The book is almost always better than the movie. In a book the author has so much more time to develop the characters and the plot. The movie has a budget and is limited by the financial means of the studio as well as current technology. In the book, an author is only limited by their imagination as to what the story will become.

I like the books, because movies can miss a lot of things that make the book good quality reading.

The book, but not because I like to be some snotty jackass who preaches the wonders of literature. There's actually many things you can do in a movie (such as a great music score, or a montage) that aren't possible in books. But books tend to give a much longer experience. Plus, you get to visualize everything on your own, and make it look however you choose.

The book has more detail then the movie. Movies have budgets so that a lot of detail that is in the book is not in the movie at all. Though Lord of the Rings and Band of Brothers have both stayed quite close to the book.

Usually the books are better, especially if written before the movie was made. But this really depends on the book and movie. Books written after a movie, usually tend to be worst, thus making the movie better.

Whichever comes first is generally better.

If a book was written based off of a movie the movie would probably be better.

Like those star wars books, the movies are way better.

But it's usually the other situation. Mostly when a movie is made from a book the book is better. Because it came first. This happens a lot. Book movies make money.

So the real question is:

What's better movies or a books?

In my opinion it depends on the story, some stories would work better in the form of a book rather than a movie and some stories would work better in a movie rather than a book.

Example:

The Giver- good book, great story, I don't see how it could make a good movie.