Fantastic post and you're one of the few so far to have any evidence against my case, so good job to that. However...
They're indivduals, but think of them as a parent and a child. A parent (the book) has the job of instructing and guiding the child (the movie). Every child has some imprint on them left by their parents, many of these imprints are physical, while others are genetic behavior traits and moral fiber. Apply that same concept to book to screen film adapatations. The apple doesn't fall so far from the tree.
I couldn't agree more, but unless that apple lands directly on top of the apple that fell before, then you get what I'm saying. I understand perfectly that they are all within the same realm. Books and their film Adaptations are very closely related. But, and you've acknowledged it yourself, they are not clones of each othere. Though they may not be glaring and really don't alter the impact of the story drastically, differences do exist, which leads me into my next reiteration:
When you take a book and adapt it to a movie your adding visuals and voices, a supplement that should enhance the book by adding concrete matter as a reinforcer. You are in no way adding new themes, and I can assure you that Alfonso Cuaron did not in any way try to show homosexual themes in Prisoner of Azkaban.
Again, there is no law of the cinematic universe that says a film adaptation's only purpose is to supplement the book. The entire reason they exist is to seperate themselves from their book counterparts, if it were any other case there wouldn't be film adaptations, stories would exist only in book form. It is actually incredibly rare that film adaptations simply supplement a book. Yes, they deal with entirely the same material, but they are constructed by vastly different methods and by all means can have vastly different outcomes. In the case of the Harry Potter films they do stick remarkably close to the books, but just because they do doesn't mean they aren't allowed to deviate.
I agree that Alfonso Cuaron didn't intend to show homosexual themes as there isn't a single homosexual theme in the movie. A theme is consistent throughout, what I'm talking about is at one instance of the film. If it was a theme you'd see Harry and Ron holding hands.
It may have been a stretch for me to say that Remus and Sirius were gay lovers, but the actual conontation of homosexuality still exists in the film despite whether the two are actual life partners.
Again I feel the need to point back to
The Malteese Falcon and the hidden sexuality of that film that the director carefuly disguised into the minute details of the three gay men. For another example of how directors can mask homosexuality in their films go rent Alfred Hitchcocks
Rope.
Whether it was meant to be implied in the movie or not (which I doubt it was), the fact that there is NO supporting evidence in the books seals this arguement as cased closed.
By that logic (and your entire understanding of film adaptations) we should believe that Muldoon didn't die in
Jurassic Park for despite the obvious implications that he died in the film, there isn't a single word in the book that says so.
Adaptations are not absolute. By your interpretation of what a film adaptation is you might as well pretend that
Romeo + Juliet never happened because there was absolutely no supporting evidence in the parent of that film that it took place in 1996.
I could continue to list the hundreds of examples that blow your reasoning and understanding of film adaptations wide apart.
This is why some connections that may seem reasonable in the context of the movie are illegitimate when you consider some of the information that was left out of the movies.
Woah, woah, woah! So movies can actually select what goes into them!?!?!?! Surely you jest! Surely the inclusion or exclusion of an aspect of a book into it's film counterpart cannot be intentional!
Before you bring it up, I'm well aware the Harry Potter films suffer from their time constraints, but it still remains that what gets put into the movie and doesn't is a choice. A choice, that whether you want to face it or not, actually makes a difference not only as to how the movie is interpreted cinematically, but the subject matter of it as well.
Whether it was meant to be implied in the movie or not (which I doubt it was), the fact that there is NO supporting evidence in the books seals this arguement as cased closed.
For the last time, this thread is about a movie; not about a book.