but I feel that both are forms of art in their own right, and to compare the two does a disservice to both at the same time.
For example, upon finally reading The Wizard of Oz a couple of years ago, as I was reading I could understand why some things weren't included in the film. And yet, I loved both the book and the movie, even if I've seen the movie countless times and only read the book once. Both are works of art and treasures of their own genres.
And then there's the idea that some of us found reading the books quite difficult, such as with A Clockwork Orange. I never could get into it due to the almost requirement of learning the slang before reading it. Whereas the film explains things and you're able to pick up what the slang terms mean through the visuals of that medium.
Yes, sometimes the movie isn't directed in a way that carries the story well at all. And sometimes the book wasn't nearly as good yet the movie depicts the story better than the writer could. The only example of that I can remember is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Clarke is a good writer of stark science-based fiction, yet his characters are sometimes difficult to connect with, or just plain flat. Even though that book was written after the movie it's still not as well-written as it could have been. It read like Clarke rushed through it just to cash in on the popularity of the movie.
= new reply since forum marked as read