Peter Jackson or J.R.R. Tolkien?
Among avid readers, claiming that a film adaptation is better than an original book can put me on dangerous ground. After all, people fall in love with books, spending time with them in a way that many don't with movies. A book is often read a bit at a time and can last someone weeks, whereas a movie is done in less than two hours, so it makes sense that readers can get very emotionally attached to books. Although I agree that many books hold more value and express more nuance than their adapted film counterparts, there is one key series that I believe was improved by its film adaptation: Lord of the Rings. Although Tolkien clearly did a brilliant job with his trilogy, it is easier to keep track of the characters and the narrative in the films. Not only were the casting choices perfect - every single character is unique and interesting - but the plot flows well and holds my attention. The books can drag a bit with long descriptions that the movies capture more quickly with a gorg...