it's not life that matters but the journey...

oh hi - you changed your user name - at first I was like, who is this? but it's you:) what made you decide to change your name?

well I guess I have to sort of clarify what I meant about adaptations. I think they can work if they don't completely stray from the author's intent or style. It's okay to add a few things here or there, if it seems to fit the author's original ideas. It's tricky, to be sure:) I really loved that BBC version of Pride and Prejudice too, and I've liked quite a few Shakespeare movie adaptations too. I didn't see the film version because I don't like Keira Knightley. I know that's shallow but oh well. Adapting a book to the screen is tough, and it's not always a bad thing. it's also a personal taste, too I guess.
and that's what it comes down to for me with Burton's Willy Wonka. I've heard from many people that it's closer to the book than the earlier version with Gene Wilder. But I guess I just personally didn't like what Johnny Depp did with his characterization of Wonka. I love Johnny, quite a bit. But his freakish makeup and silly hair was just over the top for me (and I feel the same about his Mad Hatter in the Alice movie). I grew up watching Gene Wilder's interpretation, and it's just become a part of my childhood. To me, Gene will always be Willy Wonka. And I felt that movie was easier to watch then Burton's frenetic remake. I got tired watching Burton's version.

Perhaps I'm being a bit too hasty in my decision not to see Burton's Alice - but I guess it is just personal preference, again. I didn't realize until someone pointed out to me that it's not really an adaptation, as much as an extension of the book, as it's many years later in time. Creatively, I'm sure it's a great film. and maybe I'll see it someday:)

sorry for the long reply - but thanks! I love these kinds of discussions:)