There are so many films these days that are based on books and book series. When I go to the movies, I rarely have read the book so everything is new to me. Sometimes this is a good thing because I don't know what has changed or what has been taken out from the original story.
But lately I've noticed people reading the books after they watch the movie. I don't know if they do that to gain information that the movie left out, or to extend the experience. I have friends who bought all the Twilight books after the first movie came out. I know of people who finally decided to read Harry Potter after watching the last movie. But with me, I'm good with just the movie.
What about you? Do you read prefer reading the book before or after the movie?
16 comments:
I definitely prefer reading the book before the movie.
However, I have attended so many poor "book to movie" movies that if it is a favorite book of mine...I don't watch the movie at all.
I've seen some terrible adaptations of books, which actually forced me to read the book because I couldn't believe the writer had done such a bad job. Shining Through by Susan Isaacs was one of those. And I was right, the book was so much better. With Twilight, I read it before, and I'm glad, because I thought it explained a lot that wasn't in the movie. I also read The Time Travelers Wife before the movie. I haven't seen the movie, waiting for it to come out on DVD next week. I hope it lives up to the book, though I've heard it has a different ending.
Like Kara I prefer reading the book before the movie.
I love the way the BBC turned Jane Austen into miniseries but I never enjoyed the Hollywood versions of my favourite books very much.
Reading the book before the movie sure helps those moments when you are feeling, something is missing here? That definitely was the case with the Harry Potter movies. I don't know how people could understand what was going on without reading the book first.
With the short time span the producers have to work with, often only the important points of the book are covered. So, I always read the book first and then see the movie.
I prefer reading the book first. Some adaptations are okay. I don't know what some of them actually read.
Nicholas Sparks are always good.
I have to read the book before the movie. If I don't, I know I will never read the book. I'll have all the good intentions in the world of doing it, but I'll never actually get around to it. I read a book "to see what happens next" and unless I've heard the book is really, really different, I just can't get interested.
The one recent exception I can think of is the Jane Austen Book Club, which my book club read. And I did still enjoy the book b/c with so many characters, you really got the know them a lot better through the book than the movie.
This is probably literary blasphemy...but I have to confess that I've never read a single Harry Potter book...same with Lord of the Rings...I enjoyed watching the movies but I just don't see the point reading the stories either before or after watching the film...just my POV that's all.
I'm "teetering on the brink" as to
an opinion on this question. Read
before or read after? I go back
and forth on how I feel about the
situation. Hollywood usually takes
such liberties with book-based
films!
Pat Cochran
As far as new movies go, I'd rather read the book. As for all of the older classic movies that I've seen, I'd like to read the books now.
I agree that some adaptations are OK, but there are some books that I enjoy and I don't want to watch the movie because I think I'll be disappointed. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD comes to mind. I don't want to see the movie because I adore that book.
Jill, I saw the JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB and knew I was missing out on a lot! I had a feeling if I read the book I would get to know the characters better.
s7anna, I haven't read Harry Potter, either! Fantasy isn't my favorite genre, so I'll stick with the movies.
I prefer reading the book and then not watching the movie.
It depends. When I finally discovered Jane Austen a couple years ago, I purposely read all the books first before watching any potential movies I had (some had more versions than others). But then, if I see a commercial for a movie that is based on a book I haven't heard of/read, and it looks interesting, then I might read it first or might not. I first really discovered Phantom of the Opera with the movie, and read the book before seeing the ALW movie version (then discovering all the other versions of movies too), but I watched the 1930s Scarlet Pimpernel and the BBC?/Masterpiece Theater version of Jane Eyre before reading the books. I know quite well that movies do not always equal the book, but I wanted to get a feel of what the story was like before getting the books, and I did. (was surprised on both counts on how they weren't all that far off from the books!) :)
So, in short, it depends on how I get introduced to it first; though with the commercial part above, I usually have to wait for the DVD to come out, so it gives me plenty of time to get the book before watching the movie. ;)
Lois
I have never seen a movie that was as good as the book! So most of the time, if I've read the book, I won't bother watching the movie.
mlawson17 at hotmail dot com
I prefer to read the book after the movie. That way I'm not to disappointed when the movie doesn't follow the book. I know it after the fact.
I can't say I have a preference, unless it is a mystery or suspense novel. And even then it sometimes doesn't matter since film scripts rarely follow the book manuscripts they're based on. I read Silence of the Lambs after watching the movie and I enjoyed both, equally and differently.
I prefer reading the book. Movies made from books are often a disappointment.
Post a Comment