Movie adaptations are great and all, but I have always been a bigger fan of books than the movies that follow. I understand that there is a different mind in charge of the film than the one who wrote the book. I love that interpretations are so diverse, and everyone views text with a different pair of eyes. However, watching the first part of the Stardust adaptation made me start to wonder if some parts of the story were as important as I perceived them to be. Tristan’s journey in the book is much more meaningful to me as a member of the audience because you go with him through all his hardships before finding the star and all the trouble that comes their way once he finds the star. I felt much more disconnected from the characters in the movie than I did in the book, mostly because I can imagine these characters, and their personalities my own way. I really didn’t like how the movie changed the way he got to the star. I think by having him travel on his feet, we get acquainted with him and get a sense of how out of place he feels in the magical world.

I also noticed a lot of other differences, one mainly being the Unicorn. In the book, the unicorn is extremely skeptical of approaching the inn, in the movie there is no issues. he also knocks the poisonous drink out of Tristan’s hand, instead of showing him it is poisonous with his horn. These seemingly small differences all end up making a huge difference to how the audience is interpreting the story as a whole.

Advertisements