Which do you prefer to check out first? I can not understand why anyone would want to read the book first, because the book is almost always better, it seems to eliminate the point of watching the movie. It's like setting yourself up for disappointment or annoyance.
I can completely agree with that, however, I do read the book first. I like to draw up my own idea of the characters and settings, without having someone else's idea already in there. Although, yes, disappointment.
And, this is the point I always make about comaparing books to movies. Two different media for one thing, but another is that while reading the words you are in effect taking the script and directing it, building the sets, casting the characters, invisioning the scenery and special effects. So, you've created your own personal movie, in your head customized to your liking. Now you go see the creative stuff of another screenwriter, director, casting and FX crew. Of course you will like your movie better. Whereas, I never read the books. I go to see the work of all those ppls' creative process thru my eyes and ears with nothing better to compare it with. Gives me a better chance at enjoyment, plus I don't have all that wasted effort making a separate movie in my head when I am paying for someone else to do it for me.
Depends on how serious about it I am...if I'm an avid follower of the author, I will definitely read the book first...but if its just a movie made out of a good book (Water for Elephants for example), I'll watch the movie probably before I read the book.
One movie I was extremely disappointed with that was an amazing book was Queen of the Damned. I hate Anne Rice for allowing the production of that movie to go in such a way that was SOOOO inaccurate!!!!
I don't fully agree with your sentiment. How much liberty the reader is given often depends on the author, a writer like Nabokov will not leave the imagination too much room; but any author is the director; and most would say that's the most important of a film. The words chosen, the punctuation used, the imagery chosen, the narrative style, the plotting; these things set the tone, flow, and emotion. The reader's imagination is guided a certain way through these. The problem where movies come in, and are often lacking; is by not catching the right details or translating that emotion, tone, and flow correctly to the screen. If you watch Martin Scorsese's Age of Innocence, or read Edith Wharton's; you're getting almost the same experience. Just trading entertainment from Daniel Day-Lewis's acting and Scorsese's masterful direction, for entertainment from Edith Wharton's lovely narration. But if you watch Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, there isn't very much changed; one's filmed in a realistic but emotional, frantic way, the other's written in a realistic but emotional, frantic way; Johnny Depp even looks like 'Raol Duke'. The settings look just how they are described, the characters look pretty much like they're described, the directing even captures the emotion and flow I mentioned. But slight slip of tone changes the film from less of a serious satire and more into a zany comedy.
I’ve suffered through too many disappointments over the years after reading a great book which was eventually made into a movie; so I still read the book first, but have such low expectations when I go to the movie that I’m often pleasantly surprised Hotwater
Good books are almost always better than the movie.. But good book aren't quite as fun when you know all the major plot points and the ending. I'd much rather have the journey that a book takes you on than sit through the hour and a half movie version and not enjoy the book nearly as much.
For me books are so detail-oriented that I could know the whole plot and it not effect my experience at all. That could have to do with the way I read them too; I am really prose focused to the point where I can't read blandly written novels.
I'd still much rather read the book first. Generally, at least from a personal standpoint, I find the books much better than the movies. If I'm interested and intrigued enough to go and watch the film, then I will - but if I do, then I generally tend to read the book again, and see what was left out and all.
I like to use Wikipedia after I've watched a movie based on a book to see what was left out and if I should read the book =P I wish I made this a poll. So far it seems I would be the only one to say movie first.
There is that option, but that kind of takes out the mystery of working out exactly what was left out of the book, both when you watch the movie, and re-read the book afterwards. I've found that a fair few movies based on books have left out crucial parts, or parts that the reader has deemed important, but those behind the film have not.
That's one mystery my memory wouldn't hold up with for sure! Usually what they leave out, in good adaptations, is stuff that is hard to translate to the screen or subplots (and even that can be disappointing); but I definitely have seen some curious choices in worse movies; and movies love to combine multiple characters into one. I can see why they left out a lot of the crazier parts in American Psycho, and a lot of the dialogue, but those parts are so great; and when I tell fans of the movie about them, often they just think it sounds silly.
I think a lot of people watch the films, but then don't read the books - so they're unaware of the material that they've missed out. I also think that there's a lot of books that are yet to be made into films, that could work on the big screen, to good effect. I've always enjoyed picking out the differences between the book and the movie - most of which is always the important part, at least based on what I've seen.
I usually see the movie first. I don't think I've read any books before I've seen the movie, and I don't think I can say any movie was better than the book. Except for My Sister's Keeper...the movie ending was a lot more realistic than the book's ending, even though the book's ending was more dramatic and more entertaining, lol.
Books before movies. When I read books I create my own image of the story, but if I watch the movie beforehand I use the characters in it in my personal image and isn't nearly as good. Plus when you read before watching the movie you have motivation to read it since you don't know how it ends.
Did you read Fight Club? I think Fight Club is a million times better than the book, and won't rest until the whole world agrees. That's pretty surprising that a movie could be the less dramatic one =P
Sometimes u read a great book and years later they make a movie out of it. So u don't even know that u're setting yourself up for disappointment. And when u go see the movie and it sucks big time u can't convince anyone anymore to read the book. I hate that. For me it happened with American Psycho, with The Devil Wears Prada, etc. i absolutely loved the books, and the movies were terrible, and then no one would believe me when i said the books were great. Now i've just read The Help (Kathryn Stockett) and i loved it, but i saw the trailer for the upcoming movie and i think its gonna be terrible. I dont like being the nerd who keeps saying "the book was better! they left so many good parts out!", but sometimes its just frustrating when pple judge a book by its movie adaptation. I agree. I also thought Shutter Island was good. I read and enjoyed reading the book, and i thought the movie was equally good.
