Just watched the latest episode. Don't like what's coming, don't like it one bit. I think it's a much different thing to write off a book character, then to hand a popular actor his walking papers.
You'd prefer they follow the example of Heroes, where they kept around characters who'd outlived their usefulness simply because the actors had become popular?
It should follow the book as close as possible. If that means someone has to do X then that's what it means.
Here's a good example... Everyone loves The Shining, Everyone loves Stephen King. BUT, most people seem to agree that given the choice they prefer the movie (which differs from the book) over the TV miniseries (which IS faithful to the book). So clearly, always going straight by the novel isn't such a good thing.
There are two questions: should you stick to the book because you should stick to the book or should you stick to the book because the book is good? Definitely the latter and a fiery discussion on the former. But I will say that the notion you don't do something on TV that is in the book because you've cast an interesting actor in a role that goes is... bonkers.
Kubrick's version was painfully slow and boring, and completely missed the point of the novel. Nicholson over-acted and Shelly Duvall was fucking terrible. The problem with the mini-series had nothing to do with the fact that it was more faithful to the book. The problem was that it was made for TV on a shit budget with second-rate actors and a shitty director. If a faithful version of the shining were made today with a proper budget and a good director, it would kick all kinds of serious ass.
Depends on how good the book is to begin with and the difficulty or ease of translating from the written page to the big screen.
Mostly, I think the movie/teevee show should follow the books as much as possible. It's why all of the movies based on Tom Clany novels, with the exception of The Hunt For Red October, have sucked (and even that movie had significant changes from the novel). I haven't read any of the Game of Thrones books, though, so I'm not as wed to "The book should be followed!" view as I normally would be. That, and I like that particular actor quite a bit.
From what I normally hear, the worst Harry Potter movie was #4 because it took 90% of the book and threw it away. I've also heard the best HP movie was #7, and it took 90% of the book and kept it. I'm not a big moviegoer so that's just my .
Well there are certain actors that never survive till the credits. Perhaps audiences should be used to such actors biting the dust in their roles, no matter how popular they are.