I would like to say that some movies brought to life the characters in a way that the book could not, most notably A Clockwork Orange. And sometimes its better to see the sexuality than read about it, but then again, a good writer should be able to manipulate language in such a way as to provide a new way of linguistically capturing these sensations as opposed to rehashing clichéd metaphors and overused adjectives
As a fan of both mediums, this is a bit unfair. A book can show the thoughts of the author in a much more precise way, but a film is much more about atmosphere and the feelings YOU experience.
Just my 2 cents.
I think people give way too much credit to books while in fact, movies are better to look at. I personally read some books but I enjoy the movie much more.
Films can go make things look so detailed and really get you involved . Books have to allow the reader to really make some of it up .. Otherwise they'd spend ages describing and boring the reader. People normally don't like 'film versions' because the world that they made up in their head isn't what is on the film.
Films are fine for what they are. But a book is a much more in depth experience. A book also allows the reader to assign faces to the characters and allows for much more imagination to come into the story. Also, the simple act of reading makes one more familiar with sentence syntax and spelling. Something that is rapidly going down hill.
i don't like when people talk bad about movies, my dream is to become a film maker, and i don't care if a book reader thinks mymovie about a book is wrong, because it's my film, the book is the base