Perhaps some insight into the expert level of my self-distraction: I've spent the summer reading the Harry Potter series of books. HBO was also accommodating with a timely broadcast of the series of movies. Twice, in fact, so I had the opportunity to read the books in conjunction with watching the movies. I'm reminded of this as the entire movie series has been broadcast back-to-back these past few days. Twice! I'm not watching it, I've quite had my fill.

I think it's really impossible to say whether the books or the movies are better. They are quite complementary with their pros and cons. What the movies do great are things that are lacking in the books, and what the movies miss out on are provided in the books. The movies' strengths are their visuals, economy and consistency over 8 films and 7 years. One of their main weaknesses is related to their economy and the amount of information that was necessarily left out. The books' strength is the detail and fleshing out of information that was left out of the movies. At varying points, that's also the books' weakness when they go overboard in detail and prattling discussions that go on ridiculously long and are tightened up in the movies.

One more prominently memorable of the examples is in the Prisoner of Azkaban in the Shake Shack scene when Sirius and Lupin confront each other. In the book it's a long drawn out verbal confrontation. Tensions and emotions are high, wands are threateningly drawn, and . . . they're having a conversation. It's an action point, and that's what the movie realizes. Instead of the drawn-out discussion, Lupin arrives already having figured out the conclusion of the discussion in the book, explained in a very economical and logical way.

There is so much detail in the books that is not included in the movies that it may seem that a lot is lost in just viewing the movies. Maybe so, but it doesn't feel that way and the movies are still great on their own. Unlike The Lord of the Rings, the complementary nature of the books and films is strong. 

An example that comes to mind of the opposite, where the book explains what the movie doesn't is in the last book. At the beginning of the movie version, the Dursleys are leaving with the brief and hurried explanation that it "isn't safe anymore". The book is much more satisfying in going into why it isn't safe anymore. And it's not just that the Dursleys are leaving, but they had been told by the Order of the Phoenix that they had to go and would be escorted to safety by Order members, and the Dursleys actually weren't sure whether to believe them or not and equivocated about leaving.

There isn't a contradiction between the pros and cons of the Harry Potter movies and the books. You can enjoy the movies without the details, then read the books and get the details, but then still enjoy the movies with the added information. That's different from the Lord of the Rings which I both watched and read in conjunction several years ago. Unlike Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings books are flat out superior to the movies. The Lord of the Rings books are near arguably considered literature, whereas the Harry Potter books, I shouldn't wonder, will never be more than Young Adult fiction with a wider appeal. That's not a diss; they are what they are, and are very good at what they are.

The contradiction I find in the Lord of the Rings is that if you haven't read the books, how the hell do you know who everyone is and what their motivations are? And if you have read the books and know who everyone is and what their motivations are, then how do you watch the movies and not think how inferior they are (story-wise) to the books and how much is wrong or missing?

There are also substantial differences between the Harry Potter books and movies, and some the books do better or worse, and some the movies do better or worse. For most part, I think the movies' economy on plot points actually improves the story. Scenes that are convoluted in the books are presented in the movies in a way that improves them. And some not. For example, the fate of the elder wand in the last movie is terrible compared to the book. In the book, it makes much more sense and has much more meaning and is more consistent to Harry's character and his relationship to Dumbledore.

Finally, if I were a parent whose children were interested in the Harry Potter series, I would require them to read each book before watching the movie. Partly because watching the movie first just seems lazy. There's also an element of encouraging literacy and patience in investing the time and effort into reading a book and using imagination, instead of just being fed someone else's visualization of the story (albeit a very good visualization). I don't think children would read a book and then watch the movie noticing what was left out. That's what critical adults do because we don't know how to just enjoy and have fun anymore. Kids would likely enjoy the movie with the extra information simply incorporated into their viewing experience.