The book is always better than the movie.

As an avid reader, I will argue this point any time, any day.

To me, it seems as though movies over the last decade or so are going downhill (with a few exceptions).  As studios try harder and harder to sell blockbusters, there seems to be more and more fluff being produced instead.  Fluff movies are an awful waste of time.  

You know a fluff movie when you see one. Lately, they have included romantic comedies, terribly done sequels to romantic comedies, corny action movies, equally corny sequels to action movies, and over-dramatic heart-wrenchers.  And please don’t get me started with all the Disney live-action remakes.  Are they just out of new ideas?

Movies are over the top nowadays.  The budgets of movies are through the roof, and when these movies flop there is little return.  Everyone is hoping for an instant hit, yet the movies aren’t reaching the desired status.

Much of the problem lies in the sequels, which is an originality issue in itself.  Sure, sequels that follow a series are expected, but when it comes to sequels of a good, original movie (such as Lion King) a sequel isn’t needed, yet they still make them.

Then we have the movies that were made from books.  Which is actually wonderful because who doesn’t want to see their favorite book on the big screen?  It’s pretty interesting to see what someone else made of it.  Maybe the characters are exactly like you pictured them.  Maybe they’re completely different.  That in itself is a fun thing to see.

Creating a movie from a book is not necessarily a bad thing.  The problem arises when the only movies that are coming to theaters are adaptations of books.  The Hunger Games, Divergent, Twilight… need I say more?  Though two of books-turned-into-movies I mentioned were actually decent movies, there’s too much of a pattern going on here.

Additionally, a problem arises when an author writes a book with the direct intention to sell it to a studio and have it made into a film.  Where did the art of novel writing go?  It seems terrible to me that literature has been turned into a Hollywood business.

A novel tells a story with great detail.  Authors use words to paint pictures.  They have to spend their words carefully, creating histories, developing characters, and telling the plot.  Movies have the advantages of using images to convey all of this.  So, when people insist that movies are better than the books, it’s unfair.

Movies have all the advantages while authors work long and hard to produce the amazing stories that they craft.  For example, the Harry Potter books are an intricately created series of seven books with amazing character development and detail.

It’s ridiculous to imply that the movies are “better” than the books in any sense of the word.

And that concludes today’s rant.

What’s your opinion on book vs. movie?  Are the books always better?  Are you even a fan of adaptations, or do you think Hollywood should just stop doing them?