Controversial Bookish Topic: The Book vs. Cinema

It's time for another controversial bookish topic post! Today, I'm going to talk about the argument of books vs. their film adaptations.

The whole idea in the bookish community is that "the book is better than the movie/show." Additionally, anyone who doesn't think this way, or even if you're just neutral on the topic, it's "such an offense," and they're "not a true reader."

However, I'm here to say that the book is not always better than its cinema adaptation. Sometimes, a book and its cinema adaptation are on equal footing. And, on occasion, the cinema adaptation - tv show, movie, musical, etc. - is better than the original book.

One example is Netflix's Shadow and Bone show adaptation. I haven't watched it, nor have I read the books. However, I have heard a lot of people saying that they actually prefer the show over the books due to better character development, more depth (both to the story and the characters), the casting, and so much more.

Some other examples I can think of that I personally have watched and read are the following:

1. Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton" vs. Ron Chernow's Hamilton
2. AMC's "Turn: Washington's Spies" vs. Alexander Rose's Washington's Spies
3. Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" vs. Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals
4. Stephen Sommer's "The Mummy" (1999) vs. Anne Rice's The Mummy

I do think that, in many cases, the cinema adaptations of books have the habit of falling short. While this is a habit, and while it has happened enough times to make readers wary of cinema adaptations.

I think the idea that "the film is better than the cinema adaptation" is a bit of a stretch. With the five I mentioned above (Shadow & Bone, Hamilton, Turn, Lincoln, and The Mummy), this obviously shows that this idea doesn't apply to every cinema adaptation.