"Yeah, but the book was way better."

Let's say a wildly popular book, or series of books, came out a few years ago.

Everyone goes and reads them.

Everyone loves them.

Everyone raves about them and tells all of their friends.

A movie adaptation is announced.

Everyone gets really excited and links the trailer online to share with all their friends.

Everyone plans to go to the midnight screening because they just. can't. wait. one. more. day.

They love the movie.

Everyone tells everyone that they love the movie, but there's a catch.

There's always a catch.  Whenever a movie is based off a successful book the fans will always, always, always, always include in their review that "It was good but the book was so much better."

(Disclaimer: I'll be discussing popular books that have been turned into popular and critically acclaimed movies, since bad movies of good books are a completely different discussion. Also movies based on books that were written long ago don't apply here since the average teenager probably hasn't read the books and/or it's been several years since most readers have visited the works. A good example is Lord of the Rings.)

I find that this happens more and more with current, successful books such as Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, etc.  Why? Because they aren't heavy reading material meaning everyone can read it, and it's new and cool and fresh.  So in today's movie industry of course they want to pump out a movie series as well.  Why wouldn't they?  The only problem is that no matter how brilliant they make the films, or how critically acclaimed they are, a movie will never be as good as the book.  This is a sad but common fact.

Let's look at the obvious advantage that a book has over a movie.  Imagination.  When reading a book the individual reader decides each character's movements, looks, voice.  When it comes to supernatural elements the reader can imagine anything they want.  That's what makes books amazing!!  But when readers see what a handful of filmmakers imagine what the book would look like, it's so easy to tear it apart and think your world is superior.  Of course you do! It's your own imagination!

But let's look at the other disadvantages that movies have.  Time.  A movie is generally accepted at anywhere from 90 mins. to 180 mins.  This still doesn't allow time to include every detail, every chapter, every character development.  What an author has control over is the consciousness of each character and the ability to write what a character is thinking.  Other than narration a movie can't do that.  It would be insane.  What a director is then left with is making sure all of those emotions, ideas, passions that a character has comes out in select moments with little to no dialogue.  That's where acting comes in.  Even with brilliant actors and directors, these subtle changes going on within an emotional beat can be lost.  It happens to the best of the best.  It's impossible for a movie to be perfect simply because there's mountains of things they could get wrong that an author of a novel doesn't necessarily have to endure.  And this is why you never hear someone say, "Man, that movie was way better than the book."  Off the top of my head I can only think of one example where I thought that.  After seeing Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones I actually thought the changes in the script were stronger and less mundane. (I realize I'm in the minority regarding this specific film.)

So I encourage readers/movie goers to stop comparing books to movies.  They are two entirely different beasts.  Viewers need to understand that what you see more than likely won't be what you read.  Changes are necessary for screenwriters.  So, instead of comparing the movie to the book,  I beg that you accept the two as separate.  Even with the filmmakers best intentions, what they are making are pictures based off of their thoughts based off of a screenplay based of a screenwriter's thoughts based off of a novel based off of the novelist's thoughts.  So next time you go see a movie based on a book you love, try to enjoy it for what it is, not what it tries to be. 

If viewers can't accept a film for what it is, then I encourage studios to stop making movies out of popular books.  Because even though that's what fans expect nowadays, it's for their own good.  Why would studios want to set people up for guaranteed disappointment. This may sound extreme, but I just can't stand people comparing movies to books anymore.

Back the truck up!

Let's say I'm driving through a packed parking lot.  My eyes are peeled, looking for that holy grail of spots.

I think I see one.

Could it be?

It's open.

I start to turn my car.

And that's when I see it.  A big, nasty, honkin truck taking up two parking spots. If it wasn't for my compact car, I would love nothing more than to back up and ram my car right into that truck.

But seriously, do large trucks/SUVs really need to take up two spots when it could easily fit in between the lines of one? There can only be 3 reasons this occurs:

1) It's an ego thing.  This needs no explanation.

2) Truck drivers are scared of having their doors dinged.  I always find it funny that drivers of nice trucks are scared of getting scratches or going off road.  IT'S A TRUCK! It's not made to show off its new paint job while driving 2 mph down a parade. It's made to carry dirt, mud, wood, kangaroo bouncy castles, you name it.

3) Truck drivers are horrible parkers. Now this I can understand a little bit if the parking lot is relatively full and you are forced to squeeze in a spot.  But what I'm talking about is when trucks are blatantly between two spots. Unless they are blind, this is unacceptable.

After living in rural Nebraska, and now in Tallahassee FL, I feel like I've seen my share of pick-up truck bullies.  If you're one of them, I beg of you, stop!

Say Cheese and Die!

Why in the world has it become commonplace for a photographer to ask his/her subjects to say cheese when getting their photo taken?  I understand the photographer is trying to lighten the mood.  But I also think the intent is for them to make a smiling motion with their mouth.  That sound good and dandy except for the fact that saying cheese doesn't really look like you're smiling.  Instead you get a photo filled with awkwardly shaped mouths.

What's even worse than this is when photographers try to get you to laugh by telling you to say something off the wall like, "Ok, everyone. Say THANKSGIVING DINNER!" It's a train wreck waiting to happen. No one says it at the same time, no one will smile, it's awkward and this type of photography training needs to be thrown out the window.

But I'm forgetting the most obvious fact. People know to smile when getting their picture taken! It's common sense.  We aren't living in the 1860s where it took 30 minutes to get your photo taken.  If someone needs to be told to smile for a photo they are probably so incredibly grumpy that you don't want to be within 5 feet of them let alone give them an order to smile.  Would you demand Clint Eastwood to smile? I didn't think so.