Judging whether or not a movie is good does not mean judging whether or not the movie is just like the book.

Books and movies tell the same story in different ways, said Bill Wine, a three-time Emmy-winning film critic, who presented "Based on the Book: Bestseller Cinema" to Northampton Area Public Library patrons recently. Audience members should consider whether each version conveys the same level of emotion.

Wine began his presentation with a five-minute film entitled "100 Years at the Movies," a condensed compilation of clips from noteworthy films from the past century.

After the film, Wine pointed out that many of these popular films are based on literary narratives that are highly regarded or have large readerships.

As a result, people often form strong attachments to their favorite pieces of fiction, which inevitably leads them to draw comparisons between books and their cinematic adaptations.

More often than not, a book lover will leave the theater saying, "The book was better than the movie."

However, according to Wine, this is not a productive or fair way to evaluate the worth of a movie, even if its story originated in literature. Although books are often where moviemakers go for inspiration – and even though more than 20,000 movies are based on books – to measure each with the same standards ineffectively gauges how successful a movie truly is.

"Movies and books use plots differently, so trying to directly compare them is like comparing cinematic apples to literary oranges," Wine said. "What makes a movie good does not make a book good."

Instead of comparing the two mediums for conveying a story, Wine said, we should really be asking two questions: Did the plot work for the book? Did the plot work for the movie? This is because telling a story in a book is entirely different from telling a story in a movie.

"People have an entire narrative experience in two hours for a movie," Wine said.

In books, however, the narrative experience can last anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks.

Given this difference, it's necessary for screenwriters and film makers to use different methods for communicating a story.

Besides having to compact the plot for timing purposes, screenwriters must also make changes to a book's dialogue.

Wine explained that good book dialogue can sometimes sound awful when spoken aloud, so it's necessary for film makers to alter the ways in which characters speak.

"Writers write for the eye, but screenwriters write for the ear," Wine said.

He also explained that "movies are emotional, but books are cerebral."

This is because in movies, everything exists on the exterior; the audience can only see the characters' actions and expressions, but cannot know their thoughts.

In books, however, readers cannot see how the characters look and behave; what they can do, though, is access their internal thoughts and emotions.

"If a book or a movie is good, it will play to these strengths," Wine said.

When Wine was asked by an attendee of the presentation which book-to-movie conversion he thought was the most successful, he replied that "'To Kill a Mockingbird' has the closest relation because you feel the same emotions with each narrative."

Library Director Melissa Hawk said that the presentation was made possible by the Pennsylvania Humanities Council, which provides small community organizations with funds that allow them to host a guest speaker of their choice once a year.