What should we do next?

[sistermagpie]

> Geoff: 
> > > Which raises the rather perplexing question - how do you
> > > view the books then when they  are the primary sources for the
> > > films?
>  
> Steve Van: 
> > I couldn't disagree more. The movies are merely based on the 
books as stated in the 
> credits of each movie. As for the books themselves, I have not read 
them, do not intend on 
> reading them so I have no opinion of them whatsoever.
> 
> Geoff:
> That really isn't logical. Whether you like a book or not, if 
> a film is based on a book, using the characters and the basic 
> story line, then the book has got to be the primary source. 
> Otherwise, why use the name of the book?
> 
> You might just as well give the film a different name and 
> write a completely different story - although you would 
> have to change the names of the characters because of 
> copyright, which defeats the object of the exercise.

Magpie:
Many adaptations do do that, though. I think what Steve V. might be 
saying is just that the movies stand on their own. Surely we've all 
seen plenty of movies that were based on books without ever reading 
the book. You shouldn't need to do both. Though they're both for 
entertainment.