That's funny. This film is being praised for being close to the book. Lord of the Rings is being praised for being (fairly) close to the book. Sin City is being praised for being close to the comic material.
Yes, there are books that are hard to be made into films because of the technology. Logan's Run was a good example, but the film that was going to be made was to correct that issue, and be closer to the book. The first Wonka movie wasn't very accurate, but this newer one is very close to the book. In that case, there wasn't even a good reason to not stick to the book.
Hollywood is slowly slowly slowly realizing that the closer you make the movie to the source material, the better the movie becomes. There are some subtle changes that may need to be made, but for the most part, the person that wrote the book and had the vision is a better judge of how the story should play out rather than some director that wants to make a quick change to the story for the hell of it.
Why do I have to repeat the same fucking conversation over and over again? Why not just read
this thread so that we can skip the same ol' argument?