Why Are The Films Never As Good As The Books?

[Thermal]

All books, even the ones I don't like, seem to surpass the film version, what is it that makes directors so in able when planning a novel based film? Wuthering Heights wasn't particularly good as a film compared to the novel, Of mice and men, though not a great book, was still better than the film attempt. I always thought, with the exception of matilda, that Roald Dahl's books were better than the films too.

And Now, the lovely bones, after reading the book, which I thought was fairly good (much better than the other ones I had to read for English ) the film that has been brought out on it has had awful reviews. Many of the scenes, such as a rape (not that I would have wanted it to be graphic ) and Abigail's affair (mother of her dead daughter that was killed after being raped...) were cut out. Just so it could make a 12 A viewing.

So aside the obvious question, do film makers really think making a film child friendly will get it more viewers when it means compromising there reviews? Just thought I'd say this because I find it very annoying that a film I was going to watch is now likely awful just to appeal to a young audience.

P.S: I spelt films wrong in the title, so don't point it out grammar geeks....