# Do you ever judge a book by its movie?



## Joseph_Evans (Jul 24, 2011)

I avoided reading Eragon for a long time because the movie was so terrible, but it turned out to be a fantastic book! I foolishly judged the book by its movie, and won't make the same mistake again! Have you ever done this? Or do you always read the book before seeing the movie anyway? I love His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, and I can't bring myself to watch The Golden Compass movie because I've heard it does the book a disservice.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

I've lost count of the number of times that the movie got the book all wrong, but I will never forget one instance where I thought the movie improved on the book and that was *Inkheart*. The movie kept the pace moving pretty rapidly and gave us some colorful villains and complex protagonists, but the book was a different matter entirely. The premise of being able to read the characters out of your favorite stories is intriguing, and the author captured to perfection the bookworm's love affair with the written word, even the feel of books (if one dares to confess such a thing on Kindleboards!). BUT...none of the characters in the book were sympathetic or likeable. Meggie was precocious but self-absorbed, Mortimer was bland, Dustfinger was cynical and Capricorn was even more vicious than in the movie. While I realize that none of us are perfect these characters were flat and one-dimensional. And I lost track of how many times they escaped the bad guys only to be captured _again_. I think it was 3 times, but it may have been more. There are 3 books in this series, but I finished the first one and abandoned the others, something I rarely do. But in the end I just didn't care enough about these characters to find out what ultimately happened to them.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Maybe a long time ago I might have, but since I know that movies generally range from "almost as good as the book" (pretty rare) to "the author must _almost_ be loathe to accept the royalty checks", I doubt I'd ever let a movie influence my book choices (at least not consciously).


----------



## TRGoodman (Jul 9, 2012)

Joseph_Evans said:


> I avoided reading Eragon for a long time because the movie was so terrible, but it turned out to be a fantastic book! I foolishly judged the book by its movie, and won't make the same mistake again! Have you ever done this? Or do you always read the book before seeing the movie anyway? I love His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman, and I can't bring myself to watch The Golden Compass movie because I've heard it does the book a disservice.


Movies tend to not be nearly as good as the books, but there have been a few cases where I actually thought the movie was _better_ than the book. The main one that comes to mind is Howl's Moving Castle. The book was good, but the Miyazaki movie was amazing. It's by far my favorite Miyazaki movie.


----------



## bhazelgrove (Jul 16, 2013)

Silver linings playbook...the movie was better than the book


----------



## DaveinJapan (Jun 20, 2013)

I would say The Green Mile is comparable to the book, thanks to great performances by Hanks and others. 

But generally speaking, they just miss the mark somehow—one way or the other.

(I read somewhere that The Godfather novel wasn't as good as the movie, but I haven't read it. anyone have thoughts on that one?)


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree that the movie of _Eragon_ was dreadful. But why on earth would you ever judge a book by the movie it's made into? A book is put together by its author and its editor. Hundreds more people over several years have gotten in the way by the time the same story appears on screen.


----------



## kansaskyle (Sep 14, 2010)

In a sense, I am judging a book by the movie -- well at least the trailer. 

I saw a trailer last night for _12 Years a Slave_, which looked really good, and it promoted me to get the Kindle version of the book for $0.99.


----------



## ensisk (Oct 2, 2013)

Depends. The example I always cite is Dreamcatcher by Stephen King. I loved both the book and the movie (though I may be the only one), but there are a lot of differences between the both. It's two different experiences. I always tend to Wiki a movie or book when I find out there is a counterpoint and see if it looks interesting on its own merit.


----------



## PaulLev (Nov 2, 2012)

I'm a firm believer in the first-love syndrome: if we read the book, or see the movie, first, and we love it, then whatever we experience next will never be quite as good, and sometimes will seem much worse.


----------



## Carrie Rubin (Nov 19, 2012)

I don't think I've ever read a book _after_ I've seen the movie. After watching 'The Hours' long ago, I bought the book, and it sits unread on my shelf. If I know a book has a movie coming out and I want to see the movie, I will usually read the book first.


----------



## lazarusInfinity (Oct 2, 2012)

I tend to focus more on the books and ignore the movie unless I absolutely have to see it.  Movies almost never live up to the books, and will even have some people believing the book to be subpar.  The main problem I think, is what happens when the film gets greenlit and the people that control the financing start making decisions about what to put in, leave out, etc.


----------



## Nebula (May 29, 2013)

I saw the movie version of Eragon first and Is hated it, then I read the book and I hated them too... 

One movie I'll always vote as better than the book is Stardust. I saw the movie first, and after that the book just didn't do it for me. 

To the OP's question, I wouldn't say I judge books by the movies made of them, (Imagine judging The Great Gatsby by that horrible movie with Mia Farrow), but many times I decide to read a book after watching the movie. (Silver Linings Playbook, Twilight  Harry Potter, LOTR)


----------



## SkyMama (Sep 26, 2012)

Fantasy fans will hate me for saying this, but found The Lord of the Rings movies to be more entertaining than the books. This isn't to say that I didn't appreciate the books a great deal. Tolkien was a genius.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

I don't want to say it but I have. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but if the storyline is horrible, then I won't bother with the book. Even knowing that the movie could have gotten it wrong. You know, the ones where the only thing in common are the title and some names of characters.

I will give movies a lot of slack, and if I feel there was some potential for an interesting story, I will probably read the book. To go into a slightly different direction, (ie the movie was so bad I avoided the book) there have been times that I've enjoyed a movie, then discovered it was a book and thought, meh, once was enough. 

SkyMama, I completely agree about the LoTR movies vs books.


----------



## MHVesseur (Jul 20, 2013)

I try not to. I got myself a copy of Lee Child's novel for the Tom Cruise movie "Jack Reacher" BEFORE I ever saw the movie, just to make sure a can first enjoy the book and use my own imagination. I for one am very glad I read all J.R.R. Tolkien hobbit novels (that's all four) long before the movies were made so I got the real thing. Most of the time watching the movie is the end of the book; although I've had a few exceptions where the movies actually introduced me to an author, like "The Shining" long ago introduced me to Stephen King's novels, and "Random Hearts" introduced me to Warren Adler. In the end I'm all with Luchino Visconti (director of "Death In Venice") who stated that the book and the movie should be regarded as two independent works of art. If both are done right, that should work.


----------



## Gabe (Oct 9, 2013)

SkyMama said:


> Fantasy fans will hate me for saying this, but found The Lord of the Rings movies to be more entertaining than the books. This isn't to say that I didn't appreciate the books a great deal. Tolkien was a genius.
> 
> I agree! I really liked the books, but I think that Peter Jackson managed to get to the essence of the story without all the padding. I also wouldn't put it in the fantasy genre. I think it's a genre all to itself. It's about war, it's about loyalty, and it's about freedom, and it's really dark.


----------



## Russell Brooks (Dec 23, 2010)

Never. The screenplay may not have been written by the book's author.


----------



## RLC (Mar 19, 2013)

Sometimes. If the film really is poor then its more than likely that I won't read the book. For example, there no way I'd read any of the Harry Potter books. Apart from the third film, all these movies were appalling. 

On the other hand, some films have prompted me to read the books i.e. 'The Shining' (which is terrible compared to Kubrick's Adaptation), 'Jaws' (the film is much better) and 'Notes on a Scandal' (again the film was much better, thanks to Patrick Marber's script). 

Ir seems to me that there are plenty of films that are better than the books and vice-versa.


----------



## Andra (Nov 19, 2008)

RLC said:


> Sometimes. If the film really is poor then its more than likely that I won't read the book. For example, there no way I'd read any of the Harry Potter books. Apart from the third film, all these movies were appalling.


I quit watching the Harry Potter movies after the 3rd one, mostly because I had such a clear picture in my head from reading the books - and the movies fell woefully short of my imagination. Please don't let the horrible movies keep you from reading at least one of the HP books and deciding if you like them for yourself.

I really enjoyed The Lord of the Rings movies even if they weren't exactly like the books. And I saw Stardust before I read the book - I still love the book, but a lot of the pictures in my head come from the movie instead of my own thoughts.


----------



## DS5408 (Oct 29, 2013)

I might be in the vast minority here, but I actually thought the movie of A Time to Kill was much improving over the book, which was a little slow moving. I'd also echo Silver Linings Playbook and add The Ghost Writer as rare instances where the movie outpaced the book.

(And to add on to what was already mentioned...it is a travesty what Jack Reacher did to the good Lee Child name)


----------



## Adaman14 (Mar 20, 2013)

Perhaps BBC and A&E series count?  If so I will read the Brother Cadfael series by Ellis Peters based on the series as well as the Richard Sharpe's adventures by Bernard Cornwell.  

I read the Hornblower (by C. S. Forester) series 35 years ago and recently saw the A&E Hornblower 'made for TV' series.  The series modified plots in a major way but still it is a fine series to watch.  I am reading the Hornblower books again and I anticipated envisioning the characters from the TV series but it has not been the case, which surprised me!


----------



## Sean L (Oct 30, 2013)

ensisk said:


> Depends. The example I always cite is Dreamcatcher by Stephen King. I loved both the book and the movie (though I may be the only one), but there are a lot of differences between the both. *It's two different experiences*.


I tend to approach it in this manner, as two (or more) different experiences. While not technically a movie, I am a huge fan of The Walking Dead series, so much so that I am working through the compendiums and Robert Kirkman's novels. If I really dig the characters, I'm happy to follow them in slightly different or new adventures and get to know them on a deeper level.


----------



## Lyndl (Apr 2, 2010)

If a movie is made of a book that I really enjoyed, I usually can’t wait to see it.  Occasionally I’m a little disappointed but  I try to keep an open mind and enjoy books and movies as separate experiences that are linked but not identical

There aren’t too many movies I’ve seen before reading the book. Firestarter was one, it’s what started me on Stephen King .


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

I tend to be soooooo disappointed with one after the other! It can go either way. After being disappointed last year with a movie after reading the book, I made a new "rule." For me, now, it's either the book or the movie! I just can't do both. The single exception… The Desolation of Smaug… Buwahahhhh … CAN'T WAIT!!!! I have read the Hobbit and LOTR, but watch those movies over and over...


----------



## Ergodic Mage (Jan 23, 2012)

I never wanted anything to do with Hunger Games. Yuck what a bunch of overhyped tripe from my neighbor's garbage can. My wife loved the books and was excited when the movie came out, I still refused to go with her and she took the kids instead. The DVD came out and she purchased it that same day, and asked me to see it with everyone as a family movie night. Alright, I could still go upstairs and read or watch History Channel if it stunk.

Then I was very surprised and though the characters where only so,so the setting was phenomenal. Decided to give the book a try and again I ended up liking it, the characters where much better though the setting not as spectacular. Call me convinced, though I haven't read the rest of the series yet, large tbr already.

As far as LotR and The Hobbit? I grew up reading Tolkien and still go back and re-read his work every couple of years. But I would never have read either if I had seen the movies first. Peter Jackson did absolutely fine when he stuck to the story, but I hated every single director creative change he made (seriously the Dead winning the Battle of Pelennor Fields? Whatever happened to Humans?). And then his complete garbage additions to the Hobbit turned me off so bad I may not even see Desolation of Smaug; shuddering.


----------

