Books to Movies: Why Subplots in Books Don't Work in Movies

I watched Christmas with Holly, which is based on Lisa Kleypas's Christmas Eve at Friday Harbor. 

First, the main characters:  

Despite the actor for Mark (Sean Faris) being nearly 10 years younger than his book counterpart, he has the features and build and aura of a young man who could become that older man. His unapologetic sternness with Shelby--ex-girlfriend who keeps insisting that his niece is not his "real" child--is perfect. 

Unfortunately, Eloise Mumford as Maggie is rather blah.

She's pretty and lively. But I could imagine no good reason why this relationship deserved 90 minutes of slow burn romance over anybody else Mark could date. Why not the co-owner of his coffee house? Why not Holly's elementary school teacher? Granted, Shelby's kind of hard to warm to but why would it be Maggie? 

Cast of family. Twins play Holly.

In the book, Kleypas presents a solid scene where Mark and Maggie meet on the ferry to Seattle. Mark reflects that Maggie reminds him of the young women he stayed up all night talking to when he was a college student. Why didn't I date those women? Maggie is funny and adorable and sincere and really more his style. 

In contrast, in the movie, Mark and Maggie have multiple conversations typical to meet-cutes--that is, jokey conversations about absolutely nothing. Even their date is kind of shallow, which may be typical of first-dates, but the object here is to sell a relationship. 90 minutes is more than enough time!

Now, what the scriptwriters did right:

They got rid of Alec's alcoholism and Maggie's widowhood. A movie cannot handle every subplot from the book without losing focus.

Scott, Alex, Mark, Holly

In the book, both of these subplots don't overwhelm the book (and the book is quite short). They are part of life, part of the family dynamic. But in the movie, both potential plot points would beg for more time. The movie would become ABOUT the alcoholism or Maggie's sorrow. 

In a book, we readers can accept that Alex is still functional and will eventually kick his addiction (future change) and that Maggie has moved on, is ready to date (past change). 

But in a movie, those issues would become Chekhov's gun-on-the-wall. The viewer would expect some kind of pay-off, resolution, to THOSE problems. 

And, in truth, referencing the issue that starts this post, I think the script does veer off-course. The material about the brothers from the book is more interesting than the romance. Their exchanges are more warm-hearted, funnier (the frozen turkey in the deep fryer!), and better written with more substance.

With a book, readers are prepared to take information and file it. With a movie, what we see is very much what we expect to get.