which the tales were based, but he may have even just been a fantasy hero even then.

That is what I remember the documentary saying.

[Dragonfire]

Don't feel too bad...I thought he was an actual identifiable person until a year or so ago.  I looked up information and discovered he wasn't.  Oh well.

[Eric]

I thought you accepted it as a (possibly) real person, since you were discussing historical accuracy. Not really important for fictional characters, is it?

Historical accuracy doesn't necessarily mean real people, it can also mean respecting a story or a legend.  If hollywood was to bring Homer's Odyssey to cinema again, they'd have to respect the story which is now part of history although it is just a story.

[RossRoy]

If hollywood was to bring Homer's Odyssey to cinema again, they'd have to respect the story which is now part of history although it is just a story.

Isn't that what the whole thread is about? Hollywood NOT respecting the stories?

[Eric]

Let me rephrase Seb.

If Hollywood..............................they SHOULD respect..............

But we all know that nowadays, they would just take Odysseus, Penelope and completely write a new story, probably suggesting the cyclops was actually some cyborg from outer space who was fighting Odysseus because he was pissed after his contractor fucked up with the pyramids in Egypt and they didn't turn out quite as he had planned.

Hence..............fictional character and stories do belong in a "historical accuracy" thread 

[DJ Doena]

Are you going to tell me that Brian wasn't actually crucified instead of Jesus? 

[Achim]

Historical accuracy doesn't necessarily mean real people, it can also mean respecting a story or a legend.  If hollywood was to bring Homer's Odyssey to cinema again, they'd have to respect the story which is now part of history although it is just a story.

Point taken...

But we all know that nowadays, they would just take Odysseus, Penelope and completely write a new story, probably suggesting the cyclops was actually some cyborg from outer space who was fighting Odysseus because he was pissed after his contractor fucked up with the pyramids in Egypt and they didn't turn out quite as he had planned.

Now there's a movie I'd like to see...

[dfmorgan]

But we all know that nowadays, they would just take Odysseus, Penelope and completely write a new story, probably suggesting the cyclops was actually some cyborg from outer space who was fighting Odysseus because he was pissed after his contractor fucked up with the pyramids in Egypt and they didn't turn out quite as he had planned.

Now there's a movie I'd like to see...

[aol]Me too[/aol]

[Eric]

I don't mean to brag but it does sound like a good script 

[Najemikon]

Let me rephrase Seb.

If Hollywood..............................they SHOULD respect..............

But we all know that nowadays, they would just take Odysseus, Penelope and completely write a new story, probably suggesting the cyclops was actually some cyborg from outer space who was fighting Odysseus because he was pissed after his contractor fucked up with the pyramids in Egypt and they didn't turn out quite as he had planned.

Hence..............fictional character and stories do belong in a "historical accuracy" thread 

This thread extends to adapting any existing popular fiction, be it a book or comic character. In that case, I've always maintained they should adapt the original work aggressively, because film narrative and mise en scene is the language of cinema and the story must suit that, so long as the point isn't lost. For instance, I've always said that in the Star Wars (original trilogy) vs LotR Which Is The Best Trilogy debate, that Star Wars wins by default, because they were designed to be films and that's the best way to tell the story; LotR was designed to be a book and it still is. It doesn't stop you enjoying one more than the other, of course, but in terms of pure cinema, Lucas beats Jackson.

And being pedantic, they should really have waited for the final Harry Potter book to be written before adapting the films. It may have suited the story better to do it as, say, a trilogy, with a more aware narrative (a good film plot knows the end before the beginning; it just doesn't tell you! ). Instead, the films have a bullish, fly-by-wire approach. They're great fun films, but aren't true cinema. Obviously if they had waited and done it my way, they'd have missed out on the fan-base and the billions of dollars!

Oh yeah, and say what you want about the cynical ploy of remaking Spider-Man so soon, but the trailer implies they're doing it correctly this time. Peter Parker bitten by genetically engineered spider? Noooo. Why would they be doing that anyway? And it was one of 12 super-spiders implying this could be done again and again? Wroooong. Organic web-shooters? Ok, now you're being silly! The new trailer shows Peter being bitten by a random spider that wandered into a gamma experiment. In the comic, it quickly died from the radiation, a truly freak accident and Peter makes his own mechanical web-shooters, a) demonstrating his science ability which the Raimi films almost forgot and b) gives the new scriptwriters a plot point when they want it (oh no! the web-shooters have broken!, etc). Also, the producers are going to keep him in college longer, which is far more sensible.

[Achim]

And being pedantic, they should really have waited for the final Harry Potter book to be written before adapting the films. It may have suited the story better to do it as, say, a trilogy, with a more aware narrative (a good film plot knows the end before the beginning; it just doesn't tell you! ). Instead, the films have a bullish, fly-by-wire approach. They're great fun films, but aren't true cinema. Obviously if they had waited and done it my way, they'd have missed out on the fan-base and the billions of dollars!

I never even lokoed at this that way It would definitely put away with some of Marie's complaints, that certain important plot points were not properly shown in previous films. Well, the problem was, they didn't really know just how important they were Although, I believe Rowling had to read each script so they wouldn't wander off against her own intentions...

[Dragonfire]

And being pedantic, they should really have waited for the final Harry Potter book to be written before adapting the films. It may have suited the story better to do it as, say, a trilogy, with a more aware narrative (a good film plot knows the end before the beginning; it just doesn't tell you! ). Instead, the films have a bullish, fly-by-wire approach. They're great fun films, but aren't true cinema. Obviously if they had waited and done it my way, they'd have missed out on the fan-base and the billions of dollars!

I never even lokoed at this that way It would definitely put away with some of Marie's complaints, that certain important plot points were not properly shown in previous films. Well, the problem was, they didn't really know just how important they were Although, I believe Rowling had to read each script so they wouldn't wander off against her own intentions...

I wouldn't have been happy with only a trilogy from the Potter books.  Too much would have had to have been cut for that..too was cut as it was.

I know of one time when Rowling stopped a change in the script.  For the fifth movie, they were originally going to leave Kreacher out.  She told them not to because he was going to be important later.  Unfortunately, he still wasn't used that much in the final movie.  Though I basically expected that with how the house elves have been treated in the movies.
Rowling did have a talk with Alan Rickman about Snape.  It was during the filming of one of the first 2 movies.  She told him some things about Snape that hadn't come out in the books by that point.  Neither one of them have said what she told him..I have a guess on what it would have been...at least some of it.  That knowledge probably did shape the way Rickman played the part - which was brilliant. 

[Najemikon]

And being pedantic, they should really have waited for the final Harry Potter book to be written before adapting the films. It may have suited the story better to do it as, say, a trilogy, with a more aware narrative (a good film plot knows the end before the beginning; it just doesn't tell you! ). Instead, the films have a bullish, fly-by-wire approach. They're great fun films, but aren't true cinema. Obviously if they had waited and done it my way, they'd have missed out on the fan-base and the billions of dollars!

I never even lokoed at this that way It would definitely put away with some of Marie's complaints, that certain important plot points were not properly shown in previous films. Well, the problem was, they didn't really know just how important they were Although, I believe Rowling had to read each script so they wouldn't wander off against her own intentions...

I wouldn't have been happy with only a trilogy from the Potter books.  Too much would have had to have been cut for that..too was cut as it was.

I know of one time when Rowling stopped a change in the script.  For the fifth movie, they were originally going to leave Kreacher out.  She told them not to because he was going to be important later.  Unfortunately, he still wasn't used that much in the final movie.  Though I basically expected that with how the house elves have been treated in the movies.
Rowling did have a talk with Alan Rickman about Snape.  It was during the filming of one of the first 2 movies.  She told him some things about Snape that hadn't come out in the books by that point.  Neither one of them have said what she told him..I have a guess on what it would have been...at least some of it.  That knowledge probably did shape the way Rickman played the part - which was brilliant. 

No, but you demonstrate my point. You already know the story so you don't want to miss anything and you know how it connects together, so it's frustrating when the film-makers haven't appreciated the same importance; you start questioning the motives. That's an awful place to start from when watching a film for the first time! But let's say J K Rowling wasn't an author, but a screenwriter and she never wrote Harry Potter as a series of books, but pitched them as screenplays. She would have the same themes, the same intrigue, the same point, but she'd never imagine starting at the beginning of an 8 film series. She'd use visual storytelling to replace a huge percentage of text. The story may end up as something very different even in the finale was identical.

Again, look at Star Wars. Lucas imagined 9 films of a very big story across three trilogies and chose the fourth episode as the one to flesh out to stand alone if necessary. There was almost no exposition, but all the background story was there to be found. Imagine if he'd chosen to do them as books and you'd read every one of them, then you hear someone was adapting them into films. You get excited! The Phantom Menace coming to the movies? The rise of Annakin Skywalker! The attempt on the Queen's life! All the political trade argument stuff and Yoda kicking ass! Jango Fett is my fave character; he has to be in! He's the father of the clone army!

Then you read, "we're going to start with Episode 4. We don't need to tell the story of Darth Vadar, we just need him to exist and the films need a really cool character like Han Solo.". You'd be livid. Han bloody Solo? We'll have to settle for Boba Fett instead of his dad, who's far more important. How can they miss the whole Obi Wan versus Annakin stuff?

Of course, they'd never have even tried that. But in truth, that was the best way to tell that story on film.

[Eric]

I just watched a movie called "The children of Huang Shi" which is based on the life of a British man named George Hogg who savec 60 children during the second Sino-Japanese war.

This another perfect example of a filmakers changing a story for no reason.  Hogg ran an orphanage with a man named Rewi Alley.  He also had dealings with a woman named Kathleen Hall.

Now it is unclear whether Hall had anything to do with the orphanage or not but in the movie they give her much more importance than she seems to have had while they completely left Alley out.  Obviously the writers felt the story about a mand and a woman saving children would be more interesting than if it was two men.

Hogg took the children on a 700 miles walk to relocated them to a safer place.  There's no indication that Kathleen Hall had any part in this but in the movie, she leaves with them and then there's this whole made up story about her being opium addic and going through sevrage during the trip.

And of course, they had to mess around a bit with how he dies.

(click to show/hide)

In real life, he injured his toe playing basketball some time after their relocated and he died of tetanus.  For some reason, in the movie they have him getting injured on the hand while changing a tire on a truck and dying of tetanus.  At least they got the disease right but I see no reason for trying to add more drama by changing how he got it.

And about the truck, in case you're wondering, they actually walked 500 miles, got to a place where they hired 6  trucks to complete the trip.  This is yet another thing that was changed, in the movie they actually get 4 trucks lended to them by the towns magistrate.

Just another example of movies changing a story for absolutely no valid reason because their version isn't anymore dramatic or interesting than the real stuff.