Books are should not be movies ( was Re: Cuaron talks about movie cuts)

[saintbacchus]

Barbara persists:

<<
Here's what I don't get. . .what is the point of sticking to the 
"theme" when the books are so much more than that? There's a whole 
storyline and intricate plot that JKR created. That's what I missed 
in the movie the most. Being faithful to the spirit of the book just 
wasn't enough for me, I wanted the story told the way it's told in 
the book.
>>

Now see, I don't get what the point is of making a movie that 
follows the book exactly. If that's what you want, why not just read 
the book again?

I'm starting to feel like I'm in Red Dwarf here. Books are not 
movies, Dave. Dave, movies are not books. They have totally 
different narrative conventions, because they are totally different 
media. I would love to give you an example of a movie that left in 
far too much of its source material, but screenwriters know 
perfectly well they can't cram in all that stuff. I can, however, 
give several examples of excellent films that weren't half as 
faithful as Kloves has been. In fact, let's take just one: Who 
Censored Roger Rabbit?

Who Censored Roger Rabbit? is the book on which Who Framed Roger 
Rabbit was based. Some of the changes Disney made include:

-Removing the toon/human racism metaphor
-Making Jessica love Roger for real
-Rewriting the entire story

In other words, all they kept for the movie were the names. Which is 
tragic, because the original plot is terrific, and Gary Wolf came up 
with all sorts of neat ways that toondom manifests itself in the 
real world - like, toons can produce doppelgangers that take those 
nasty falls for them. Roger gets murdered at the beginning of the 
book and a doppelganger is all that's left of him until the end.

Disney, it ain't. Yet, despite gutting the book and turning it into 
something it very much wasn't before, the film is still excellent. 
And Roger Rabbit fans got two fantastic stories out of it. I 
consider that a win-win situation.

--Anna