Film v. Print

On film, the story is depicted more visually and with more sounds. Descriptions appeal to our senses immediately, there is only surface though. A broad surface, I might add, but through books, you must dig layer into layer, like the pages within a book. You will uncover intelligent information with a narrow surface, sometimes expanded by the author, but still, no matter what, extremely narrow compared to the big screen. You must, if a film adaption was in the question, find a good balance point between the two. Because only then can you have a satisfied crowd of people watching the movie. The movie has a lot more potential for story and visuals and audio effects, because instead of having to visualize everything in our heads we already have it visualized, it just requires interpretation. Then, it saves space for our brains to think about other things, rather than in a book that we are already occupied with the details and then still have to ponder about the plot and other plot devices that require thinking. Movies have more potential, but people usually emerge through books. You can easily wreck the production of the movie, but books will tend to remain more in the positive light of critics more often than films because films are harder to pull off.