Why is the book usually so much better than the movie?

If I may, I would reply first with a question of my own. How many hours do you take to read a book? The book takes many hours to finish whereas the movie ends within say, 2 hours. So logically, we can see that the book contains much more content than the movie. There are so many things mentioned in the book that it is not possible to include them all in the movie. Another thing is that directors of movies like to change things because they think they know better... and something good in the book might become flat because of that.

A book can be as long as needed to fully convey the story. With a movie, half is left on the cutting room floor so the movie fits into 1.5 or 2 hours. Also, movies are basicly rewritten when it comes to making the screen play for many reasons eg affordable sets or locations.

Books are more in depth than the movie usually. Your brain is given the details. And your imagination takes over. When you go to the movie you are veiwing the imagination of someone else. Often that leaves the viewer disappointed.

because they do not always stick to the story but add in'some garbage that has nothing to do with the authors good story and only upsets the reader who does remember just' how the story really went. hollywood has to always hamm' things up a bit and that often destroys the heart of the 'story.

I had to said that sometimes its not easy to visualize what in a book specially if a book was around above 400 pages and the duration of a movie only around 2 hours. The script writer had to cut of a chunk part of the book there for usually a movie based on a thick book seems disconnected in some parts.

I think part of the reason movie adaptions dont work are becasue the source material is too complex and multilayered for a 90 minute or 2 hr film. Like a bad adaption is "The Black Dahlia" which tried to include about 3/4 of the novel into the film and it buckled under the weight (and poor direction). Real simple books usually translate perfectly like No Country For Old Men, Rosemary's Baby and Who'll Stop The Rain. Ultimately i think it comes down to the filmability of the book

Friends....i think it is very simple.....luk....a book contains a lot of twists and turns ...all of which cannot b shown in a film..or a play....due to the time constraints !...i read all the harry potters....but the films...though they are fun to watch...are nowhere close to the books ....thats coz u cant fit in the entire story in an hour and a half.... Now...if u consider Lord of the Rings....i think they hav done justice to the book....3 hours a film...and wonderfully made.... Ive heard the last harry potter will be releasd in 2 parts....the last book is the est...n holds the key to the story.....hope it satisfies all of those whove read the books ! Have a nice day !

There are lots of movies today base on novel that I haven't seen cause no matter what I want to read the book first cause like you said book is more complex and more vivid compared to movies. So if I saw the movie first and decided to read the novel I'm afraid the movie already ruin my imagination to how the book will describe the scenario. That is what I like with books, it lets you use your creativeness and how you put the scene in your own mind, it doesn't limit you in any holywood studio production but it lets you to be out of your own world.

I always prefere to read the book rather than watch the film i think it helps that with the book you are allwoed to use your imagination and creat the sceens in your own head giving you a little creative input of your own, if you are watching the film then that is all done for you and all you can really do is watch and take in what you are seeing there is no imagination required.

Movie is limited to the time, lack of discription of all the things, emotions,

I am totally agree that book contains more and detailed information but at the sametime it becomes difficult to seat for a long time to understand the actual meanings.whereas you can receieve almost whole information in very short time from movie. movie can deliver the same information with more impact in less time as i feel.

As for me, I would say both have their advantages and disadvantages. In books,it's handy, you will get to go with the flow of the 'flowery' words, every details and get adrift with the building up of all imaginations. In the movies, depends on the creativeness of the director and on what he wants the audience to see/feel, you will get emphasis on certain parts more vividly and in the sense of a bigger picture. It usually would not be exactly in detail as from the book but with the technology nowadays, the visual effects and graphics are superb and beyond anyone's imagination. Whether the book is better or not, it's a matter of preference and the mood at the time :)

I think that one obvious reason it that it is much cheaper to write a book than to make the movie. People's disappointment with movies adapted from books is that the movie usually leaves out a lot of subplots and storylines that are included in the written version. Filmmakers won't spend more money than they have to. Another reason is because those who have read the book tend to have extremely high expectations for the movie. Sometimes those expectations are set way out of reach. From experience, those who do not read the book before attending the movie usually enjoy and like the movie more than the people who read the book before watching the movie.