How many times have you heard someone say the book was better than the movie? My son starts laughing every time we hear this.
"Of course it's better," he'll cry out, "you can put all the thoughts and descriptions in a book!"
Whether or not books should be converted into a movie is often a passionate subject among writers. No matter which way people lean, they are usually fixed to their preference and will argue their point. And this is a question that I have received many times.
My answer? I love a good movie. And movies are not meant to be exactly like the book. When they are, it rarely spits out a decent one. Movies are their own beast, a different entity than the written word. They are comprised of visuals and dialogues. Is it a sin against the humanity of a book to use it's premise to put together a movie? No, it's just another way to get an idea. And when I see a movie based on a book, I have to go out and read the book to compare them.
Books, beautiful rapturous books, are open to the creative visualizations of the reader. They can give thoughts, viewpoints, allusions and illusions, descriptions, and more, while leaving wide open spaces for imagination--blowing away the moving picture competition. What's not to love?
And picture books do this in 32 pages with still illustrations. Wow.
For me, comparing books to movies is like comparing my children to one another. Both are so different, but equally entertaining. But both are far better to hang out with when they're being 'good'.
With two exceptions that I won't name, books are always better than the movie.