The Lightning Thief question

Sometimes an adaptation helps to streamline a story for casual viewers. Tom Bombadil is completely removed from pretty much every adaptation of the Lord of the Rings because his presence does nothing to improve the story. Glorfindel bringing an injured Frodo to Rivendell was swapped out for Arwen doing so in the Peter Jackson films because Glorfindel wouldn’t appear again, and it gave Arwen more to do than just being in love with Aragorn (I’m not trying to downplay the importance of any of these characters, I’m just pointing out the roles they play in the movies). Yes, Professor Tolkien is a master writer, but most movie goers wouldn’t know or care who Glorfindel or Tom Bombadil are, they’d just wonder why they weren’t showing up again.

In my opinion the James Bond movies are better than the books written by Ian Fleming (and other writers of James Bond books). The James Bond movies can be enjoyed because of the great movie stunts and all the action scenes and in my opinion the greatness of these scenes wasn't greatly written in the published books;)

The idea that a well-written book can be deeper and more immersive in its narrative than a film is irrefutable. Due to several factors such as setting, detailing, the reader's unique imagination, etc. But a film well directed and faithful to the story, certainly manages to convey the same feeling, or similar, to the film, but in its cinematographic way. Examples of critically acclaimed good adaptations are: Emma, Blade Runner 2049, Fight Club, etc.

And the worst, in my opinion, the adaptation of The Lightning Thief. Let's not comment on how horrible this movie is, bruh

I am yet to watch a movie that progressed upon the book, but I am aware that it has happened numerous times before. If the movie is made well, it has the possibility to be better than a book. The thought that books are always better than movies is simply false.