http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/10/04/where_the_wonder_goes/

Ty Burr worries that children’s stories translated into the cinematic medium risk losing their “innocence.” He makes the point that successful stories for children “address profound aspects of childhood while seeming to look the other way.” Films, by contrast, refuse to look away and offer so much information that little room is left for the imagination. I was reminded of early anxieties about sound film. In an essay on the Culture Industry, Horkheimer and Adorno worried that film would leave “no room for imagination or reflection of the part of the audience.” The “victims” of sound film are so “absorbed” by what takes place on screen that they end up equating the cinematic spectacle with reality.

Looking at Burr’s inventory of cinematic adaptations that “work” or “don’t work,” it seems fairly obvious that the success of an adaptation has little to do with “too much information.” The MGM version of The Wizard of Oz is actually better than the book, and it is full of fanciful excesses. Or take Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Why does one work and the other fall flat?