So after finishing The Other Boleyn Girl last night, I began thinking as I fell asleep about the seemingly dozens of books that have been turned into movies as of late, including Phillipa Gregory’s tale of the Boleyn sisters.

I saw the movie back when it came out this spring and very much enjoyed it. It was very BBC-esque and full of the usual Tudor drama. I’ve been a fan of the Showtime series The Tudors since it’s been out last year. Anyway, what I’m getting at is that when I read the book, I actually enjoyed it more.

I’d say about 90% of the time, I enjoy books more than the movies of the same name. My main gripe I have about movies is that they tend to skip so many interesting and crucial parts of books. The Other Boleyn Girl delved in so deep to the inner workings of Henry VIII’s court. The Nanny Diaries? The movie was cute and all, but the book was so much deeper. It is my favorite book because not only did I feel like I wrote the thing, it examined societal differences and the dirty politics of New York’s Upper East Side.

However, on the opposite side, the movie Atonement was so much better than the book. I don’t know if it was because the movie didn’t prolong a certain part of the book, or if the actors just made it spectacular, but I honestly enjoyed the movie more.

So, here’s the question I pose if you wanted to discuss: Are books better than their movie counterparts? When have you felt that the movie was better than the book, if at all? I want to hear your thoughts.