A book is better than its movie counterpart. Here's why.

Have you ever read a book and then watched its movie adaptation afterwards? Did you, to the annoyance of your family and friends who haven’t read the book, complain that the book was a zillion times better? You’re not alone.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="428"] Books vs. movies: Which one's better? [Source: Bobbi's Blog][/caption]

While there may be exceptions, the books are almost always better than the movie. Here’s why:

1. It almost always comes out differently with the way we pictured it.
The best thing about reading a book is, it lets us imagine everything. It’s a book’s power; it’s also the downfall of a movie.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="474"] Not that I don't dig Logan Lerman... [Source: Percy Jackson Movies][/caption]

Something always changes in the movie. For example, Percy Jackson was 12 years old when he first came to Camp Half-Blood. That is, in the book. But check out the movie. Logan Lerman, who was casted as Percy, looks at least 16. Or, yes, Katniss Everdeen! Remember how the book said Katniss has olive skin, gray eyes, and is small and thin for her age (because of her district’s poverty)? J-Law is now very famous (and I absolutely love her), thanks to that role, but when the casting was first announced, many didn’t like her. Also, different interpretations. Pat Peoples of The Silver Linings Playbook (Pat Solitano in the movie — what’s up with that?!) has brain trauma in the book because of his ex-wife’s infidelity but in the movie, he has bipolar disorder instead. Also, Solitano was Italian-American, Peoples was not. I know, I know, minor changes. But for someone who’s pored over the book, this just made go WTF?!

2. 2-3 hours is not enough to put it all together.
The average number of pages in a book is 200, but some book can have up to 500 pages. You can only take so much out of it for a movie, and more often than not, we get an abridged version of the book. Some movies like Sea of Monsters, The Book Thief, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Catching Fire tried to stick to the books’ sequence of events, but some, like The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones and The Lightning Thief, were terrible.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="475"] I hope the next movie will be better. [Source: overallsite.com][/caption]

3. The lack of visuals make it more personal for the readers.
Again, the power of imagination. We build the characters and their worlds in our minds; it’s a personal process that we don’t get to do with movies. And because it’s personal, it stays with us longer.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="340"] Amen! [Source: aoifesheri.files.wordpress.com][/caption]

4. The need to adapt it to Hollywood standards.
When a book gets made into a movie, it goes without saying that something will change, be added or taken out along the way. One example of a movie that was wildly different from its book is World War Z. I thought the movie was great and Brad Pitt was great, but if you’ve read the book, you’ll see the stark differences. The main change, of course, was the story format. The book was about a UN employee traveling the world, interviewing people about their zombie apocalypse experiences. It probably wouldn’t translate well in a movie if it follows the same format. In the movie, Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) himself was experiencing the apocalypse and traveling the world, looking for the cure.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="610"] Recognized a few titles, didn't you? [Source: Roope of Silicon][/caption]5. We don’t see enough character development in the movies.
The effort that goes into developing a character in a book is like 90% of the work. Who he or she is, what’s his life is like, what his family and friends are like, what goes on in his mind, why he does the things he do — the books tell us all these stuff. Movies rarely give us the same amount of info, mainly because of the limited time and all the details that movie makers should include. Take for example, Marley of Marley and Me. I felt like I knew him more when I read the book. The movie did not give him justice. It is understandable, though. Most books are narrated by its main character so it gives us access to his mind, making us feel like we do know him well.

With all these reasons, are movies still worth our time? Should we still watch books-turned-into-movies? I think it depends. People’s views and tastes are different so what I hated might be something that someone else liked, even if we both read and love the book. I do advise, however, that if your favorite book gets made into a movie, watch with caution and an open mind. If you care too much for the characters and you don’t want anything to ruin your love for the book, then don’t watch. Or read reviews from your fellow readers first, so you’ll know what to expect.

Now it’s your turn. Have you read a book that was turned into a movie? Did you like/hate the movie version? Tell me in the comments!