When someone is asked what they thought of a movie adapted from a book that they've read, how often do they say "The book was better"? For me, I hear it quite a bit (I even say it myself sometimes). I certainly hear it more frequently than "It was better than the book". Why is that? Is it because books are written to be books and will always lose something in translation to the big screen? Is it because those who have read the book first already have their own perfect film adaptation in their head, complete with their own perfect cast? In the cases where the movie actually is better than the book, why? Is it due to the screenwriter? The actors? The director? Was the book originally imagined as a film but written as a novel instead? A screenplay disguised as a novel? Of course, the better the book is, the harder it is to adapt.
Does it make a difference if you read the book after seeing the film? This is not as common due to most people's reasoning of "I've seen the movie, why read the book?". Does already having the film's actors and setting visualized as you read remove that personal imagining you would have had if you'd read the book first, thereby reducing the risk of disappointment?
Let's take a look at a few examples after the jump. Click "Read More" below.
