Read book first or watch movie first? (1 Viewer)

[Dale Dobson]

Sometimes the two are different enough from each other to make both book and movie enjoyable, regardless of order.
I'm reading Nick Hornby's "High Fidelity" right now; there are lots of "internal" laugh-out-loud jokes that just didn't fit into the movie. And because the original novel is set in England, visions of John Cusack as the main character aren't polluting my mental picture of the character in the book, due to differences in speech rhythms and slang. (Not that I disliked Cusack's performance or the movie in any way, but it's nice not to have the film version overshadowing the reading experience for once.)
On the other hand, I loved reading E. Annie Proulx's "The Shipping News," but am not certain I'm looking forward to the movie. And I can't read "Neighbors" without seeing Aykroyd and Belushi.
Case-by-case, I guess.

 

[Derek Miner]

Usually, I'd say to see the movie first. I'm a movie guy more than a book guy, so that's my bias.
I did read "High Fidelity" before seeing the movie, and I loved both. I read Nick Hornby's follow-up recently, "About a Boy" and the movie is right around the corner... I have a feeling the book will come out on top this time, but I may be surprised. I remember reading it and thinking, "oh, they'd probably cast this all wrong and put Hugh Grant in it!"
They cast Hugh Grant in it.
But I still think it could be a good movie. It was a great book.
= Derek =

 

[cafink]

I do need to add that if you do this, make sure that you get the first edition of the book. Some books are republished based on the movie. They usually indicate that a movie is coming out on the cover of them, so stay away. This goes along with what the author originally intended.

What do you mean? I've seen plenty of books reissued with covers that match the theatrical poster art of the movie, but they don't change the actual content of the book, do they? Do you know of any instances where this has happened?

 

[MickeS]

I agree with DonMac, Neil Joseph and others here: see the movie first, then read the book.
Reading the book afterwards is like watching a "special author's edition" of the movie. It expands on the movie, fills in gaps, and just generally enhances the experience. Sure, some of the imaginations of the authors might be diminished (look of characters and places, mostly), but it doesn't take anything away from the book, IMO.
Watching a movie after reading the book it's based on, almost always makes me disappointed in the movie. There are a few exceptions (one of which is the TV version of King's "The Tommyknockers"), but generally it's not a good experience.
/mike

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I actually feel very strongly about this:
It depends on the particular movie/ book!!!
The only way to know beforehand is to ask around. A few examples. . .
The English Patient. Saw the movie first. I HIGHLY recommend that. I loved the book, but there was a big difference- central to the movie was the mystery of who the character is and what he was doing. Although the book is basically the same story, it does not rely on the same sense of mystery, and doesn't hold back info until the end like the movie does. If I'd read the book first, the movie would have been spoiled.
Dune. You almost HAVE to read the book first! The movie was originally intended as a 13-hour miniseries, but they only had the money for a 2.5 hour movie. It's a really cool depiction of a lot of stuff from the book, but it's nearly impossible to follow unless you've read it first. The recent 4.5 hour miniseries is a little better in this regard, but there are still things that make a lot more sense if you've read it first.
So, I recommend that you ask based on the particular movie if you're not sure.

 

[NateF]

For LOTR, definitely read the books first. If you have to spoil one of them, better it be the movie than the books. The books are a masterpiece and the basis for 90% of modern fantasy. The movies are just movies, even if they're great (and they certainly look like they will be).
And like someone else said, the books let you form your own ideas as to what certain characters look like and sound like. Sure, it may take a little adjustment when you watch the movie, but it won't pollute your experience with the books.
-Nate

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Carl, not lately. What happens is a new book comes out and someone decides that it would make a great flick. Around the time that the movie comes out, a new edition is printed with the cover art for the flick.
This doesn't happen all of the time, but I have seen it, and once ended up in a heavy discussion with a friend that read the 'other' version. We had to get both of them out to compare them.
Your best bet would be to go to a bookstore and look at the ones with movies mentioned. Go through the first couple of pages. Some will say that not one word has been changed and others will state that this book was based on the movie. Unfortunately, if you see that version, the old one will no longer be there. With 2001: A Space Odyssey, The original short stories were much older.
Glenn

 

[Nick_Gray]

My $.02
I'm an avid reader. I greatly prefer books to movies as entertainment: I find myself almost living the lives, thinking the thoughts, and feeling the emotions of the characters for the duration of the book. If a beloved character dies in a (well-written book), I find myself distraught for some time.
Movies are a nice diversion, great for a couple hours' relaxation and light entertainment.
There is only one movie I have ever seen that has surpassed the book: Les Miserables (IMO, the book was terrible, I was unable to finish it!). In every other circumstance, I have enjoyed the book far better than the movie. (To varying degrees of course, depending on the quality of the movie relative to other movies and the quality of the book relative to other books).
A good book will easily overcome any notions you pick up from a movie (Notable exception for me: Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan from "Clear & Present Danger", having watched the movie - and "Red October" - first, Ford has always been my vision of Ryan). Because of this, I prefer to watch the movie first.
If, on the other hand, you are a movie buff primarily, and a reader secondarily, I would recommend reading the books first - you want whatever you do first to complement the second experience if at all possible.
Or, you could just ask around from people who've both seen the movies and read the books for their perspective.
Irrespective of what you choose, I would definitely recommend reading LOTR first (you may include Hobbit, but it has a very different tone - but you absolutely must read Silmarillion, it really brings the world to life!). There will be a lot of changes for the movie, and I don't think I'm alone in doubting some of the casting choices.
So I guess part of the equation revolves around how good the book is and how good the movie is (or supposed to be).
Didn't help much, did I?

 

[SteveGon]

This discussion immediately brought to mind Absolute Power. Much of the (better) book was unnecessarily eviscerated when it was made into a film. I expect some changes, but they really went too far with AP...

 

[TheoGB]

I'm sorry but The Silmarilion is a very acquired taste. To suggest that it should be read but the Hobbit is take-it-or-leave-it is only going to end up making you look like some kind of literary snob (which I don't think is how you meant it).
That said I think books are never as good as really enjoyable films that are made from them if you see the film first. E.g. Jurassic Park and Fight Club are both fine novels but in each case I think the film did the important stuff better.
In most cases the book is superior. I would say that for a dense plot the book will be better. Especially if its a mystery. How the film of The Fourth Protocol could ever hope to match the book is beyond me - there is too much detail.
I would say that for LOTR it is probably fine to see the film first. One of the reason is Tolkien's inability to properly bring out characters. The film will do this for you and make sure that when you read the book that extra level is there. I know that I listened to the BBC radio adaptation before re-reading LOTR and it helped me to feel more for the non-Hobbit characters.
High Fidelity is a rare case of great book and film. I was pretty peeved that they set it in Canada, etc. as I only live about 10 mins from the actual location the record store would have been at. D'oh!
------------------
My band is @ http://www.mokita.net
My Novelty Coasters

 

[Jeffrey Noel]

I have a problem with watching the movie before reading the book. The problem is that when I read the book first, my mind forms mental images of what I think the characters look like, and when I see the movie afterwards, I don't like it because most of the movie characters don't look anything like I pictured. Whew, that was one hell of a sentence!!!
------------------
God bless!
jeffrey noel
My DVD Collection