> Is that truly a legitimate criticism, though?
Movies based on books need to stand on their
own, no matter how faithful or unfaithful they
may be. Some movies are *too* faithful,
adapting material not as well suited to the
screen as to a book, or attempting to
incorporate themes that can't be done justice
in the shorter time allotted to film. In the end, it
doesn't really matter if a movie is faithful or not
to its source material: if it stands on its own as
a good story, competently executed, then it's a
good movie. I think Clear and Present Danger
is just that. You may not LIKE it, and that's a
valid statement to make even without
supporting it, but I don't think it's fair to say it
"sucks" because it's different from the novel.
>

I suppose it's because I *expect* a movie to
play closely to my interpretation of the book,
and when it doesn't, I don't like that a whole
lot. Is that good? Probably not. In comparison
to the *book*, I didn't like CaPD. The plot is
altered a little too much, and characters who
are too important in later books die in this
movie. Now, taking the movie, *by itself*...it
was good. The plot worked well for a movie,
and there was plenty of Harrison Ford and
things exploding. I guess what I'm saying is
that I liked the *movie*, not the *adaptation*.

> I have to wonder, though, why you're so
excited about this movie if you have an 0 for 2
track record on Clancy adaptations and aren't
too sure about the star.

I just don't like Alec Baldwin a whole lot. I don't
know why, either. I just don't. Hunt For Red
October was a good movie.

And like you said, many people are unsure
about Ben Affleck. I was *surprised* when I
heard he'd be playing the part of Jack Ryan,
but not severely disappointed. Am I unsure
about him? Yes. But if he's has a good an
actor as many people make him out to be (I
wouldn't know...I haven't seen any Ben Affleck
movies), then he shouldn't be a problem.
>
> > The subject matter? *shrug*
> > I'm sure some people will be upset over it.
But someone is always upset over something.
>
> So my wondering about The Sum of All
Fears was asking the question "how does the
movie handle the subject of terrorism and
what does it say to its audience"? Will
people overlook the subject matter completely
and receive the film as escapism instead of
as a reminder of September 11th? Will
people find it exploitative of the current world
climate or something intelligent that the world
*needs* right about now? Will people be
more comfortable forgetting that terrorism
exists or realize it must be faced? I'm not even
sure I can formulate all the proper questions
into words.

All very valid questions. It will be interesting to
see how Clancy (who has a major hand in the
making of this movie) handles the portrayal of
terrorism.