wataru wrote:No, I meant Blade Runner is better then Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind and Stagecoach. I dug you're short film. I actually LIKE post-apocalyptic features. Eastwood (from old TK) makes films too, I dig on his stuff though he has nothing out yet...
I find ALOT of the films from the early part of the 20th century very LACKING in real story and making up for it with visuals and star appeal.
I was perfectly fine with the story of Wizard Of Oz
. It made sense. Oz is, in a lot of ways, comparable to Wonderland: It doesn't follow a whole lot of logic, if at all. The story is basic, but it really doesn't need to be anything more than that. I honestly think that if the story was a bit more complicated (not sure how they could make that so), there wouldn't be as much rewatch value, or to put it simply, the film wouldn't be as good.
It's a problem of today as well - in more then one type of media. Some films can blend it flawlessly, some just fail so hard it's sickening. As a major film buff, I cannot get behind movies like Gone With The Wind or Wizard of Oz because compared to the subject matter theyre based on theyre EXTREMELY flawed and wrong. The novels of Oz are not gay singing musicals of color. The Civil War and slavery was not a technicolor romance of beautiful belles and swashbuckling men.
Theyre not true to the subject. They're not even really adaptations. Theyre basically 'Look at this!' films. The base story is OK but they trample it..
Well, here's how I think of that. Back in the '30s, people didn't look at films as much more than an escapist fantasy. A gateway to worlds that they could never imagine. They didn't really care if what they were looking at was unlike their own world, or how they imagined it to be in books (historical or fictional), because what they're seeing is so enjoyable.
So what if it doesn't follow the original source material? Or if it's not portraying historical accuracy to a tee? It's still enjoyable to watch. Also, sometimes filmmakers have to take certain liberties with the original source material, to make it more appealing to mass audience. They put musical numbers in Wizard Of Oz
because musicals were a big hit at the time. They didn't follow historical accuracy in Gone With The Wind
, because if they had, nobody would have gone to see the movie.
Also, Gone With The Wind
was based off a book that had a romance of beautiful belles and swashbuckling men during the Civil War. That book won a Pulitzer for Fiction in 1936. David O. Selznick thought it would make a great movie, and decided to make it in technicolor. Because, why not?
Civil War movies in general tend to be "High Risk, Big Payoff" movies: There's a huge chance that no one will want to go see the movie, because it's one of the darkest parts of American history. However, there's also a chance that everyone will want to go see, if it's done well. Gone With The Wind
wasn't even the first film to do this. That would go to Birth Of A Nation
, another film by D.W. Griffith. That was not only one of the first Civil War films, if not the first, but also the birth of feature length films. Before Birth Of A Nation
, the longest film ever was roughly 22 minutes, the length of one reel of film. Birth Of A Nation
, however, was over three hours long. Griffith went from city to city showing his film (that was the best way to do it back in the '10s and early '20s) and had an overwhelming success on his hands. And just like Gone With The Wind
, Birth Of A Nation
doesn't really follow historical accuracy.
Point is, when it comes to something like the Civil War, you can't be too
accurate to what actually happened. Otherwise, you're going to drive your audience away. I'm sure that there are films out there that tried to accurately portray the Civil War, but how much you wanna bet that those films turned out awful?