Multiple threads or not, I can't understand why so many expect the movie to be nearly as good as the book. Has anyone ever read a book then seen the movie, and thought that the movie was better, or even as good?
I can personally think of three. Three for me, in 44 years.
"The Outlaw, Josey Wales" was in my opinion, a much better movie than a book. It was adapted from the book Gone to Texas, BUT, I'd seen the movie something like 22 times before I read the book, so I may have been biased.
The mini-series "Lonesome Dove" was adapted the most accurately from its book, in my opinion. Leaving out the bull / grizzly bear fight did not detract from the series.
Finally, The Stand (the original book, not the un-abridged version) which I've read at least 15 times, was a wonderfully adapted mini-series. Of course there was no way to incorporate all the aspects of King's imagination into film, but they did a great job.
Now that I've mentioned Stephen King, I'll have to update my number to 4; 4 in 44 years.
A mini-series of The Shining, starring Stephen Weber (the goofy brother from the TV series "Wings") was superb. Kubrick's film with Jack Nicholson was horrendous.
Point-of-Impact will likely be along the lines of Kubrick's "Shining"; just enough of the book in the movie to remind you of it, but nowhere true to the book.
Sam