Books to Movie: Movie or Series, Which is Better?

I've reached "N" on A-Z List 2, and the movie I thought of was The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. 

I've seen both the movie and the series. The comparison raises the issue, Is a series the answer? 

It can be. I think some stories definitely benefit from the longer treatment.

In the above case, I say, "No." I think the movie surpasses the series which seems to get bogged down by its own...something or other...inability to figure out what it is doing, I guess.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, on the other hand, was far better as the 1983 series than the movie. It is a voyage rather than a narrative arc, anyway. 

So is most Jules Verne stuff. And Jules Verne will come up later.

The issue isn't (necessarily) length. Lord of the Rings, however long, does have a strong narrative arc. The Hobbit is a little less tidy as a movie though Jackson, in my view, did a decent job turning it from a journey into a story. 

Overall, pacing may determine medium more than content. That is, one complaint about movies is that the scriptwriters leave stuff out. But excision is a reality of all transformations. It's a fact of art. 

The problem lies with a story that isn't really a story but more a set of vignettes. A series might serve such a book better than, say, the approach used for the most excellent and powerful Die Hard, which pays off all its set-ups relentlessly without stopping for anybody to smell, let alone study, any roses. 

If what a reader wants is to delve into a particular world, a series is more likely to give the reader satisfaction. But it may end up missing the point which I suggest happens with the series made from Niffenegger's book. And missing the point may annoy readers more.