film adaptations

[susanbones2003 <rdas@facstaff.wisc.edu>]

> 
Tyler: 
You said:
> I don't think there's EVER been a film adaptation of a
> book that 1. is completely loyal to the source and 2.
> didn't frustrate fans of the book.

I would agree that there have to be compromises but I think what all 
this hinges on is the question of "what makes a good adaptation..."
You said it best
> I think that part of this is that written and visual
> art mediums are just too different from each other 

and so they are but and this is a biggy, a successful adaptation 
captures the SPIRIT of the piece (that would certainly still allow 
for a work to inhabit its own creative space, I believe)and I think 
what's got so many Potter-fans hot and bothered is the spirit has 
been violated. Compromises, yes, but just totally re-arranging 
characters, taking away their strengths, making them 2-dimensional, 
getting them to utter silly phrases that never occured in the books 
(as in "Don't worry, I will be...") well that seems unnecessary. If 
you have good bones, why change them? Use them, build on them. Make 
the compromises but why would you have to change the essence of 
characters? 
JenD