# If you enjoy a book will you see the movie?



## Chris Redding Author (Aug 14, 2010)

I won't. I have such a clear visual in my head and the movie never lives up to my imagination.
Maybe I should direct?
Chris Redding


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

If I love a book, I'm usually so curious to see the movie, I'll see whether it's good or bad.


----------



## Thea J (Jul 7, 2010)

Gah, almost never. I'm usually disappointed when I do.


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

If I have read the book, normally no.  I usually frustrate myself by comparing.  Most often it ruins the movie experience.
deb


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Lately, no. I try to avoid the movie. Especially if it was a book I really enjoyed. 

If it's a movie about a book I haven't read yet, I might go see it and then read the book after. 

Harry Potter is an exception. I've read them all. I no longer reread them right before seeing the movie. And I go into the movie expectations that I will like it.


----------



## pdallen (Aug 3, 2010)

I might, but it's usually a disappointment.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

luvmy4brats said:


> Harry Potter is an exception. I've read them all. I no longer reread them right before seeing the movie. And I go into the movie expectations that I will like it.


All the Harry Potter movies so far disappointed me. They were all good movies, but felt rushed and "smaller" than the books.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

You know, I'm one of the only people I know who was disappointed in the movie _Jurassic Park_. The book was soooo much better.

I'll still go see the movie if I really enjoyed the book, but most of the time the movie just doesn't live up to it.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> You know, I'm one of the only people I know who was disappointed in the movie _Jurassic Park_. The book was soooo much better.


I loved Jurassic Park, but I was thirteen when it came out... and I think it's the kind of movie 13-year-olds love. I then went out and bought the book.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

DArenson said:


> I loved Jurassic Park, but I was thirteen when it came out... and I think it's the kind of movie 13-year-olds love. I then went out and bought the book.


I read the book first when it came out in paperback. 1991, I think. I was 18. When the movie hit I was 20. The book remains a personal favorite of mine and it's one of the books I usually reread once a year.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

DArenson said:


> All the Harry Potter movies so far disappointed me. They were all good movies, but felt rushed and "smaller" than the books.


I learned my lesson with Goblet of Fire. It was my favorite book of the series and I re-read it the day before the movie was released. Of course then I spent the entire movie comparing the two and decided that the movie sucked. It's my least favorite movie.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Yes, if I've read the book and enjoyed it I generally have to see the movie... okay, generally, still I was not convinced to see the Dragonlance movie

Dawn


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> Yes, if I've read the book and enjoyed it I generally have to see the movie... okay, generally, still I was not convinced to see the Dragonlance movie


I'm a huge Dragonlance geek... and the movie made me feel physically ill.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

DArenson said:


> I'm a huge Dragonlance geek... and the movie made me feel physically ill.


Ditto.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

David McAfee said:


> Ditto.


Glad to know I was smart skipping that one. Tas & Fizban are forever safe from being screwed up in my mind


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

Depends... 90% of the time when I do, I'm monumentally disappointed.

I have two that remain as my MOST HATED ADAPTATIONS.

*Reservation Road* (not to be confused with Richard Yates' REVOLUTIONARY ROAD). Loved, loved, LOVED the book. In fact, I read the book because I saw the trailer for the movie and it looked interesting. I read the book and saw the movie afterwards. Since it was co-written by the author, I figured how could you go wrong?

Oh... you can go pretty #$&^@!* wrong!!!  It was HORRIBLE!!

And possibly the WORST ADAPTATION I have ever seen....

*Breakfast of Champions*

Ugh... one of my favorite novels ever. When I heard there was a movie, I thought, "How in the world are they gonna do that?" The key to enjoying Vonnegut is his witty and funny narration. I saw the movie... and I just about threw the TV out the window. STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE. Unless you want to use it as an instrument to torture somebody.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

I just have to see the movie if I like the book.  Every single time I've been disappointed.  I'm a masochist like that    But I try to just go into it and have open expectations...sometimes it works, most times it doesn't.


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

Another movie I just watched that was based on a book was THE RULES OF ATTRACTION.  I really loved the book and when I heard it was Bret Easton Ellis' favorite adaptation of his books, I got excited.

Lousy... I didn't even finish it.  Jazzed up and over-the-top.  The film worked when it actually tried to stay true to the book, but when it tried to be different, it fell flat on its face.

And I refuse to see LESS THAN ZERO.  I heard that is also completely different from the novel.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

Usually I do, yeah. Mostly I'm disappointed, but sometimes the movie is also terrific. The Blind Side was an example of that. Loved the book *and* the movie.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Maybe I'm just weird, but I enter a movie knowing that there will be differences from the book, and accepting the differences of medium. The big question to me is if the original book is treated _respectfully_. That's why, for example, I don't see anything wrong with the Jurassic Park movie. Remove any expectations or comparisons, and simply watch the movie. It is very entertaining, and Spielberg clearly loved the concepts and the characters. Sometimes yes, it makes me sad to know a part didn't make it, but usually there is a good reason for it. That's why I adore the Lord of the Rings movies. People can mourn for Tom Bombadil all they want; the movie is better for his absence.


----------



## Cliff Ball (Apr 10, 2010)

I think, from what I can remember, the only two movies that I think were almost the same as what the book was, was _The Postman_ and _The Hunt For Red October_. I read _Jurassic Park_ years after I saw the movie, so it didn't bother me as much that the movie was different.

Overall though, I don't enjoy movie adaptations of books. If the producer, director, and actors have never read it, and don't have any emotional connection to it, the movies from books always seems to lack some kind of, soul, I guess you could say. For example, because some of the new _Star Trek_ actors actually like _Star Trek_, the movie was good(I know, not really off of a book series), but someone like Ed Norton, who played the Incredible Hulk/Bruce Banner, didn't seem to put that emotion or whatever into it, so I can see why a lot of people complained about the acting. What was my point again?


----------



## danchisum (Jul 27, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Maybe I'm just weird, but I enter a movie knowing that there will be differences from the book, and accepting the differences of medium. The big question to me is if the original book is treated _respectfully_. That's why, for example, I don't see anything wrong with the Jurassic Park movie. Remove any expectations or comparisons, and simply watch the movie. It is very entertaining, and Spielberg clearly loved the concepts and the characters. Sometimes yes, it makes me sad to know a part didn't make it, but usually there is a good reason for it. That's why I adore the Lord of the Rings movies. People can mourn for Tom Bombadil all they want; the movie is better for his absence.


I agree 100%. I don't understand how people can compare movies to books. Two different mediums with different abilities. With a movie you have about 2 hours to make a good story, but with a book the author can make it as long or as short as needed. I love the Harry Potter books and movies. The movies will never have every plot point the books have, but that is impossible to do while still trying to make a good movie.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> That's why I adore the Lord of the Rings movies. People can mourn for Tom Bombadil all they want; the movie is better for his absence.


Agreed! Some purists lamented various changes made in the movies. I knew the books fairly well before seeing the Lord of the Rings movies, and still thought they were brilliant. Among the best cinematic adaptations of novels I've seen.

And I thought Ordinary People the movie (one of my favourites) was even better than the book.


----------



## ◄ Jess ► (Apr 21, 2010)

Normally I have no problem seeing the movie version of books, but there is one movie I refuse to see: The Golden Compass. That book seemed so epic and amazing when I read it like 10 years ago, that I never want to spoil that feeling by seeing the movie (plus I heard the movie wasn't all that great).


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

Yes, I usually try to see the movie.

Please don't laugh at me but I thought 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid' movie was just like the book (I read it with my 3 children ... <looks around to see if anyone is watching> ... ya, that's my story).

I try to go in with an open mind, and at times I'm pleasantly surprised. Other times (such as with The Da Vinci Code) I'm SORELY disappointed


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

julieannfelicity said:


> Yes, I usually try to see the movie.
> 
> Please don't laugh at me but I thought 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid' movie was just like the book (I read it with my 3 children ... <looks around to see if anyone is watching> ... ya, that's my story).
> 
> I try to go in with an open mind, and at times I'm pleasantly surprised. Other times (such as with The Da Vinci Code) I'm SORELY disappointed


I didn't read the books, but I thought that it wasn't a bad movie. Gross out humor, but still not bad. My kids read the books and loved the movie, though.


----------



## julieannfelicity (Jun 28, 2010)

Bane766 said:


> I didn't read the books, but I thought that it wasn't a bad movie. Gross out humor, but still not bad. My kids read the books and loved the movie, though.


Yeah, my kids adored it too. They got to meet the author, Jeff Kinney, which was so exciting to them. Their first celebrity (they never got to meet my father ... he passed away before they were born). He actually lived 3 streets away from us and his son went to school with my oldest.

My son is just waiting to see if my book will be a movie, because I won't let him read it  (Like I'd really let him see the movie version if I wasn't going to let him read the book ... how dumb does he think I am, lol)


----------



## davidhburton (Mar 11, 2010)

I tend to go into movies now with much lower expectations if I've read the book first. Sometimes I'm surprised. LOTR was really good, despite the fact that he deviated from the story in some places. He used some creative freedom and in the end I still think he did a fantastic job with the movies. That said, there are some books that I just don't want to see as a movie because I don't think they can do it justice, Saramago's Blindness among them. I made the mistake of watching the made-for-TV movie of Stephen King's IT years ago. Big mistake.


----------



## MLPMom (Nov 27, 2009)

It really depends on the author. For Harry Potter, absolutely but like others mentioned, I won't re-read the book before seeing the movie or I get frustrated at how much (vital) information they leave out, or the small changes that didn't need to be made but they did anyways. 

I usually love Nicholas Sparks books so I will watch the movies as well but that last one I watched (Nights In Rodanthe) so so so far from the book (which was wonderful) that I haven't watched the last two movies out. I seriously was so disappointed in that movie. It ruined the book and then some.

As a kid I loved Where The Wild Things are and so when the movie came out I watched it, and yeah, so strange and not at all what I thought it would be.

Then again some movies that I watched that have become my favorites were nothing like the book and I loved them. Others that I have watched and loved I didn't even know there were books first so I was disappointed in them.


----------



## Barbiedull (Jul 13, 2010)

I will. (Afterwards I will remember how much was left out.)
It's interesting to see how characters are portrayed,
and to see if they look similar to what you had
imagined in the book.


----------



## Valmore Daniels (Jul 12, 2010)

I'll watch the movie, but I go in expecting the worst; then, when something like LOTR comes along, I'm pleasantly surprised.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Maybe I'm just weird,


Honestly, you coulda stopped right there and the post would have been fine.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

As long as I go into the movie expecting it to be different from the book with a lot of scenes probably cut out, I can usually enjoy the movie. Of course I'll still readily admit "the book was better", that doesn't necessarily mean the movie is a disappointment.

On the flip side, I love seeing movies or TV shows and then reading the book for the first time. Not only is it usually better but I enjoy visualizing the characters as the actors who played them. I also do that with historical fiction - it's simply impossible for me to read a book now with Anne Boleyn in it without picturing Natalie Dormer!


----------



## Jorean (Jul 31, 2010)

I almost always see the movie. Esp when it comes to the fangirl comic nerd in me. I also just about always leave sad and feeling cheated. I highly doubt I will ever learn my lesson though.

A few books and movies I hve enjoyed though:

Scott Pilgrim
The Neverending Story
The Last Unicorn
Stardust
Bladerunner/Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep.
Logan's Run
The Little Prince
Peter Pan (the live action that came out within the past or years or so)
High Fidelity


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Honestly, you coulda stopped right there and the post would have been fine.


Love you too, McAfee.

And I've never read Scott Pilgrim, but I really, really want to now. That movie _rocked._


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

I do my best to avoid the movie if the book was good and avoid the book if the movie was good. What started me doing that purposefully was Shane. In the book Shane is slim and dark and very appealing. In the movie they had short blond Alan Ladd playing him and ugh. The Hunt for Red October was an exception to my general policy. Got lured in by the prospect of Sean Connery and wasn't disappointed in any way. Great book. Great movie.


----------



## Disappointed (Jul 28, 2010)

I saw Kubrick's _The Shining_ and then read the book. For me, the movie was better.

I've read _The Hobbit_ and the LOTR books several times. I really didn't want to watch the movies, but the kids bought the DVDs. I've not sat through them because I want to keep my own internal imagery. Plus, I don't understand how they can do those movies without doing _The Hobbit_ first. Nothing makes sense without it.


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

Lately I've watching movies of books that I want to read (and haven't yet), just in case I never get around to them....such as The Girl with the Dragoon Tattoo and Time Traveler's Wife. Enjoyed both.
L.J.


----------



## jackwestjr_author (Aug 19, 2010)

Generally, no.  But if it is a classic like Oliver Twist or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings I will give it a shot if it gets excellent reviews.


----------



## Aravis60 (Feb 18, 2009)

I will usually go see the movie, but when they started making "The Chronicles of Narnia" into movies, I drew the line. I like my own movies for that series too much. Wouldn't even watch the trailers.


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> You know, I'm one of the only people I know who was disappointed in the movie _Jurassic Park_. The book was soooo much better.
> 
> I'll still go see the movie if I really enjoyed the book, but most of the time the movie just doesn't live up to it.


You weren't the only one, though the one that destroyed it was the Lost World. Horrible!!!

I have never seen a movie that lived up to the book, but have seen some that I've enjoyed.


----------



## DLs Niece (Apr 12, 2010)

I'm usually disappointed in the movie but I tend to watch them anyway.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Sure, I’ll go watch the movie if I enjoyed the book. I don’t seem to have much of a problem keeping them separate experiences. Seeing a movie first hasn’t seemed to color the reading experience, either.

Mike


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Maybe I'm just weird, but I enter a movie knowing that there will be differences from the book, and accepting the differences of medium. The big question to me is if the original book is treated _respectfully_. That's why, for example, I don't see anything wrong with the Jurassic Park movie. Remove any expectations or comparisons, and simply watch the movie. It is very entertaining, and Spielberg clearly loved the concepts and the characters. Sometimes yes, it makes me sad to know a part didn't make it, but usually there is a good reason for it. That's why I adore the Lord of the Rings movies. People can mourn for Tom Bombadil all they want; the movie is better for his absence.


Will you marry me?


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Lyndl said:


> Will you marry me?


Sure thing, but I'm not sure how happy my wife will be about that. Let me go ask her.


----------



## eldereno (Dec 27, 2009)

I will see the movie after reading the book but generally will think that the book was better.  I do not like seeing the movie before reading the book....I then only see the actors/actresses as the characters.    I like it better when I use my own imagination to picture how a character looks and behaves.

I do like movies in general and will usually find some redeeming factor about even the most criticized ones.


----------



## blefever (Jul 29, 2010)

Most likely not, but if I do, I will not go into the theater with high expectations. Reading lets me use my own mind, whereas the movie will try to lead me.


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

I feel almost compelled to see the movie if I've already enjoyed the book, so that I can compare what the movie got right and wrong.  I've always done that, and the books are almost always better.  I keep watching though, hoping to see those rare instances where the movie is true to the book, or even better.  The best example I can think of is Stephen King's "The Mist", which did everything right and then added on a surprise ending that Stephen King said he wished he'd thought of it.


----------



## Patricia (Dec 30, 2008)

I can't wait to see the movie based on the Janet Evanovich "Stephanie Plum" books. I know I'll probably be disappointed, but I *have to* see it.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

JoeMitchell said:


> I feel almost compelled to see the movie if I've already enjoyed the book, so that I can compare what the movie got right and wrong. I've always done that, and the books are almost always better. I keep watching though, hoping to see those rare instances where the movie is true to the book, or even better. The best example I can think of is Stephen King's "The Mist", which did everything right and then added on a surprise ending that Stephen King said he wished he'd thought of it.


Ugh, I hated that ending and that was one of my favorite of his short stories.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

It depends - I'll watch some movies simply because I know that I'll never actually pick up the book (not naming names), or because the trailers look particularly good. I understand that the screenwriters will take some poetic license with the books to make them fluid, with a storyline that is understandable in a self-contained form. The expectations are typically low even so, but every now and then, you'll come across something truly well-done, such as Kenneth Branagh's take on _Hamlet_. I also went and read _The Joy Luck Club_ after watching the movie, and as sad as it is to say, the movie was better.

With that being said, there are some truly terrible adaptations out there. I suppose it's a hit-or-miss.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

I like to read the book first then, after enough time has passed that I can't remember every detail, go see the movie. If the book is still fresh in my mind, I tend to sit there and go, "Oh, _that_ didn't happen in the book."

Once in a blue moon, a movie will inspire me to read the book. I watched The Lovely Bones about a month ago and have plans to read it now. It's one of those stories though where the visual effects in the movie may have added a different layer that I otherwise would not have picked up from the printed page.


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

Bane766 said:


> Ugh, I hated that ending and that was one of my favorite of his short stories.


The Mist was and still is one of my favorite short stories of all time, and I waited at least 20 years, eagerly, to see a movie adaptation. I was very happy with it right up to the end, for being so true to the story. I loved the movie. And then that ending was so gut punching great it made me love the movie twice as much in the last five minutes. I've seen lots of people rant about the ending though, hating it. I don't get that at all. It was like a classic twilight zone ending...Like the guy who survived a nuclear war and had all the time in the world to read all the books he'd ever wanted, then he breaks his glasses and can't see a thing.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Yes, but there's a big difference between those two stories. With the Twilight Zone episode, there was not just a ton of irony, but an inherent message in it. The Mist's movie ending had none of that. It was for shock only. Not only that, immediately after I felt cheated. All that...for that ending? You want a good ending to a Stephen King movie, watch 1408. That ending _validified_ the rest of the experience, not rendered it pointless, frustrating, upsetting, and cheap.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Most of the time, yes.  As long as there's good talent involved.

Though more often I see a movie then read the book since I'm a movie buff and fairly casual reader by standards of a site like this!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm probably closest to David (Half-Orc) in sentiment on this one. If I enjoy a book I'll probably want to see the movie, but I don't really compare one medium to the other. They're too different. I like peanuts, but I don't like peanut butter. Grape juice really isn't much like wine. I will compare the movie to the book if I'm familiar with both, but more analytically--why did they make that decision--but not hating something simply because it is different from the book. The movie has to stand on its own. The book has to stand on its own.

My favorite example (for me personally, don't expect anyone to agree ) is _The Running Man_. Loved the book, loved the movie, and they couldn't have been more different from each other. I was a bit shocked at first when I went to the movie, but then I just went with it. Without exception, everyone I've met has hated the movie. Maybe, like David, I'm just weird. 

Betsy


----------



## Maud Muller (Aug 10, 2010)

I've found that I'm often disappointed when I go to see a movie made from a book that I loved. I think the worst was when they turned _Ragtime_, a really great book, into to a really bad movie. I hardly recognized it.

Eileen


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

I just have to say one more thing about The Mist.  I don't think the movie's ending was pointless.  It was a resolution to what Stephen King had left open for the reader to decide.  Did they survive?  Would the mist go on forever?  Would they actually go ahead with the plan to shoot themselves in the car?  These were left unanswered by SK.  The movie gives you the answer, going one step further.  It shows in the end that despite the hero's best efforts, thinking he was making the right decisions all along, maybe he was wrong?  Yes, he was wrong, and it was devastating.  This message is hammered home when he sees the woman looking down at him from the transport truck, giving him a dirty look.  She begged him to go with her to help save her children, and no one would help.  She went into the mist anyway, and everyone assumed she was killed.  But she DID save her kids.  They were there with her on the truck, and she looked down at him for refusing to help her.  And maybe if he'd have gone with her, he might have been able to save his wife?  Maybe he'd been making the wrong decisions all along?  It was meant to be a deeply disturbing end that would leave you thinking, rather than the ambiguous ending Stephen King wrote.  Sorry to derail the topic, I just have strong feelings on this one.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

JoeMitchell said:


> I just have to say one more thing about The Mist. I don't think the movie's ending was pointless. It was a resolution to what Stephen King had left open for the reader to decide. Did they survive? Would the mist go on forever? Would they actually go ahead with the plan to shoot themselves in the car? These were left unanswered by SK. The movie gives you the answer, going one step further. It shows in the end that despite the hero's best efforts, thinking he was making the right decisions all along, maybe he was wrong? Yes, he was wrong, and it was devastating. This message is hammered home when he sees the woman looking down at him from the transport truck, giving him a dirty look. She begged him to go with her to help save her children, and no one would help. She went into the mist anyway, and everyone assumed she was killed. But she DID save her kids. They were there with her on the truck, and she looked down at him for refusing to help her. And maybe if he'd have gone with her, he might have been able to save his wife? Maybe he'd been making the wrong decisions all along? It was meant to be a deeply disturbing end that would leave you thinking, rather than the ambiguous ending Stephen King wrote. Sorry to derail the topic, I just have strong feelings on this one.


Yeah, I like the ambiguousness of the ending better.


Spoiler



I didn't like them killing themselves. I did like that the lady saved her children, though.


----------



## Candee15 (Jan 31, 2010)

I just did. I went to see _Eat Pray Love _ yesterday. I've enjoyed both the book AND the movie ... in different ways. I particularly liked the movie for the visual appeal of Italy, India, and Bali. Fun!


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Making "Lord of The Rings" before "The Hobbit" was a matter of the film rights. The LOTR rights were clearly owned by one studio, while "The Hobbit" was tangled in various legal problems after an animated version was made. The success of LOTR made it worth de-tangling The Hobbit, which is in production now.

I have written screenplays, and they are very different than novels. You really can't make a movie that is exactly like a book. Of course, studio executives are famous for making changes that are more related to focus groups, their own prejudices, an actress they want because she was, um, friendly, elements from past hits, and other things than they are about the book.


----------



## rolandx (Jul 25, 2010)

I remember when "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was released, I did not like it because I had recently read the book.(one of my all time favorites) Recently watched the movie again and thought it was brilliant. 

Just watched the "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and "Shutter Island" which I had recently read and couldn't help comparing them as I watched.(liked both movies though) 

So what about the reverse situation: Would you read the book because you liked the movie? I saw "The Lovely Bones", "Mystic River", and "Gone Baby Gone", but don't know if I could read the books now, knowing how they would turn out.


----------



## Bane766 (Aug 2, 2010)

Yes, I started reading Harry Potter because I saw the first movie.


----------



## PraiseGod13 (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm sure that I'm in the minority (not unusual for me) but I'm close to the point of saying, "I really like this book so I'll never see the movie!"  I cannot name a single movie that I've liked much after reading the book. When I read, I have a "picture" of each character in my mind and Hollywood actors/actresses never look like I pictured the character.  Also, the story is rarely the same... some movies have barely resembled the book they're based on.... so I'll stick with my reading and forget about the movies.


----------



## VickiT (May 12, 2010)

Chris Redding Author said:


> I won't. I have such a clear visual in my head and the movie never lives up to my imagination.


Ditto!

Each time I've watched a movie of a book, I've read, I'm always disappointed. 

Cheers,
Vicki


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

I often will seek out books that movies I've liked were based on.  "Do androids dream of electric sheep / Blade Runner", "Who goes there? / The Thing"  I like to compare how different writers and directors interpret the story.  I love movies as much as books, and like to see the different interpretations.  I also like to compare foreign films with their americanized remakes, for example, 'REC', a spanish zombie outbreak movie was remade in the US as 'Quarantine'.  It was almost a shot for shot remake, but I liked the Spanish version better.  Loving a book only makes me want to see the movie more, and vice versa.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

I don't have the time to waste on movies based on books.  

There is an old adage: So many books, so little time.  I'll never live long enough to read all the good books.  I'd rather be reading than watching a movie.  It's a simple time management thing.


----------



## 1131 (Dec 18, 2008)

I usually do.  I try to enjoy the movie for what it is and the book for what it is.  They have to do a very bad job of translating the book into a movie (think The Count of Monte Cristo) before it bothers me.


----------



## Carolyn J. Rose Mystery Writer (Aug 10, 2010)

Good question. I've been disappointed many times, but also impressed many times. If I have doubts, I may wait until it comes around on TV.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Geemont said:


> I don't have the time to waste on movies based on books.
> 
> There is an old adage: So many books, so little time. I'll never live long enough to read all the good books. I'd rather be reading than watching a movie. It's a simple time management thing.


I'm the opposite, being more of a movie buff I often won't bother reading books of movies I loved as I'd rather spend that time watching more movies, or doing another hobby, or reading a book where I don't know the story already.

If I know a movie is coming out based on a book, and the book is well reviewed I'll sometimes try to read the book first as I know I won't get through the book if I see the movie first many times. Case in point reading the Millenium Trilogy now before seeing the movies. The Girl With Dragoon Tatoo I just finished, and the movie is on Netflix streaming so I'll watch that this weekend. Will go to theater and see The Girl Who Played With Fire next weekend if I can finish the book this week.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Personally, I've never seen much point in having two mediums of the same thing, so if I enjoy a book/movie I rarely ever feel the need to try the other medium. On the other hand, if I don't like something, or like it less than I think I should have, and think that the other medium could be more interesting, then I'm far more inclined to give it a try.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Selcien said:


> Personally, I've never seen much point in having two mediums of the same thing, so if I enjoy a book/movie I rarely ever feel the need to try the other medium. On the other hand, if I don't like something, or like it less than I think I should have, and think that the other medium could be more interesting, then I'm far more inclined to give it a try.


Well for movies I like to see how a book's ideas were translated visually. But again I'm a movie buff and casual reader. I don't have a great imagination so I prefer visual mediums.

But like I said, if I love a movie, I won't always read the book unless it's clear that a lot of story was left out etc.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Selcien said:


> Personally, I've never seen much point in having two mediums of the same thing...


Just as it can be a pleasure to read a skilled artist's writing, I enjoy watching fine actors work their craft. I enjoy watching skilled director's carefully pick their shots, their locations. Even seeing what scenes a screenwriter chose to keep, and chose to skip, is another integral part of slimming down a story, crafting and shaping it to tell a story. That's all it is for me; I want to be told a story. A book and a movie do this in very different ways.

David Dalglish


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

mooshie78 said:


> Well for movies I like to see how a book's ideas were translated visually. But again I'm a movie buff and casual reader. I don't have a great imagination so I prefer visual mediums.


For me the sole benefit of movies is the moment in time where I'm actively watching something as I get a much better visualization than I do from reading, but once a moment has passed and is only remembered I find that I cannot distinguish something that I've read from something that I've watched.



Half-Orc said:


> Just as it can be a pleasure to read a skilled artist's writing, I enjoy watching fine actors work their craft. I enjoy watching skilled director's carefully pick their shots, their locations. Even seeing what scenes a screenwriter chose to keep, and chose to skip, is another integral part of slimming down a story, crafting and shaping it to tell a story. That's all it is for me; I want to be told a story. A book and a movie do this in very different ways.
> 
> David Dalglish


That, I have to say, is a damn fine answer. Unfortunately, I never notice how something is put together without someone pointing it out to me, and even then I don't always get it (the only example that I can think of is the opening shot of The Searchers, there's supposed to be some significance in the way the shot framed something or other... I just don't get it). I just see/read what's happening.

I've watched the first couple of Harry Potter films and it just seems like they chopped pieces off and sewed the rest together as there's no way that I can see it without seeing everything that was in the book, that is the extent of my ability.


----------



## John Brinling (Jul 25, 2010)

Definitely.  Many times I will go see the movie even if I don't particularly like the book to see how they handled it.


----------



## SidneyW (Aug 6, 2010)

If possible, I always like to read the book first then see the movie. Sometimes doesn't work out, but I always like to know the underpinning.


----------



## HeidiHall (Sep 5, 2010)

If I love a book, it's hard to see the movie...I've already added in the details, so who needs another person's view. I'd much rather sit quietly with a good book than in a noisy theater.


----------



## AmandasPanda (May 9, 2010)

For me it's normally the other way around - i watch a movie which i liked or didn't mind and think - this would be a great book - then search for the book and find out the movie was based on a book!!
Then i get the pleasure on expanding on the story i've just seen.  I like it that way


----------

