“A faithful interpretation that captures the spirit of whimsy, action, and off-kilter humor of Neil Gaiman, Stardust juggles multiple genres and tones to create a fantastical experience.” -Rotten Tomatoes
Watching the Stardust film was obviously a lot easier than watching the King Lear interpretation. But this isn’t about the comparison between the two films. I’m comparing the book and the film. The biggest difference you notice is they completely left out Tristan’s trek to find the star. He finds her immediately with the candle. There is no little ugly guy helping him through traps and no Dunstan talking the guard into letting Tristan cross the wall. Why do the makers of the film do this? Is the trek to finding the star not important? Was it to condense everything in the film? I think they do this because Tristan’s relationship with “Star” in the beginning of the book was slow starting and boring making it not important to include in the film. The film makers really wanted to get straight to the point and show the way Tristan, the sons of the King and the witches are looking for this star and ruby for their own personal good. The film narrates faster than the book is able to because it as he shows the towns and market he also is explaining the characters and the book isn’t able to do this. This makes it easier for the film to get straight to the point in Tristan and Star’s relationship and the son’s and witches trek to find her. I liked watching the film better than reading the book because of the way the towns. character and settings are easier to interpret rather than looking at pictures. Either way both the film and the graphic novel are great way’s of interpreting fairy tales characteristics.