This questions applies to any film based on a book.
For me, I would have a hard time reading the book, because I know from seeing the movie, what will happen. At the same time, the book will offer much more detail, character development and background than the movie.
Thus, I strive to read the book first when I hear of a movie coming out that I think I´ll like. Anyone else feel that way?
I think the experience is diminished either way. If the book is read first, the film is spoiled/hurt is some way, and if the film is seen first the book reading is hurt. If you have the energy to read the book first, cool. It's most likely a more valuable experience. Except I like movies so much it's hard to resist watching the film first. I may be (and have been) less inclined to read a book after seeing a movie, as in the case of Memoirs of a Geisha.
Sometimes the film makes me want to read the book, as in the case of The Ox-bow Incident, or Gone With the Wind.
Recently I saw Parker and am not sure I want to read the book.
In that one case I wish I'd read the novel first.
"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.
I suppose it depends on a number of factors. If the book and film are highly cerebral, then you should probably read the book first. If not, take your pick.
For example, I wouldn't want to watch "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" without first reading the book and knowing the characters. Lots of people who didn't read hated the movie, and undoubtedly missed its brilliance.
Good points.
For me reading The Davinci Code and The Watchmen before each of their movies was helpful in understanding the finer points of the movies. I don´t think that I would´ve read TDC if I´d seen the movie first. Maybe not even The Watchmen and then I would´ve missed out!
It's actually quite simple for me. Watch the film first, and then read the book down the road.
1. The film will not hold up against the book;
2. If it does, then typically, the film deviates from the book, most often changing the ending.
Basically, you have less to lose by reading the book after, imo, as the expectations going into a good book after seeing it's lackluster adaptation can only make the book more delightful.
Good point, but if the movie hasn´t impressed me, then I´ll only have "wasted" 1½-2 hours of my dear precious time, and a so-so movie won´t encourage me to read the book. Besides, if I´ve already seen the movie, then it will feel like the plor is unfolding very slowly, taking me days or weeks to finish....
shareWhen I was a LOT younger, I just happened to read some novels that got turned into major motion pictures after I had read them. Books like "Airport" and "The Andromeda Strain" come to mind.
OTOH I've read plenty of novels that never did make it to film, which (at least for me) is a shame. More recently I've seen a film and only then found out that it was based on a novel.
No matter which order you do it in, I believe that reading the book is almost always better than only watching the movie.
So books are inherently inferior to the books from which they are adapted?
I don't understand why people assume or arrive at this attitude.
You never hear people saying the ballet of Romeo & Juliet is not as good as the book and so on. Why does film get this treatment. A good film is a good film and a good book is a good book.
@Twitzkrieg - Glasgow's FOREMOST authority
I always say read the book first. We all know that they never really get it right. Out of all the books I have read that they made movies out of, the one that did the best job would be "Shutter Island". Other then that one time, they usually always screw it up. Still read the book and laugh at how way off they were when you watch the movie.
share