Directors of book adaptations have choices to make other than the movie itself. They need to choose actors, how to direct the movie, and even music. What most people don't understand is the challenge of making the movie close to the book. Other than following the plot, the directors need to figure out how to match the book in regards to controversial topics. For instance the adaptation of American Sniper had a lot of controversy over the making of it. The movie had to follow the book and Chris Kyle needed to be the same. Some people were angered over how Chris Kyle was portrayed in the movie. Many adaptations, especially war, get these same arguments. Unbroken is another movie with some other controversial subjects on the directors choices.

The article I read was a blog from the Huffington Post. It discussed the choices Angelina Jolie had and what she left out of the adaptation. The author mentioned how Louie had many problems after life normalized. This detail was in the book, but the movie does not show these problems. Louie went through what no human should go through and it was a miracle he came out alive and in the condition he was in. People that have gone through circumstances similar to this are never the same. Angelina's choice to not include these problems angered veterans that understand what he went through. The movie shows Louie becoming free and everything is happy again which almost always is not the case.

Another choice the director made was to make the movie more about Louie and his will and determination. Louie is in the midst of World War 2 and there is a lot going on around him. The book focuses on Louie and his character, but it also talks about what is going on around the pacific with the war. I believe that this was a good choice the director made. There are many other movies that cover the war in the Pacific so it was fine that the movie focused solely on Louie.