“The book was better” is a nearly inescapable phrase in today’s media-centric world. More and more remakes and book-to-film adaptations seem to be released in theaters each month. People complain about the lack of "originality" seen in today’s movie and television industry. Book aficionados in particular have a fierce loyalty to the written word, overlooking the adaptations and often ignoring the artful and thought-provoking changes directors try to make to the original works. When writers and directors make changes, they are not telling the same story over and over. Instead, they are bringing a new perspective to a familiar story and allowing fans to relive the experience through different eyes. Now, don’t get me wrong, it can and has turned out quite horribly. (cough "Eragon," cough) But entering into a film with an open mind can help the viewer see these changes in a new light.

Reasons for changing the events of a story once it hits the big screen vary. Sometimes, things that are possible in a reader’s imagination aren’t feasible in real life (even with special effects or CGI). It becomes a better option to change the events than to have audiences struggle through a sub-par portrayal. Sometimes it is the writer’s or director’s choice to deviate from the source material. This has been done many times with varying levels of success. The TV show "The Walking Dead" is a great example of a writer consciously changing the original plot line. Robert Kirkman, creator of "The Walking Dead" comic books, on which the TV show is based, decided he wanted to explore new avenues with the plot of the show and changed key plot points, giving viewers an entirely new experience than readers. Other times, however, a strong argument can be made for keeping things the way they are.

In the "Harry Potter" books, the title character has green eyes. In the movie, however, his eyes are blue. There are many fans that are up in arms to this day about this subtle change. I used to be one of those fans. Though I have changed my perspective somewhat, it is important to note that the reasons behind certain details can be significant to a movie -- in this case, Harry’s connection to his mother. This should be considered by the screenwriters and directors who are adapting a book into a movie. While purpose should be taken into account, it is impossible to squeeze every important detail into such a small amount of screen time. And even movies that do include important scenes seem to somehow always fall short of what viewers want them to be. When I read a book, it’s like watching a movie in my mind. But it is unrealistic to expect the same exact imagery to also appear on film.

There is no way for a movie to live up to a reader’s expectation.

Sometimes, sticking too close to the story is a detriment to the work itself. The movie "50 Shades of Grey" has been criticized by some for sticking too closely to the events of the book which led to a disjointed storyline that was ultimately harder to follow than if they had made allowances. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is an example of a movie lengthening a story. The Fitzgerald tale is a short story, but the film breathes new life into it and is able to go into more detail about Benjamin’s unique condition. "Forrest Gump" is another example of a plot being changed significantly from the original. In the novel, his many jobs include astronaut and professional wrestler. The author even says the film “took some of the rough edges off” of his original story. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is for you to decide, but the film version of "Forrest Gump" is widely loved and quoted daily. So maybe changes don’t have to be so bad after all.

Some people fear change. I am certainly one of them. But I am excited at the prospect of seeing a story elevated to a new medium. I used to dread seeing movies if I had read the book they were based on. I only saw all the differences between the movie I had seen in my head and the one in front of my face. But now, when I look at an adapted story, I see the variances directors have taken from the source and I try to ascertain the significance behind those choices. It is certainly not the goal of the writer or director to anger the fans of a movie. Quite the opposite. They are trying to give us an enjoyable experience that adds something to an existing story. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail, but that should be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

It’s time to stop resenting adapted movies for deviating from a set plot line. Instead, we should watch them as separate entities working to highlight upon the greatness of the books that started it all.