This weekend, "Where the Wild Things Are" opened in theaters and, for some, it leads to the classic question that asks if the book is better than the movie or the movie is better than the book.
Arguably, in more cases than not, the book beats the big screen adaptation, but not always. In fact, it's possible "Where the Wild Things Are" is an exception to this "rule."
What do you think? Is the book always better than the movie or can you think of a film that was better than its literary counterpart? Sound-off, Milwaukee, and give us your thoughts.
The book is always better. Always. I cannot think of a single film that was better than the written version. Hollywood movies are made from books that sell a lot of copies and therefore will sell a lot of tickets at the box office. Hence, the movies are less successful because they are created strictly to make money. This never works.
Sometimes, the movie is better than the book. I have seen a few films that I enjoyed more than reading the book. It depends on whether you are a snooty book person or not. If you are, then the movie is ruled out immediately, but for people who are not literary elitists -- and can watch the movies without judgment -- sometimes the big screen versions are surprisingly well done.
