In all honesty I'm labeled as the cliche 'bookworm'. I don't mind that label because it basically describes what I'm passionate about, which is books and writing. My hobbies do consist of writing eg; books, articles, blog post, etc...
I started writing at a young age and I'm well known at school for my grammatical corrections in others sentence (I'm 12). Although the label doesn't bother, what bothers me is the typical book prequel for the movie. It sounds like a bit of a OCD disorder, but it's not, it's really just a book preference over a cliche movie.
Books lead you further into your imagination, and let's you describe and visualise the place in your images. Whereas the movie has a lot of flaws and punctual errors in the script, I mean, does it really hurt to make a draft? I was taught at school from a professional but not famous writer to imagine your creating a mountain as a story; begin the story, induce a problem then seek a solution, but I'm more of a mature writer so I prefer to mix it up a little and sometimes not even find a solution, which makes the writer seek for more.
You see that's where this topic fits in, if you choose to not find a solution, you create a sequel. The sequel could be of a movie or a book. In my opinion, the movie totally ruins your whole imaginations and characteristics you created of the character.. Whereas the book lets you expand the characteristics of your characters and their emotion.
So this is to all the Wilde writers out there or ones in the process, it's better to make a book over a movie.