Read The Book- See The Movie First Decision

[Huntn]

What is your preference? I play it by ear.

This situation, when a hit movie comes out (like Hunger Games) where I think I might enjoy the book, always puts me in (what I consider) the awkward position of deciding which way I want to be introduced to a story, going with the relative greater depth of a book versus the visual punch of a movie. Recently, I've got 3 franchises I've had to make this decision.

Hunger Games- I've decided to read the book first.
The Walking Dead- Decided I enjoyed the show and to read the comic after, although in the comic I have read up to the prison. It can be argued that the show is so divergent from the comic it really does not matter.
Game of Thrones- I read the second book, Clash of Kings first and with Season 2, I realize how much more the book has in it. The show while faithful to the story leaves out quite a bit, however for a show, I think this keep things moving along especially for Clash of Kings which is slower and all most functions as a bridge book.

 

[GoCubsGo]

It was usually see the movie read the book because most of my reading could never be for leisure. I'm trying now to read the book and see the movie and I find it rewarding. I also find the movie to be more interesting because I am able to compare and contrast to the book. It makes movie-going even more interesting.

 

[balamw]

I play it by ear.

Hunger Games: I opted to read the book to see if it was appropriate for my 5th grader (yes) and see if the movie would work for my 3rd grader (no).

Walking Dead: I watched all of seasons 1 and 2 before reading the comic, as you say they are so divergent that it really doesn't matter. Have read to when they leave the prison and have three hardcovers to go.

Game of Thrones I've avoided it entirely so far, but plan to save it for summer watching seasons 1-2 in quick succession. I'm unlikely to get to the books anytime soon.

True Blood I enjoy the TV show and have little interest in reading the books to date. As with the Walking Dead there does not seem to be much correlation between them.

Harry Potter Devoured the books after watching the first film. So a bit of both.

The Hobbit Made my 5th grader read it and will reread it myself before the movie.

...

B

 

[Starfighter]

I am a slow reader and I can't focus on a book all the way to the end if it isn't extraordinary so I'd rather see the movies.

 

[Mousse]

The Hobbit Made my 5th grader read it and will reread it myself before the movie.

I'm a watch the movie first, then read the book. The movies tend to be a pale reflection of the book's content. There is only one exception to this for me...

Anything Tolkien is better in movie form. His writing tends to meander off the action at hand and wander into lessons on linguistics. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, is the only case where I found the movie more enjoyable than the books.

I wish someone would make Similarion movie...IMO, it's better than the LoTR trilogy. Mogroth (or Melkor) and the cast of villains... Sauron was a kitty in the company of tigers.

 

[Hastings101]

I like to read the book then see the movie because, for me, it makes the book less enjoyable if I know what's going to happen. Seeing the movie after reading the book doesn't affect me in the same way for some reason.

 

[mobilehaathi]

Book first is always my preference...although then one can fall into a mindset of picking apart how the movie is different rather than enjoying it for itself. However I like a story for the first time through a book. It is usually a richer experience.

 

[Huntn]

I play it by ear.

Hunger Games: I opted to read the book to see if it was appropriate for my 5th grader (yes) and see if the movie would work for my 3rd grader (no).

Walking Dead: I watched all of seasons 1 and 2 before reading the comic, as you say they are so divergent that it really doesn't matter. Have read to when they leave the prison and have three hardcovers to go.

Game of Thrones I've avoided it entirely so far, but plan to save it for summer watching seasons 1-2 in quick succession. I'm unlikely to get to the books anytime soon.

True Blood I enjoy the TV show and have little interest in reading the books to date. As with the Walking Dead there does not seem to be much correlation between them.

Harry Potter Devoured the books after watching the first film. So a bit of both.

The Hobbit Made my 5th grader read it and will reread it myself before the movie.

...

B

I forgot True Blood and Harry Potter!

True Blood- When the series first came out, we watched the show, but after we read the books which are excellent, both me and my wife were bothered at the different focus the director of the show chose to take it and blatant liberties such as Werewolves consorting with Vampires, the nerve! In the books, I really appreciate Sookie's observations which drive the books which is totally absent in the show and at times are quite humorous. Neither one of us are watching it now.

Harry Potter- after getting on the HP bandwagon, I read all of the books first.

 

[balamw]

I forgot True Blood!

Thanks for that. I'll wait until the series is done and add the books to the list I mean to read but will probably never get around to.

One think I miss about having a huge long 2:30/day commute is the time I could spend "reading" uninterruped via audiobooks.

B

 

[Huntn]

Thanks for that. I'll wait until the series is done and add the books to the list I mean to read but will probably never get around to.

One think I miss about having a huge long 2:30/day commute is the time I could spend "reading" uninterruped via audiobooks.

B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Until_Dark

 

[Designer Dale]

I don't have children, so my approach is just for my own pleasure. I wasn't sure I liked anything about Hunger Games other than the poster, so I grabbed the first book. It was a quick read, but provided enough interest that I read the others in the series. I'll see the movie, but it isn't on my rush list.

My wife was big on Harry Potter, so we always had the books around. It didn't catch my attention until it became more intense with Goblet of Fire. That's where I decided to start following the movies, too.

Dale

 

[rhett7660]

I forgot True Blood and Harry Potter!

True Blood- When the series first came out, we watched the show, but after we read the books which are excellent, both me and my wife were bothered at the different focus the director of the show chose to take it and blatant liberties such as Werewolves consorting with Vampires, the nerve! In the books, I really appreciate Sookie's observations which drive the books which is totally absent in the show and at times are quite humorous. Neither one of us are watching it now.

Harry Potter- after getting on the HP bandwagon, I read all of the books first.

Couldn't have said it better re: True Blood. That show drives me nuts with how close they come and then go in a completely different direction. The books are excellent.

It is funny, both me and the wife have been to comic con and been at all of the TB panels. The first one was great. C. Harris and Alan Ball sat next to each other and were friends etc. However since season two and the direction he has gone with the series, the tension on the stage between those two was funny. In fact she made the comment that he doesn't tell her how to write her books and she doens't tell him how to direct his series.

But anyway.

 

[Huntn]

Couldn't have said it better re: True Blood. That show drives me nuts with how close they come and then go in a completely different direction. The books are excellent.

It is funny, both me and the wife have been to comic con and been at all of the TB panels. The first one was great. C. Harris and Alan Ball sat next to each other and were friends etc. However since season two and the direction he has gone with the series, the tension on the stage between those two was funny. In fact she made the comment that he doesn't tell her how to write her books and she doens't tell him how to direct his series.

But anyway.

My impression is that some author's maintain some level of approval, but the average author sells their book's soul to TV/the movies to be preserved or diminished. There are exceptions. Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings are excellent examples. I'd say The Walking Dead is staying true to the comic although events have been changed drastically to satisfy the production/director. Some changes have been good. I've not seen Hunger Games, but my impression is that most fans are happy with the result. By far True Blood is the worst, at least for me.

 

[ixodes]

I really read a lot, therefore I usually (but not always) read the book. It depends on the topic, as well as my free time. Either way I think of movies primarily as a source of entertainment. Therefore I'm not disappointed when they don't parallel the book.

 

[Huntn]

I really read a lot, therefore I usually (but not always) read the book. It depends on the topic, as well as my free time. Either way I think of movies primarily as a source of entertainment. Therefore I'm not disappointed when they don't parallel the book.

That's because we fall in love with the book, not some Frankenstein creation.

 

[ixodes]

That's because we fall in love with the book, not some Frankenstein creation.

Brilliant!

I couldn't have said it better

 

[Don't panic]

books first.
and try to get my kids to do the same.
part of enjoying a book is to let your imagination fill in the gaps and 'create' the characters. once you see the book, the character is done and you can just follow the director's vision.
for example with the lord of the rings i forbid my son to watch it (although we have the dvds at home) until he had read it all. He is an avid reader so that wasn't hard or harsh on him

the drawback is that rarely the movies are up to par with the books.
a few exceptions: Lord of the Ring trilogy, Persepolis, and some older ones like the Name of the Rose, One flew over the cuckoo's nest, Jurassic Park, Day of the Jackal, The Shining.

worst adaptation ever: the House of the Spirits

i never read game of thrones and thus i might just watch the show first in that case, in part because of the size/number of the books. if i start it may take a while before i am done.

 

[Plutonius]

I usually do the book first except

1) If it's a mystery where knowing the result ruins the movie. I think I would have enjoyed "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" more if I had seen the movie before reading the book.

2) A movie comes out and people complain that they don't like it because it's so much different then the book.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

As I love reading and am a book lover, I tend to read the book first. However, the drawback with that approach is that an awful adaptation of a very good/much-loved book can then prove to be a terrible disappointment.

Very often, I don't watch the movie at all, as many movie adaptations (especially of books I have loved) are an absolute travesty of a book I have loved or really enjoyed.......they remove nuance, subtlety, sub-plots, reduce the complexity of the book to the most flagrant and idiot proof interpretation imaginable, put impossibly pretty faces on gnarled lived in characters, combine several minor characters into one catch all, traduce the plot, annihilate exquisite language, change the emphasis or focus of the plot, - the crimes committed by the motion picture industry against literature, or simply good story telling are endless.

A lot of the time, this happens, not because a writer has 'sold their soul' (although, of course, that happens, too), but because writers (unless they are very popular and thus powerful, as was the case with J. K. Rowling) are rarely in a position to insist on the integrity of their text or work being adhered to; some in the UK have done so, but the price for that has often been that they allow a film adaptation to be done by a European director.

Of course, there are some exceptions: The movie adaptation of The Lord of The Rings was superb; the Harry Potter series was monitored closely by its author (who was in a position where her views were sought); in general, many of the BBC (or ITN), - British, in other words - adaptations of classic and indeed, modern, works tend to be very good.

I remember having been pretty impressed by the movie adaptation of The Name of The Rose, even though it took some liberties with the book of the same name. Not that I have managed to see it yet, but everyone says that the adaptation of the Game of Thrones series is excellent, so I look forward to seeing it.

My impression is that some author's maintain some level of approval, but the average author sells their book's soul to TV/the movies to be preserved or diminished. There are exceptions. Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings are excellent examples. I'd say The Walking Dead is staying true to the comic although events have been changed drastically to satisfy the production/director. Some changes have been good. I've not seen Hunger Games, but my impression is that most fans are happy with the result. By far True Blood is the worst, at least for me.

As I've suggested above, I think it can be a bit more complicated than that; in truth, most authors are not in a position to insist on fidelity to their works, and historically, or traditionally, many of them were treated with contempt by the movie studios.

 

[ilawlin]

Such a chicken-egg dilemma this is and I am stranded. Luckily I've been reading books that have not been made into a movie.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Generally speaking I prefer reading books first.