Imagine the most intricately written book inundated with rhetorical devices, relatable characters whose journeys define their existence, and a plot that keeps readers begging for the next page.

Now imagine that plot, those characters, and each carefully selected word on a screen so magnanimous in effect, such that the book itself is brought to life. Sound familiar?

In a generation of ardent literature devotees and equally dedicated film enthusiasts, witnessing a book transform into a film is not a rare occurrence. More often than not, an adventurous Hollywood director will become inspired by an exceptionally written book and begin the process of immortalizing an author’s work to the silver screen. Yet, it’s questionable if this change in medium is as effective as anticipated.

Take for instance the beloved Harry Potter series by author J.K. Rowling: the first print, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, was released in the UK in June 1997. By March 1999, UK editions had sold just over 300,000 copies, and the story was still the UK’s best-selling title in December 2001. In the US, Publishers Weekly’s report in December 2001 on cumulative sales of children’s fiction placed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone 19th among hardbacks (over 5 million copies) and 7th among paperbacks (over 6.6 million copies).

With such an impeccable reception, it’s understandable that Potter fans would appreciate the beginnings of filing into movie theaters to experience the boy who lived. In 2001, the first Harry Potter feature-length film was directed by Chris Columbus and released to the public in movie theaters worldwide. Its box office revenue? Roughly $975 million. It seems as though this transformation was enjoyed.

In cases such as Harry Potter, the films served as dynamic, live-action supplements to books that captured the hearts of millions. Such books have experienced the same fate, including Lord of the Rings, The Godfather, and most anything by Stephen King.

However, even some serious Potter fans would disagree in saying the movies surpassed Rowling’s spellbinding, written legacy. Any serious fan of a book-to-movie franchise is likely to be a critic of every last similarity and difference, down to the last punctuation in dialogue. It’s debatable whether or not the written word is preferred over a cinematic portrayal, and vice versa.

A movie can not entirely accomplish the same as a book, and for many viable reasons. While it may be more engaging to observe a movie that is based on a best-selling novel, it entails condensing and simplifying the original. Unfortunately, this means some parts encompassed by the book are not always covered within a 90 minute film. Novels are meant to be absorbed over a period of many hours, even days. The reader can digest numbers of characters and complexities of theme that can’t necessarily be done by watching a movie.

In addition, a movie must sacrifice the intricacies of books to fit in a designated time frame, whereas a novel can be picked up, put down, savored continually and understood for deeper meaning as opposed to a cinematic counterpart.

This is not to say that films do not always satisfy the books that inspired them. Every so often a director can engage audiences in his or her artistic vision, and provide justice to the novels that are known and loved.