Well I'm no hardcore purist, but I like it when characters from books are in their original like character on screen. I don't mind a few changes to subplots, just don't mess up the characters. If you make characters a little like the book on screen but add these characteristics like with Peter and Susan in PC then it's going to be sloppy and risks further adaptations.

I'm not one who wants movies to be exactly like the books, just don't mess with character emotions, aspirations, etc.

I agree with that sentiment but his example isn't a good one because I don't think their father died in the war for the film version. I think he was away at war in LWW, or else there'll be some more background tweaking in VDT.

But in any case! I really liked the personalities Peter and Susan had in PC. I felt their issues were believable for adults-turned-teenagers and in Peter's case specifically we got to see his character arc, from an aggressive young man to the maturity we see him display at the end of the film. It may make it a poor adaptation of the book word for word, but I think it made for a more engaging story. Sorry to say, PC the book is not one of my favorites, but the movie made it more enjoyable to read. I feel this way about a few other adaptations, particularly comic book movies. Watchmen wasn't the most faithful to its source material but I found that I enjoyed the comic more after seeing it. Before the movie I could never sit through it more than twice, after the movie I can reread it more frequently.

I think regardless of how by-the-book the adaptation is, what's more important is that the film engages the audience in a way that pleases them and turns them towards the source material. I've yet to meet anyone who truly hates the books because they're so different from the movies.

I think that changes when translating a story from book to film is necessary, -I just think they are less necessary than filmmakers would like us to believe.

Adapt as closely to the book as possible; change only what you need to in order to keep the story entertaining on screen.

I believe the filmmakers should have an amount of creative license, but not so much as rewriting the story. What I found to be a brilliant thing about LWW is this: that even though, for example, the opening war scene is not in the book, it still could have happened. In the book, it simply says that the Pevensies had to leave London because of the air raids. In the movie, it shows those air raids, draws us into the story, and helps us understand why they have to leave. It wasn't a change to the story, it just expanded on the material from the book.

^ditto. I really like them to stick close to the book, but I know for film you have to add a little here and there but I like them just to expand on material and characters that are already there instead of adding new plot lines and issues.