Novels are better than the movies based on novels

My opponent brings up some good points.However, I'm going to contest a few of the things that he's said. I think. I haven't really put together a comprehensive argument.Actors:I think sometimes the actor can definitely be a character better than our minds can. I mean, who wants to think as crazy as Jack Nicholson acts? That guy is seriously bonkers in some of his movies, and that's something the man does much more perfectly than I can. Sometimes, it's even better than the author could do.There's probably more examples of that.Length:Length is a thing that books can have over movies. Length often isn't respected when translating a book to a movie script. Most of that is budgeting. Even Lord of the Rings (which is a series that's 12 hours long if you watch it first dvd to last dvd) cut a lot of the book in order to make it happen. (Then there was the Hobbit that added a lot just to dovetail into Lord of the Rings and add some cool CGI fight scenes). However, the cuts they made in Lord of the Rings are respectable. Like, raise your hand if you would have liked about a half hour of singing with almost no breaks in Fellowship of the Ring.Another movie that took length cuts was Forest Gump. In the book, Forest Gump goes on a few other adventures, including going to space. The movie took a much more directed approach, and it was still really long. However, the movie still makes perfect sense with developing Forest Gump's character.Vocabulary:https://en.wikipedia.org...This is my only response.Cash Grabs:Cash grabs exist. However, they're normally performed by Michael Bay or some other similar actor. They're also typically not based off books. I think the length of the Hobbit movies may be the only thing that I would consider a cash grab. Maybe some of the older, standalone DC and Marvel movies (graphic novels are books. shut up).Enertainment: Entertainment is probably the most important thing in a movie. I get it. Movies are not that intellectually stimulating. Don't act like Inception gave you new insight into the world. It was brilliant, but most of the time all a movie can teach us is about what the character is learning. Obviously there's very intellectual satire that happens in some movies, and some movies are very accurate representations of something that may trouble some people in real life.However, I put the ball of intellectualism in the court of the books. But it's okay that movies aren't as intellectually stimulating, because they perform a different job that they're supposed to be good at. You wouldn't walk into the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory and order a salad, nor would you walk into McDonald's and order a pound of fresh made fudge and candy apples. Books and movies both appeal to different segments of the same market. Kind of like the example: both are food, neither is the same. (That last sentence is like a semester of high school english for real, and I'm still not that confident about it).So how do we compare them? Well, I'd say that so far my opponent and I have some nice criteria layed out, because obviously you don't want something that's going to make you even dumber, and you want something you can get into, and you want something that's just overall well made.I would propose that movies are often times better made than we give them credit for. For example, were the Hunger Games movies really that bad? I think the second one did a great job of representing the book. It stayed a lot more on plot and told the story perfectly. The third movie was pretty good too. Honestly, it loses on the front end because that movie just didn't represent the book, and the fourth movie just couldn't capture Katniss's state of mind the whole time. The middle two were brilliant, though. That's 50% right?That's all I have to say for this round. I can't believe I actually said that much already.Goodnight everyone. Stay classy DDO.