your personal review and attack towards the actresses (physically, not professionally) involved highlighted that.
WTF?
I didn't attack either actress.
"Physically, not professionally": what does that mean?
I attacked them physically?
literature that is later adapted into film is targeted at a key audience; generally toward those appreciative of the text and story outlining the film.
I could give you thousands of examples of big-screen adaptations that are not aimed at people who read the book.
I went to see the movie, having read a review that didn't mention the book at all.
There was no mention of the book in the advertisement...
If the film was promoted as an appendage to the book, then I wouldn't have seen it.
The fact is: it
wasn't promoted as an appendage to the book.
A truly great adaptation transcends the source material and has a wider audience than people who read the book... I hadn't read Into the Wild when I saw the film, and I liked it a lot... Then I read the book, and I liked that too.
I suspect that it was difficult to adapt Wild, and keep in everything from the novel.
I get that, but I think it could have been done better.
Parts of it they should have been left out.
Flashback montages are not effective ways to tell back story.
I felt like I was being fed the back story, out of context.
A woman gets cancer. A horse dies.
And, having not developed any sort of connection to the horse or woman, I don't much care.
I get that they have limited running time, but a lot of it was wasted on slow scenes of a little value.
Like the scene where she struggles over a small obstacle, and smiles afterwards.
The symbolism was patronizing. The scene served little function...
And the long scene of her erecting a tent. A classic filmic cliche.
They could have cut that stuff, so that we got to know the mother.
But, they didn't.
If they wanted to fit everything from the novel in, and keep the slow pace, it should have been a mini-series.
If they were thinking that the mother had already been established in the novel...
Then, what about the people who pay to see the film without reading the novel?
It wasn't advertised as something that would only appeal to people who read the book.
And, honestly, knowing film-makers, I doubt anybody would intentionally make an adaptation like that.
the book is remarkable, i suggest if interested, you read it. youll probably/potenially view the movie in a whole different light? its a great journey.
I may read it at some point.
But, even if I do, I will not view the film differently, regardless of the quality of the book.
Like I said: films should stand on their own legs.
It's not impossible to tell that story, on film, without relying on audience members reading the book.
I would have treated the film as a stand-alone attempt to tell a story, even if I read the book, and had the same criticisms.
This is how I generally approach adaptations.
[/rant]
...
I get that you disagree with me, but you can't invalidate my opinion.
Maybe if you hadn't read the book, you'd have been disappointed too?