So we are totally supposed to forget?

Investors, you're right.

Actually, her losing fingers did matter. It's brought up several times in the book and it's brought up with significance, detailing one of the many hardships Libby Day had to go through as a result of the massacre of her family and her escape from the killers.

What really gets me is the fact that this is fictional and people are insisting on an actress w/o toes...as if Libby would ever take her shoes off to show her lack of digits. I mean, people are too concerned about what the fictional book says that is missing in this fictional movie. Yes, she was cast for her name. One poster even suggests it should have been someone like Christina Ricci! Now, let's go back and look at "Monster" and how perfectly Charlize played Wuornos (sp?). Charlize has no problem playing ugly people...ugly inside and out, and she does it beautifully.
FICTION, people, FICTION!
HOK, I am responding directly to you, because you seem to be the only person who gets it.



The next time I have an idea like that, punch me in the face. -- Tyrion Lannister

I had not read the book. Know nothing about the story. Was surprised to read the credits at the end that it was from the author of Gone Girl.

The entire movie I kept saying to myself... Charize Theron is miscast.

This character needs to be smaller in stature... someone who is vulnerable and painfully childlike even though she is an adult. And someone younger in age.

Someone above mentioned Christina Ricci. I definitely see that. But certainly someone who projects fragility on screen. Rooney Mara also comes to mind.

It's clear that the essence of the story in the dialogue, especially at the beginning, carried over the author's original intention. It's obviously part of the story.

I also read the novella from which the movie Shawshank Redemption by Stephen King was based. And the casting of Morgan Freeman instead of an Irish actor, did not change the intention of the original story. Red is a supporting character. The story is not about him. That's the reason they could get away with making those changes.

This story is about the character Libby and how it affected her life. I think the author was going for how the tragedy "stunted" her growth in every way. That is an essential aspect of the story being told and the film should have gone with that and chosen an actress that would reflect that as nearly as possible among the large pool of actresses available.

To me, Hollywood, to their detriment, keeps the focus on investors as opposed to making a better film. They use star power as an excuse to cast the same actors over and over.

The film grossed 3.5 million dollars. I looked around for the budget and can't find it online. But you can make a safe bet that it cost more than $3.5 million. So it was a financial dog in terms of profit. So Charlize Theron being in the movie made no difference at all.

But Hollywood insists on passing off the same lies. Like they only make movies that will sell in the Asian market. I didn't even find any numbers for that market with this film.

Maybe had they cast it appropriately, it might have made money. Corey Stall was also wrong. (And I like him.) Stoll is too intelligent looking to have stayed in jail for the reasons given.