Reading the book first?

[zenten]

It's my opinion that if a movie version of a book comes out, and you haven't read the book, go see the movie first. Why? Because if the movie and book are both good, but are somehow different (which is basically always true), then you will be wowed twice, instead of being wowed once, and then disappointed.

[German Sausage]

yeah, i don't believe in 'rules' for consuming media. i'm not fussed about spoilers unless the twist is the point of the movie/book.
i listen to CDs on random the first time i hear them, sometimes i skip chapters of books and come back to them later.
for I am Mr. Pomo!

[DonChubby]

As soon as I saw the title I actually said "Always read the book first."(Well just in Faroese)
The book is always better than the movie(unless the book is based on the movie, in which case the movie is most probably better), if you do see the movie first, you get to know all the plot twists etc. before you read the book.
Then what you have is perhaps an ok movie, and a spoiled, non-exiting book.
Just my $0.02.

Jeez, that didn't come out very eloquently. In my defense, I just woke up.

[ShadeWolf]

Well there is some movies out there that i loved, but could never bring my self to read the book version LOTR is a prime example of this (I have tried reading the books, but got bored with them).

I like movies that keep rather close to the book versions, in how the story is told. (NightWatch and Daywatch are like this).

It all boils down to personal taste

[__Kit]

Once I've read a book or seen a movie I find no reason to watch read it again, whether it be in the same media or another, once I've consumed it I find no point in seeing it again or reading it unless I forgot what happened.
My NZ$0.04.

[hermaj]

It depends, for me. If there's a movie that sounds interesting and it's based on a book, I will probably go and see the movie first and then read the book, rather than putting it off. If I have read and loved a series of books I often will be in two minds about the movies.

I held out from watching the Harry Potter movies for a long time because I really enjoyed how I had imagined everything and didn't want to jeopardise it. That said, I saw the first movie just on Saturday on TV and I didn't mind it so much, which quite surprised me. On the other hand, as soon as the Lord of the Rings movies came out I went and saw them right away even though I had already read the books, and I was very happy with them. But I did not have as vivid mental pictures with LotR as I did with Harry Potter.

[Hawknc]

I...haven't read LotR.

*Awaits banishment from nerdville*

Seriously though, I don't have any preference. The fact that a movie is based on a book I haven't read won't stop me from going to see it, but generally the books seem to be better, if only because they can go into more detail.

[Zohar]

I didn't read LoTR either. Well, that's not exactly true. I started reading the Hobbit and was bored to death so I stopped on p. 100 or so. Then I started reading LoTR (after hearing it's better) and saw it's the same old bore so I stopped after 20 pages.

If a movie happens to come out that's based on a book I haven't read, I'll still go and see it (if it interests me). Sometimes I'll re-read a book before the movie comes out, though.

Which reminds me, I need to read Stardust again. And at some point in the not too distant future, read The Golden Compass again. I have such high expectations of that movie... That's not so good is it?

[H.E.L.e.N.]

The book is always better than the movie

There have got to be exceptions. "Children of Men" comes to mind.

(And I'm sure there are other cases where the book is changed substantially to make it a better story [not just "more like a movie," which could very well suck.] "Ghost World" comes to mind because the source is so different from the movie, but I'm still not sure how I feel about that.)

Edit: I think "read the book" is good advice when it's a "classic" or the movie is clearly dependent on a well-known book. I've been advised to read the book before seeing "Contact" and I think that's a good idea. But some movies, the path from book-->movie is a lot less clear. (I'd say something about "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" being fine any which way you see/read it, but I realize that's completely debateable.) But some movies have more obscure text sources where the movie is its own separate entity, and seeing the movie is fine.

(that edit took too long.)

[PatrickRsGhost]

In the past I've watched the movie, then read the book. Only with the Harry Potter series had I read the books first, then watched the movies. Except for the first one. I had seen the movie first, then read the book. Then went to see the movie again to point out the differences. There were quite a few. Several, in fact. I tried reading the second book before seeing the movie, but got too distracted with other things. So I ended up doing the second one like the first one: See the movie first, then read the book. The others though I've read a few times before already, so I know what's missing and what's not (to a point).

I tried reading LOTR. I got bored with it a few pages after Gandalf regales to Frodo the history of the Ring. I think the last thing I recall reading clearly was how Gollum came to be. I don't remember all the details, except that he was once a Hobbit.

I did read "The Hobbit" at least twice. That one was easier to follow. I had seen the animated movie long time ago as a kid, and when I read the book last year, I could almost still hear the Dwarfs' song as it was sung in the movie.

[Bondolon]

I know that, with me and esp. in the case of Solaris, watching the movie first featured a sort of "what the..." feeling, followed by a "whew, that was much better" feeling when I finished the book. Some movies made from books just suck, suck, suck, and watching the movie first just means you get a bunch of suck followed by >=decent if you then read the book.

Personally, I agree with the "no oddly constricting rules" philosophy.

[Durinthal]

Only with the Harry Potter series had I read the books first, then watched the movies. Except for the first one. I had seen the movie first, then read the book. Then went to see the movie again to point out the differences. There were quite a few. Several, in fact. I tried reading the second book before seeing the movie, but got too distracted with other things. So I ended up doing the second one like the first one: See the movie first, then read the book. The others though I've read a few times before already, so I know what's missing and what's not (to a point).

I saw the first Harry Potter movie around the time it came out (after reading the first four books for the first time while the movie was being advertised), and thought it was so horrible that I've refused to see any of the others.

[bookishbunny]

There have got to be exceptions. "Children of Men" comes to mind.

I just saw that yesterday! So freakin' good. I still want to read the book, though.

In my experience, if I wait until I read the book first, I'll never see the movie in the theater (I have a HUGE TBR list). This matters mostly when it's a Sci-Fi or adventure/action movie.

[semicolon]

I love when you see the movie first, and it's so good that you can't believe the book could possibly be any better, but then, somehow, it is.

Case in point: A Clockwork Orange

Goddamn.

[hermaj]

I haven't read the book yet, actually. Who wrote it? I'll track it down when I'm next at the library.

[semicolon]

I haven't read the book yet, actually. Who wrote it? I'll track it down when I'm next at the library.

Anthony Burgess. It's amazing. It's written entirely in this weird hybrid Russian/English/occasional-gibberish-words slang called Nadsat.

[hermaj]

Written completely in Nadsat? This sounds like a reading project for 'Borg and I.

[pete]

Case in point: A Clockwork Orange

Heh, the people at the video store started giving me strange looks when I rented that for the third or fourth time. Then I bought the book and movie online and started getting S+M book recommendations

[semicolon]

Wow, I started a post with "Fuck, I said Nadsat? I meant..." then I went on Wikipedia to look up what the real name of it was. It's Nadsat. For some reason I got Nadsat and Ingsoc (from 1984) confused. I thought I had mixed them up for some reason. I need some sleep.

Also: read Lolita too. Basically any book Kubrick made a movie out of is guaranteed to be good.

[bookishbunny]

Also: read Lolita too. Basically any book Kubrick made a movie out of is guaranteed to be good.

The newer Lolita movie is closer to the book. The character in the Kubrick version is practically a woman.

[crazyjimbo]

Read the book first. That way you can create your own world and characters, based on your own imagination rather than being limited to seeing the world how the director/screen writer saw it. I know for me, that once I have seen a film, and then read the book, I am imagining the characters and locations from the film.

[PatrickRsGhost]

Also: read Lolita too. Basically any book Kubrick made a movie out of is guaranteed to be good.

In most cases, the book's a lot better than Kubrick's adaptation. Case in point: "The Shining." It's a lot better than the movie. King hated Kubrick's adaptation. That's why he did the teleplay for it in the late 90s. That one followed the book a bit better.

[bigglesworth]

yeah, i don't believe in 'rules' for consuming media. i'm not fussed about spoilers unless the twist is the point of the movie/book.
i listen to CDs on random the first time i hear them, sometimes i skip chapters of books and come back to them later.
for I am Mr. Pomo!

You can imagine how I read that...

and semicolon: interesting anecdote: apparently writing it made Anthony Burgess unable to spell for quite some time...

[Narsil]

Wow, I started a post with "Fuck, I said Nadsat? I meant..." then I went on Wikipedia to look up what the real name of it was. It's Nadsat. For some reason I got Nadsat and Ingsoc (from 1984) confused. I thought I had mixed them up for some reason. I need some sleep.

Also: read Lolita too. Basically any book Kubrick made a movie out of is guaranteed to be good.

See also:
-The Shining
-2001: A Space Odyssey

This man speaks the truth.

[Rodan]

If both are supposed to be good, I watch/read whichever I can get my hands on first, then find the other version. (Sin City, Lord of the Rings)
If one is supposed to be a lot worse, I read (or watch, but most likely read) the good one first.
Or I just read a book and find out there's a movie being made later.

[Jauss]

I don't have a rule for consuming media; whether I read the book or see the movie first depends on a lot of things. Which was introduced to me first (also relevant with different versions of a movie or song), if I liked the writing style of the book or not, what I'm in the mood or have time for, and so on.

It's fun to create a world instead your head by reading the book first, but this also often leads to disappointment and/or rage when the film is not what you thought it should be (even if it's a perfectly good movie.) Plus if you see the movie first reading the book is a gain because you'll generally get more details and events and insights into the characters' heads, whereas the other way around you can get caught up focusing on what's missing.

@Kit: Wow, you're really different from me. I love reading books or seeing movies several times (if they're really good or fun) because you catch different things on each viewing/reading; new details or seeing something from another angle. To me stories are about more than just what happens, but also what the reader or viewer feels/understands about them at the time.

I remember reading one of my favorite books, The Empty Crown, at 13 and then reading it again a year or two later after being exposed to lots of other things and then getting many more of the references, like for instance, who Miss Havisham was. It's like how watching movies like Shrek are fun on one level for kids and fun on another level for adults or how certain stories take on deeper meaning or clarity after you've loved or lost someone than they did before.

Plus I just plain love books and music and music and everything and like to visit my "friends".

[une see]

The book is always better than the movie(unless the book is based on the movie, in which case the movie is most probably better), if you do see the movie first, you get to know all the plot twists etc. before you read the book.
Then what you have is perhaps an ok movie, and a spoiled, non-exiting book.
Just my $0.02.

Jeez, that didn't come out very eloquently. In my defense, I just woke up.

Not necessarily...Case in point: The Princess Bride. I loved the book, but I also loved the movie, and both have their merits. And I haven't read the book Forrest Gump was based on, but I have heard from reliable sources that the movie was much better.

Plus, I also thought the LOTR movies were better than the books.

[Castaway]

i say having rules for this is very silly.

[Narsil]

I'm going to sound like a complete bastard for saying this, but I like reading the book first so I can be an elitist snob and say "Psh, you liked that? The book was so much better."

Am I a bad person?

Also, Lord of the Rings was x10 better in the books.
But still, the movies were x1000 better than most movies.

[German Sausage]

for I am Mr. Pomo!

You can imagine how I read that...[/quote]
oh my... i'm terribly sorry. Pomo from POst MOdern.

[semicolon]

Also, Lord of the Rings was x10 better in the books.

And they were both 1000x more boring than watching grass grow.

(I kid, I kid...)

[Andrew]

I think The Shawshank Redemption was better than its dead-tree-based counterpart.

[Sprocket]

The book is always better than the movie

There have got to be exceptions. "Children of Men" comes to mind.

Children of Men was a book!? I HATED that movie. (if you want me to rant about why, just ask)

I liked The Princess Bride movie MUCH better than the book. The book was kind of an enhancement for backstory and such, but for the most part it was much more of a parody than the movie. The book was really written kind of like a treatment, however.

Also, I haven't read Fight Club, but I really have a hard time believing ANYTHING could be as good as that movie. I plan to read it at some point anyway, but I just find palahniuk to be such a SHOCK writter in general, and I'm not in to that.

All in all, I do believe that books make the best movies. The novel writing process, I think, just brings out something so much MORE than your average book.

Also, there is no point in talking about The Lord of the Rings, OFCOURSE the books are better, but Gee Willikers AMAZING FREAKING MOVIES!!!

Dune, on the other hand...as much as I liked the Sci-fi mini series, and as interesting as David Lynch's interpretation was, neither of them really told it like it was... which is kind of cool because it makes you interested in reading the book without giving everything away.

[bookishbunny]

RE: Children of Men & CatProximity: I heard the book was very different from the movie. I am curious, though. Why did you hate it? Granted, it's not the most uplifting, pro-humanity piece of work out there.

[stuck]

I didn't mind Children of Men. I thought the ending was kind of weak but I expected it nonetheless.

Fight Club makes a better film than book, too.

[Sprocket]

I felt like it set out to explore some distopian issues and come to some conclusions or SAY something, it seemed to be trying to be up there with the sci-fi classics...it STARTED to say something (throw some human right abuses in, and all of the sudden everyone thinks you're being poignant), but all it actually was, was an over-glorified excuse for another action chase movie. All it said was "agh! Human nature is to freak out when shit goes down!"

[Andrew]

Also, there is no point in talking about The Lord of the Rings, OFCOURSE the books are better, but Gee Willikers AMAZING FREAKING MOVIES!!!

I think it's more subjective with these -- a lot of people would find the books to be just far, far too much. For those people, the books would be far worse than the films, because they just wouldn't be able to enjoy them.

[bookishbunny]

All it said was "agh! Human nature is to freak out when shit goes down!"

That's the message I got, too. But I thought it was an important one. Everybody is freaking out over there not being a next generation, but they can't even make life bearable for those already alive. Even if another child was never born, humanity still have another good 50-60 years to live. They (we) could have lived well and made peace with the sadness of the dying race, but instead they created a world that no child would want to be born into. I think there is a very strong message in that. Not to mention some kick-ass cinematography.

[Pebbles]

I didn't mind Children of Men. I thought the ending was kind of weak but I expected it nonetheless.

Fight Club makes a better film than book, too.

lies complete lies.. Fight Club was a much better book.. the ending was so much better. But Im biased.. books in general are better for me.

I prefer to read the book and then see the movie.. but only if I have any real interest in that story.. for example I dont care about reading the Bourne trilogy .. but I was happy to watch the movies.. and quite liked them. I did read LOTR before seeing the movies and to be honest I dont think it made a difference.. There was so much in the books that I hardly remembered it when I got to the movies. But I agree with DonChubby.. books first because after youve seen the movie you know the ending and Im less likely to read a book if I know pretty much what happens throughout.

[Traisenau]

Do you wanna know what disproves the OP philosophy? Every Neil Gaiman book adapted for the silver screen. Seriously, read the book before the movie, the book is gonna be better.