# Book or Movie First?



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

Ok my question is, if there is a book version and a movie version do you think it is better to read the book before seeing the movie? Or do you think it is better to wait and see the movie and then read the book? 

What are your reasons for doing it either way?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Generally, I'd probably rather see the movie and then read the book, as that way the movie is less likely to be so disappointing since it seems that it is the very rare movie that is anywhere near as good as the book. However, it is seldom that it happens that way for me since the book usually precedes the movie my several years.

However, the downside of seeing the movie first is that you may then start visualizing the movie characters and locations while reading the book, which may be in conflict with the author's descriptions and imagery.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I prefer reading the book first.  More times than not the movie completely skips over content or just barely touches on important plot points that help the story make sense.  It's also nice to know what the characters are thinking and the motivation for their actions.  I never fool myself into thinking the movie will be anywhere near as good as the book, so I don't worry too much about the disappointment that it wasn't as good.  It's just that much nicer when you catch a movie that is loyal to the book and you can see the small details you might have missed if you weren't familiar with the story already.  A bad movie is going to be a bad movie period.

I also feel that by watching the movie first you've pretty much ruined the book.  I know for a lot of people it's more the journey than the destination, but I'm not the type to read the end of the book first.  So when I'm putting in that much time to get the story I want to read a new story.  I also like to visualize the characters for myself.  I don't want to see Tom Hanks or Kathy Bates or even fresh faces (at the time) like Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson.  I want my imagination to be the first telling of the story for me, not another person's vision of what it should be.  It also makes it fun when they hit characters spot on.


----------



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

Both sides and points of views make perfect sense. Its so hard to decide if its better to wait or just read the book and basically you will know the ending etc before you see the movie. Maybe others will also chime in with some more things to add. Because at this point I don't know which I would prefer.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

As I think about it more (and wake up more), I'm having trouble remembering any situations where I saw a move first and then read the book. Therefore pretty much all my recollections are of movies which have usually disappointed with but a handful of pleasant surprises.

One notable exception for me was _2001: A Space Odyssey_. I saw the movie first, and thought, "Wow, that was amazing, but I have no idea what I just saw." Then I read the book and saw the movie again, and it all made sense. In that particular case I think that was the ideal sequence for me: movie, book, repeat movie.


----------



## Sparkplug (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't really have a preference, except I now make it a rule that if I haven't already read the book right before the movie, I wait until after I've seen the movie. Mostly because earlier this year I had finished the book _Revolutionary Road_ hours before I went to see the movie. The whole time I watched the movie, I was mentally checklisting the series of events in the book vs. the series of events in the movie -- i.e. they just had this fight, so he then did x in the book... yup, he just did x.... Even though the actors' performances were great and the styling was good, the movie experience was ruined for me. But a month earlier I had seen _The Reader_, a book I had read at least five years earlier. Although I already knew major points of the plot line, it didn't matter because I didn't remember all the little details.


----------



## mistyd107 (May 22, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> I prefer reading the book first. More times than not the movie completely skips over content or just barely touches on important plot points that help the story make sense. It's also nice to know what the characters are thinking and the motivation for their actions. I never fool myself into thinking the movie will be anywhere near as good as the book, so I don't worry too much about the disappointment that it wasn't as good. It's just that much nicer when you catch a movie that is loyal to the book and you can see the small details you might have missed if you weren't familiar with the story already. A bad movie is going to be a bad movie period.
> 
> I also feel that by watching the movie first you've pretty much ruined the book. I know for a lot of people it's more the journey than the destination, but I'm not the type to read the end of the book first. So when I'm putting in that much time to get the story I want to read a new story. I also like to visualize the characters for myself. I don't want to see Tom Hanks or Kathy Bates or even fresh faces (at the time) like Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson. I want my imagination to be the first telling of the story for me, not another person's vision of what it should be. It also makes it fun when they hit characters spot on.


ITA


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

I just read the book Coraline because I knew I would be getting the Blu Ray of the movie soon. I tend to prefer reading the book first, since I know that inevitably the movie will never have everything in the book.


----------



## AppleHeart (Apr 10, 2009)

Book, then movie -- for all the reasons stated above.

Only exception is if the book version comes out patterned after the movie had been shown worldwide, i.e. I saw the Beatles' movie HELP before I got my hands on the book, which I stupidly and without thinking destroyed to cut and paste the pictures onto my Beatles scrapbook. Forward to 1977 at a Beatles Convention in NJ - almost fell flat on my face when I saw that HELP book being sold for $500. Sigh...

Book, movie, book also works for me - that way I can reference or find answers to why it wasn't shown the same way as in the book: most of the time, I'd get it that what works in the written version will not work in the film version. And Vice versa! "Nuff said.

EBC, back to reading THE JADE OWL

=edited to change tense, f*e*ll, not f*a*ll.


----------



## libros_lego (Mar 24, 2009)

AppleHeart said:


> Book, then movie -- for all the reasons stated above.
> 
> Only exception is if the book version comes out patterned after the movie had been shown worldwide, i.e. I saw the Beatles' movie HELP before I got my hands on the book, which I stupidly and without thinking destroyed to cut and paste the pictures onto my Beatles scrapbook. Forward to 1977 at a Beatles Convention in NJ - almost fell flat on my face when I saw that HELP book being sold for $500. Sigh...
> 
> ...


I like your signature quote.


----------



## The Atomic Bookworm (Jul 20, 2009)

Book, then Movie for me. If the book is really hard/dense (like the Lord of the Rings) then movie first book later.

[Former Para-Professional Librarian Rant Time]

And could someone please tell/remind the Gen-Y'ers and the Millennials (the kids still in school and college) that "I watched the movie" does NOT count as "I read the book"... and that you can't make a book report by "watching the movie"... because your teacher *will *know and *will *fail you and it will be* your* fault?

[/Former Para-Professional Librarian Rant Time]


----------



## NessaBug (Jan 5, 2009)

I tend to like reading the book first. 

One example was "Interview with a Vampire." I'd already read the book and I was sitting there going, "Wait, Lestat doesn't do that at the end and it doesn't happen for several books and at the hands of another vampire." It irked me.

But on the other hand, I was in college and dying to find time to read "Memiors of a Geisha," but had no time. The movie came out and my friend took me for Christmas before I read the book. In this case, it really enhanced my abilty to accuratly picture the kimonos, hairstyles and make-up. 

I also kind of like reading about half the book before seeing the movie.


----------



## Keith Melton (Jul 22, 2009)

Book first whenever possible. 

Otherwise I tend to "see" the characters in the book as the actors in the movie. A classic example of this was One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I saw the movie first and then read the book, and couldn't see the character Randall McMurphy as anyone but Jack Nicholson.

I find this quite jarring if producers cast actors that don't match up well with the character the writer created. Almost like staring at 3D pictures without the glasses.


----------



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

Sparkplug said:


> I don't really have a preference, except I now make it a rule that if I haven't already read the book right before the movie, I wait until after I've seen the movie. Mostly because earlier this year I had finished the book _Revolutionary Road_ hours before I went to see the movie. The whole time I watched the movie, I was mentally checklisting the series of events in the book vs. the series of events in the movie -- i.e. they just had this fight, so he then did x in the book... yup, he just did x.... Even though the actors' performances were great and the styling was good, the movie experience was ruined for me. But a month earlier I had seen _The Reader_, a book I had read at least five years earlier. Although I already knew major points of the plot line, it didn't matter because I didn't remember all the little details.


This makes alot of sense.


----------



## Aravis60 (Feb 18, 2009)

Book, then movie for me too, although a few times I have watched the movie, liked it, then found out that it was based on a book and so had to rush out and buy the book (the two most notable times that this happened were _The Princess Bride_ and _Stardust_) 


The Atomic Bookworm said:


> [Former Para-Professional Librarian Rant Time]
> 
> And could someone please tell/remind the Gen-Y'ers and the Millennials (the kids still in school and college) that "I watched the movie" does NOT count as "I read the book"... and that you can't make a book report by "watching the movie"... because your teacher *will *know and *will *fail you and it will be* your* fault?
> 
> [/Former Para-Professional Librarian Rant Time]


Funny how many of my students think that. We have the Scholastic Reading Counts program at my school (the kids can read books and then take short computer quizzes about them to earn points) and I always have kids tell me that they can't believe that they didn't pass the test because they have the movie at home and have watched it a bunch of times.


----------



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

Aravis60 said:


> Book, then movie for me too, although a few times I have watched the movie, liked it, then found out that it was based on a book and so had to rush out and buy the book (the two most notable times that this happened were _The Princess Bride_ and _Stardust_)


This has happened to me before also. I usually rush down and read the book asap


----------



## Sparkplug (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't understand the aversion of reading a book after seeing the movie. If you enjoyed the movie, wouldn't you enjoy the book as well? (I would guess that you'll probably like the book even more than movie, as books tend to be better than the movies based of from them.)

Sure you _might_ know the ending of the book because you've seen the movie beforehand, but you _might_ know the ending of the movie because you read the book first, right? And I say "might" because Hollywood has made movie endings that are different from the book. It could even be like _Forrest Gump_ or _the curious Case of Benjamin Button_, where the only thing that the book and film have in common is the tittle.


----------



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

Good question sparkplug. 

Personally, I just want to get the best experience from both. Most of the time if I read the book first I will always prefer it over the movie. So sometimes I think maybe I should see the movie first and then I wont feel the disappointment because I will still fully enjoy the book. 

But I do agree with you on not reading the book right before seeing the movie. i think you are set up to fail almost everytime in that case.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

There's more of a time and emotional investment in the book usually, for me anyway.  A movie will be over in three hours, but I have to be motivated to pick up the book and read it over several days.  If I already know what's going to happen that motivation might be less.  And again, I'd rather have my own vision of the characters and know every nuance of the plot that the author wanted me to have in their original iteration of the story.  I don't want my first contact with a story to be someone else's vision of what the story should be.

You have the vision of the author skewed by a screenplay writer, a director, a casting manager, a props and costume department, the location it was filmed in, the lighting and sound effects technicians, the set designers, the actual actors who are delivering the roles, the composer of the score, the special effects and CG animation department, the advertisers promoting the film, the audience you see it with, the quality of the theater... there are so many different variables going into a movie adaptation of a book that I would just rather see on my own and allow my imagination to fill in before allowing someone else to make those decisions for me.


----------



## Cuechick (Oct 28, 2008)

I agree with those who said movie first, if the movie is just about to come out or recently released. I remember reading Silence of the Lambs just before the 
film was released, it really spoiled the movie. Just cause I knew what was going to happen. If some time had passed between it might not have mattered as much.


----------



## vsch (Mar 5, 2009)

Book and I usually don't end up seeing the movie....I don;t watch many.


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm almost always a book first type of person unless I'm unaware that the movie was a book 1st such as Blade Runner. As a general rule I think one gets a little bit more of the back story via a book.

I also derive a great deal of pleasure out of complaining about how they screwed the movie up and the book was _so_ much better.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

Movie first, then book for me - preferably close to each other.

Yes, you lose the magic of being able to imagine what the characters/locales/etc. look like, but I find I'm able to pay closer attention to other aspects of the  story and a gain a richer overall understanding of the work because I already have the movie fresh in my mind to draw upon. 

True, changes are oftentimes made in the transition from book to film, but for the most part, I am able to comfortably handle that each medium will present an "alternate vision" - so to speak - of the overall story and its characters.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

If I haven't already read the book before the movie comes out, I wait until after I've seen the movie. If it's Harry Potter, I won't re-read the book until after I've seen the movie. I discovered if I read it right before seeing the movie, I don't enjoy the movie at all.


----------



## Aravis60 (Feb 18, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> There's more of a time and emotional investment in the book usually, for me anyway. A movie will be over in three hours, but I have to be motivated to pick up the book and read it over several days. If I already know what's going to happen that motivation might be less. And again, I'd rather have my own vision of the characters and know every nuance of the plot that the author wanted me to have in their original iteration of the story. I don't want my first contact with a story to be someone else's vision of what the story should be.
> 
> You have the vision of the author skewed by a screenplay writer, a director, a casting manager, a props and costume department, the location it was filmed in, the lighting and sound effects technicians, the set designers, the actual actors who are delivering the roles, the composer of the score, the special effects and CG animation department, the advertisers promoting the film, the audience you see it with, the quality of the theater... there are so many different variables going into a movie adaptation of a book that I would just rather see on my own and allow my imagination to fill in before allowing someone else to make those decisions for me.


This is why I like to read the book first. My favorite book was made into a movie a few years back and I have decided that I will not watch it because I have such clear pictures of what everything in the story looks like that I don't want to see how anyone else imagined it.


----------



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

Forster said:


> I'm almost always a book first type of person unless I'm unaware that the movie was a book 1st such as Blade Runner. As a general rule I think one gets a little bit more of the back story via a book.
> 
> I also derive a great deal of pleasure out of complaining about how they screwed the movie up and the book was _so_ much better.


I too share your guilty pleasure. I always complain about the movie being not as good as the book pretty much everytime.


----------



## Sporadic (May 1, 2009)

Movie -> book always for me

If I do it the other way around, the movie can never match up to what I imagined while reading. "That actor was a poor choice for that character" "I can't believe they cut [scene]" "Why would they use that song for the soundtrack"

With movie -> book at least I can see what was changed and go in with a blank slate (minus the basic plot)


----------



## loriltx (Jul 17, 2009)

I will not go see a movie based on a book I have read unless someone else who has read the book sees the movie and tells me they stuck with the storyline of the book.  Nothing infuriates me more than to have main facts of the story changed in such a way that it totally changes the meaning of the story--latest example: "My Sister's Keeper."


----------



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

loriltx said:


> I will not go see a movie based on a book I have read unless someone else who has read the book sees the movie and tells me they stuck with the storyline of the book. Nothing infuriates me more than to have main facts of the story changed in such a way that it totally changes the meaning of the story--latest example: "My Sister's Keeper."


This was one of the most recent books vs. movies that bothered me. Although I liked the book and the movie I dont like how such a main part was changed.


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

loriltx said:


> I will not go see a movie based on a book I have read unless someone else who has read the book sees the movie and tells me they stuck with the storyline of the book. Nothing infuriates me more than to have main facts of the story changed in such a way that it totally changes the meaning of the story--latest example: "My Sister's Keeper."


I have not seen that movie because I have the book and am working my way to it. I hate it when major changes are made. I still have not gotten over The Count of Monte Cristo and that was years ago.


----------

