can’t resist saying, “The book was lots better.” I can’t help it. When I’m absorbed in a book, known as the “theater of the mind” among writers, I develop my own perceptions of what the characters look like and the setting. The cardinal sin of some movie makers is that they change the plot to sensationalize their movie.

If I were a successful author and one of my books was optioned for a movie, I would stipulate that I could veto any liberties taken with my creation. Remember the movie “Mary Poppins,” made by Walt Disney. Apparently, Disney’s daughters so loved the book, they pressured their dad to turn it into a move. It took him more than 20 years before the author P.L. Travers agreed to let him make her book into a movie. But Travers demanded script approval and was an advisor in the filming. The movie became a hit, a favorite yet today. There is a delightful follow-up film, “Saving Mr. Banks,” of Disney and Travers trying to work together. Much of it is untrue, but fun just the same.

I Googled best movies made from books to see if anyone agreed with me. I only considered books I had read myself. Most of the science fiction, fantasy, apocalyptic and horror titles bit the dust. I don’t read to scare myself to death so the only one of Stephen King’s novels I could approve is “The Green Mile.” Terrible as the movie ends, there is a touch of humanity in the characters.

Many of the books I read myself fell in the category of classics and later wound up as movies. Years ago, I read “Gone With the Wind.” I could visualize the Civil War. Did you know that when the movie first hit theaters they scheduled an intermission because the film was so long? I would enjoy watching it again, but I should read the book again first, wouldn’t you think?

If you waded through “Dr. Zhivago,” “Great Expectations,” “Tale of Two Cities,” or “Count of Monte Cristo,” you doubtless loved the movies. They were well done on the giant screen, yet I still missed the text. Only the words of Charles Dickens can lead you through the streets of London with the smells, the noise and odd assortment of characters – all with such marvelous names. For bravery rooted in revenge what can rival the “Count of Monte Cristo,” or the self-sacrifice in “Tale of Two Cities.”

Of what I consider the more modern classics, and I have read them, the films of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Forrest Gump,” “Last of the Mohicans,” “Grapes of Wrath,” and “Schindler’s List” were exceptionally well done. I will have to include the fantasy novels I enjoyed too, such as “The Hobbit,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” and the Harry Potter films. I loved all of them, although the orcs and such in Lord of the Rings were depicted a bit over the top. I preferred the images I created in my own head. The movie orcs were the sensationalizing I mentioned.

Did you enjoy the “Godfather” series of books? I believe the first one was the only book the kids’ dad would not put down so I could read it. Some time ago, I checked out the series and had my own movie marathon. I did the same with Harry Potter and JRR Tolkien’s stories.

Don’t get the idea that I only watch movies from books I have read. I can be a bit picky, but I do recommend “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” “Sophie’s Choice,” “Shawshank Redemption,” “A Beautiful Mind,” and “Catch Me If You Can.” I may yet read those novels.

If you prefer film features in which things blow up, including people, ones with a sci fi unbelievable twist or strange superhero folks, I’ve let you down. Those are the fantastical and the sensational action films. My eyes don’t focus fast enough for all the flying, diving and shooting. And I believe the text basis for many of these are comic books. There was a time I devoured comic books about Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel. The modern films are way beyond my childhood superheroes.

In my research on books to movies, I came upon this statement: A film ought not to alter or sensationalize the original text. I’ll rest my opinion on that.