Reading for pleasure requires an individual with a greater degree of imagination and intelligence vs staring at a screen and often takes a much greater time investment and yet often offers a broader set of experiences because one needn't convince someone to invest 100s of millions animating fantastic scenes if one author sitting at a typewriter or a keyboard can produce as vivid an experience in the mind of the reader.

Movies financial and runtime constraints often rob the source material of much of its richness and the description of the players emotions, thoughts, and state of mind is harder to communicate aptly without seeming clunky and expositional.

I’m saying yes, we hear lots of people say “the book was better” and in most cases that’s true. However, most people will never have read the books movies based on books were based on, so it’s kind of a pointless Pyrrhic argument.

That said, many will claim that The Godfather movie was better than the book -I never read the book, so I cannot offer an opinion.

But, yes, normally, in order to capture the nuance and details of a book you’d need a multi part series.

I think I tried, lo so many moons ago. And IIRC, I can confirm that yes, The Godfather is one of the few exceptions that proves the rule.