If you have ever heard phrases like "the book is much better"; "they removed this x part of the book in the film adaptation"; "they ruined the story with the movie", you must know with no doubt, it is a cretin who wants to boast that reading books is cool and watching movies is for less cool people. If you said these phrases, I do not say that you are a cretin now, I tell you that you were when you said them. Want to know why?
It is evident that the books have greater advantage in the content of the play with respect to the films. For something to happen in a book it just needs to be said. In order to happen in the film, actors, directors, make-up artists, choreographers, assistants and much others must be hired; scenarios, lights, music, special effects, cameras, microphones, furniture, houses, cars must be bought and rented; permissions must be acquired for filming on cities, landscapes.
That is, everything that is represented in a book through words, has to exist in the scene of the films to be recorded. There is a serious limitation in the film, this is the reason why it requires such huge amounts of budget, while for a book it only takes a creative mind, pencil and paper.
Then why do you have to come with your hipster accent to tell me that the book is better because it says a lot of other things, when in the film they make it happen (exist) through imitation and synchronization of so many components? Stay with your imagination, I will go watch Interstellar, later we'll see which one wins in details.
If throughout this reading you happened to think "well obviously the films are more elaborate, we are talking about the seventh art, with just under 100 years of history, while letters have been boring people for thousands of years". You nailed it, fellow thinker. You can not simply compare a book with a movie in terms of which is better or which one is more enjoyable, not even for the same play, because in one you are imagining all the details (if you get to understand the meaning of each word), and in the other the imagination occurs on the screen for you.
Point that leads me to establish what is for me the main difference (quite obvious for all) between a book and a movie. The effort of the viewer to capture it. And I say it's obvious because of how easy it is to put Netflix compared to reading the Socratic dialogues by Plato.
Now this principle can be widely applied:
And we have taken it to the limit that the spectator is nothing more than a mental mongoloide, hypnotized by explosions and a defective plot. And he exclaims as soon as he clears the drool of his chin at the closing credits "Bravo! Bravo! Magnificent!" to return to the everydayness of the rest of his hypnotizing screens.
Yes, I love movies, but they stun, they make your imagination obsolete. Books do the opposite, because the richness of their content depends on your ability to imagine its components. Also, anything can literally happen in a book. Movies are trying the same through computerized visual effects, but they simply fall short of what I can do with my imagination.
Conclusion: Mankind is an idiot and should feel bad about it? No. You can encourage reading in others withouth being a jerk.