Is the book always better than the movie? (#1)

The reason why I started to do movies was because they bring things to life. My skills in art were very limited and though they've improved, there is still only so much I can do to bring a character or scene to life. In movies, there is virtually no limitations. Our technology has gone so far that scripts we write and books we read can be projected onto a movie screen.

I'm a book lover, so I understand the angst over some movies adapted from the book. When I left the premiere of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, I was devastated. The moments I had fallen in love with were brushed over or completely left out. I think if we don't want to be disappointed in movies, we have to not set ourselves up for it by being open-minded to different interpretations and styles.

Think about it, everyone who read Percy Jackson had a different image of the world in their mind. By itself, Percy Jackson is a good movie. It has a good solid plot, witty dialogue, good design aspects. Set side-by-side next to the book, not so much. Where's Clarisse? Aren't the characters supposed to be 11? Percy is definitely not supposed to find out who his dad is right off the bat. Did we all just forget who the lightning thief is? Annabeth's hair is blonde!

See, books and movies approach plots different ways. Books are all about developing characters and relationships, taking time to learn a lesson. Movies need to develop relationships and character flaws fast. Think about it. You read a book in a couple of days or even week. A movie has 2 and a half hours tops. Movies are put into the "entertainment" category for a reason. They need to be interesting at all times, or else you get bored and ask for a refund. That's why scriptwriters have to sacrifice Madge in The Hunger Games (a movie that actually followed the book really well).

The key to a great movie adaption is knowing the book inside and out. In the movie adaption of The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, the author, was one of the screenwriters, something that turned out to be a huge advantage. Sure, the movie had it's flaws (I'll save it for a later review), but the movie was able to capture the main theme of the book while keeping a PG-13 rating. I feel like something filmmakers should never overlook are the details. I look up to the Harry Potter films for the smallest details they include whether it be the labels on the Bertie Bott's boxes, or designs on the wands. Everything is seamlessly put together and nothing seems out of the ordinary.

So is the book always better than the movie? No. Books and movies are completely different mediums, each with their own flaws and triumphs. If we look at each as the way they are, we can enjoy movie adaptions so much more.