Book or Movie: Which one first?

[digitalfirefly]

Do you find reading a book before seeing the movie version enhances the book, or hurts the movie or vice versa?

A recent example with the movie the Mist, I read the book first and it took all of the suspense out of the movie for me. I didn't find the book all that scary, but there were a couple suspenseful moments. In the movie I knew everything that was going to happen (except the last 5 minutes).

Then there's something like Harry Potter where I saw the first three movies first, then read the books. Seeing the movies first gave me visual representations of pretty much everything in the book before I read them, but I still found them enjoyable reads, if not better than the movies. Then I read books 4 and 5 before seeing the movies and found myself leaning toward the books.

I think for me I enjoy seeing the movie first, then reading the book. Usually books flesh out the story more, giving more background, characters feelings and thoughts. When I read the book first, then see the movie I feel I'm constantly thinking to myself "that's not how it happened in the book" and "oh, they left out that part".

[dohko]

The only case I can relate to this was with Chronicles of Narnia, I read the book (first book) when I was about 13 and I loved it. Using your imagination to imagine such a fantasy world is something I enjoy a lot. I loved it so much that I have decided to never see the movie. Just my personal decission to keep that tiny world of Narnia that I created in my mind as my own and original. (It has been tough because I have seen a few seconds from the trailer:( )

[deegraww]

For the most part I would see a movie and find out it was a book then read it. If I know a movie is coming out that's based on a book I'll read the book first now.

[-mk-]

If there is a movie based on a book I haven't read, I avoid the book like the plague. I dislike spoilers so much I rarely watch trailers unless I have to (in the theater itself). After the movie I enjoy reading the book to learn everything I missed.

[betaflame]

I watch the movie before reading the book. I find I enjoy the movie more this way, since I don't know how they deviated from the book. Going the other way, the movie always seems to dissapoint after having read the book.

[iggystar]

This is a great topic, btw. I actually don't know because I've had good and bad experiences both ways.

If I saw the movie first and it is good, it will make me want to read the book because for the most part, the book is normally better.

If the movie came first and it is bad, like The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, then I don't want to take the hours to read the book. However, in this case I was encouraged to do so. The book was far superior than the movie, but since I had imagery from the movie I was constantly trying to get frickin' Sam Rockwell out of my head, much to my irritation.

If a book is awesome, it's never going to match up in the movie. The Time Traveler's Wife, will NOT live up the the book...this is impossible. Even if the movie makers do a decent job, it never equals the written work. One exception, Jurassic Park, in which the movie and the book were on the exact same level for me.

If the book is average, I might still see the movie because it's only two hours, right? But again, who likes having a movie completely spoiled?

I guess if it's an event movie, like a sci-fi/action/adventure I'll want to see the movie first, then read the book. If it's a romance/comedy where I don't care about spoilers, the book first.

So, in other words, heck if I know. I love books and I love movies and you'll always compare one with the other depending on which you do first. Lately I've been rushing to read the book and see if the movie can live up to it.

[tokenuser]

THere are authors that write books that translate well into movies, others that write books as if they were a script already, and others that bring all the visualisation you need on the pages that you are reading.

Unfortunately its hard to know what is what.

I had read Disclosure (Micheal Crichton) before seeing the movie. LOVED the book. Anyone in tech, or who survived the dot boom would enjoy it. I had high hopes for the movie, and enjoyed it ... but it was no where near as good as the book. If I had scene the movie first, I probably would have passed on the book.

Jurassic Park - again a great book, that made an OK movie ... but the sequels read like move scripts and were nowhere near as enjoyable.

The Jason Bourne trilogy (plus subsequent books) AWESOME. The Jason Bourne Movies ... AWESOME. But they do only relate to each other on a very very superficial level.

Schindler's Ark vs Schindler's List - The book took you so much deeper than the movie. Its a beautifully told story the Speilberg only partially captured.

So ... I read a lot. Have done since I was a teen. Chances are that if I have read the book, I will go see the movie adaptation, and for the most part enjoy it. If I see a movie, chances are (except for I Am Legend) I will leave it at that and not bother with the books.

[iggystar]

Jurassic Park - again a great book, that made an OK movie ... but the sequels read like move scripts and were nowhere near as enjoyable.



I think I loved the movie because it brought the dinosauers to life and I didn't think it could be done. That was some pioneering CG at the time. But storywise, the book had much more suspense.

I agree about the sequels. I stopped at The Lost World.

[diane]

When ever possible I do movie first then book. I have long argued that books normally don't translate well to movies simply because of length. It makes it hard for anyone who has read the book first because they simply have to cut parts.

A perfect example is 9th gate. I really liked the movie so I got the book. There is an entire plot line that was cut that was really large. I would have hated the movie if it had been the other way around. Okay, hate is probably a strong word.

[joymarie]

When ever possible I do movie first then book. I have long argued that books normally don't translate well to movies simply because of length. It makes it hard for anyone who has read the book first because they simply have to cut parts.


I completely agree. I can't think of a single instance where I thought that a movie has lived up to the book. I'd much rather see the movie first and then read the book which has the deeper plot and more details.

[iggystar]

That's a great point. The people I was with when seeing I Am Legend, enjoyed it, but I didn't because of a major theme in the book that was entirely omitted from the movie.

[tokenuser]

That's a great point. The people I was with when seeing I Am Legend, enjoyed it, but I didn't because of a major theme in the book that was entirely omitted from the movie.My argument with Disclosure was that the movie focused on a very small sub plot from the book, and ignored the overriding industrial espionage theme that the book told beautifully. I guess sex sell more than tech when it comes to bums on seats in a movie theatre.

[comhcinc]

I guess sex sell more than tech when it comes to bums on seats in a movie theatre.

DUH. .

[mr-underachiever]

For the most part, it depends on the book/movie. Sometimes, I don't care and will pick either first, but other times I won't. I still haven't seen A Scanner Darkly because I was trying to finish the book first.

[deegraww]

That's a great point. The people I was with when seeing I Am Legend, enjoyed it, but I didn't because of a major theme in the book that was entirely omitted from the movie.

So with someone like me that didn't like the book would I enjoy the movie or hate that as well?

[iggystar]

So with someone like me that didn't like the book would I enjoy the movie or hate that as well?

I don't think you'd enjoy the movie. I'd save it for a rental.

I can see why a person wouldn't like the book, the theme and concept was awesome, the way the definition of "legend" was explored. However, the book as short as it was, lacked something in the execution even with its great themes There was more of the solitary vibe, Robert doing his daily tasks and wandering the streets that could have been cut. For me, it's a book that made me think, but had issues as well.

[uvayankee1]

Going into a movie based on a book I've read, my whole standard for measuring the movie is usually "how well did it translate the book experience to the screen?" If it fails in this, I tend to dislike the movie. However, some movies that I really love fail at bringing the whole book to the screen, but I saw those movies first. A great example is "Field of Dreams." The book (Shoeless Joe) is much better and more involved than the movie, but I saw the movie years before I even knew the book existed, so I've always loved the movie.

I would never recommend waiting on a good book until after the movie has been made though, unless you dislike reading or really really love movies. Finding out about a good book is a great thing, and you should always track them down as soon as you can.

[kolbygoodman]

When I saw the first trailer for I Am Legend, I was very very intrigued and, like all other things that intrigue me, I looked it up on Wikipedia. There I discovered the book, and immediately bought it on Amazon. Got it in the mail a few cays later and tore through it in about two days. Loved it, absolutely loved it. Then I came across the BBC radio drama and listened to that all the way through. Needless to say, I loved this story.

I saw the movie last Friday, and even though it left alot out, and i felt it was about 45 min too short, I loved that too. Was it as good as the book? No. But those who haven't read the book gets their whistle wet about the premise, and, if interested enough, can pursue the book.

I went the opposite way on Jurassic Park and The Lost World. Saw the movies when I was about 11, and again, fell in love with the story. And when I found out about the book, I again ate them up. Books again better than the movie, but the movie served as a good gateway.

[damnedeyez]

For the most part...like most everyone here, it's watch the movie first. Exceptions are basically if the movie is more of a fan service to fans of the books...in those, what they leave out can just make things a bit confusing.

[iggystar]

I saw the movie last Friday, and even though it left alot out, and i felt it was about 45 min too short, I loved that too. Was it as good as the book? No. But those who haven't read the book gets their whistle wet about the premise, and, if interested enough, can pursue the book.



I challenge you on this. If you have any love for the book, how can you say this? Where was the legend in the movie?

I merely enjoyed the book, but felt so slighted by the movie (Will Smith is a great actor, with a great body, but there has to be more).

[digitalfirefly]

After seeing I Am Legend I want to read the book now.

[iccanui]

The way i see it is, the book is more of a time investment. When you see a movie before the book, why bother with the book cause you know the story, the ending and the characters. If you read the book first then when you see the movie its a 2 hour recap of what you already read. It makes the movie richer too cause you will connect dots that sometimes arent laid out in the movie too. The movie just brings the book to life and out of your imagination.

Also if you see the movie first when read it you will be taken out of the book cause you will keep remembering parts in the movie that differ or didnt live up and also i think you wont have the chance to imagine the characters and places, you will have a predetermined idea of all that and will rob yourself of the experience of making it all up on your own.

Yea, book before movie.

[comhcinc]

The way i see it is, the book is more of a time investment. When you see a movie before the book, why bother with the book cause you know the story, the ending and the characters. If you read the book first then when you see the movie its a 2 hour recap of what you already read. It makes the movie richer too cause you will connect dots that sometimes arent laid out in the movie too. The movie just brings the book to life and out of your imagination.

that's not always true. sometimes the book and the movie may only have one or two things in common.
i know i keep harping on it be it is the best example i know. the book Forest Gump is nothing like the movie. all the characters are different and there are different points to the story

[iccanui]

*opps***********