Reading the book after seeing the film (or vice versa)

Madou

Ok, maybe not a straight up literature thread, but it here it goes...

So firstly, I've finally gotten around to reading Douglas Adam's 'Hitchhiker' series and am thoroughly enjoying it , except for one thing. I remember from a few years back all the publicity for 'THGTTG' film, where Martin Freeman (guy from 'The Office') palyed Arthur Dent. Now, for the life of me, even though I didn't see the film, I can't shake the image of Freeman as Dent from my head, and this has taken away from my enjoyment of the book, that is, my own imagination is not free to create my own image of Dent.

Secondly, I watched that movie 'Ne le dis a personne' last night (based on 'Tell No One' by Cohen/Coben(?) ). It seems like it might have been a very cool, if somewhat far-flung, thriller/whodunnit, but is something I will probably never bring myself to read as the experience will be too coloured by the movie.

I must say, this happens to me quite a lot. Either, with film before book, the flim queers the book, or with book before film, the film queers the experience of the book. And then, on very rare occasions, the film compliments the book.

I am a consumer of too many films and books for this problem to go away, but if anyone has a a stopgap remedy, let me know...

Seoid

I have the same thing and it's probably inevitable... more often than not I'll read the book first and then be annoyed that the movie did something 'wrong'. the problem is that films need to show you things that you can imagine from a book (like exactly what somebody/something looks like).
A lot of the time you have to just take the film as something different from the book.

Locamon

Always read the book first myself given it is the more enjoyable experience. If the film is ruined by the book I can live with it given the film is more often than not a disappointment, particularly if the book is good.

Ann22

I find reading the book first sometimes ruins the film but watching the film doesn't necessarily ruin the book for me. I watched 'The Green Mile' first for example, then read it. It was grand 'cos all the actors played their parts so brilliantly I could picture them as I was reading. My friend however read the book first and was heartily disappointed in the film.

Blush_01

It's a bit of a double edged sword. You can't tell before you start which will be better. As a rule I prefer to read the book first, because the book is inevitably better. For example, I saw Chocolat before I read it and I was appalled at how much they had omitted.

Mick_Grif

Yea I agree I mean I read both the bourne identiry & supremencey before seeing either films and I though the books were a much better than the films

Sir Gallagher

I bought No Country for Old Men last week as i want to read it before seeing the film, somehow i think i want be let down by either the book or film. On the subject of Cormac McCarthy i'm really looking forward to the realease of The Road, i found out the man was played by Viggo Mortensen in the film before i read the book so an image of him in my head as i read it and think he'll suit the role very well, well he suited the role well enough in my head anyway lol.

SeekUp

Ann22 wrote: »

I find reading the book first sometimes ruins the film but watching the film doesn't necessarily ruin the book for me. I watched 'The Green Mile' first for example, then read it. It was grand 'cos all the actors played their parts so brilliantly I could picture them as I was reading. My friend however read the book first and was heartily disappointed in the film.

I tend to do the opposite -- if I care at all one way or the other, I'll read the book first, just to know how it's "supposed" to be and to get everything in my head as the writer intended (or at least as much of its original intent as I can!). I find it's much easier for me to take the film as a separate entity, even though I have the book in the back of my mind; once I see the film, I can't get it out of my head when I read the book afterward.

nitrogen

I read I Am Legend after seeing the disastrous interpretation. Having seen the film didn't actually spoil the book at all, since they are so different. Amazing book and I highly recommend it.

lemon_sherbert

I always read the book first, and if it's good enough, I don't go to see the film. There are a few times though, that I actually like doing that. LOTR for example, I found the first one really tough going, trying to keep track of the names and characters, but when I saw the film, I then got through the second and third ones in no time.

oxygen_old

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

I bought No Country for Old Men last week as i want to read it before seeing the film, somehow i think i want be let down by either the book or film. On the subject of Cormac McCarthy i'm really looking forward to the realease of The Road, i found out the man was played by Viggo Mortensen in the film before i read the book so an image of him in my head as i read it and think he'll suit the role very well, well he suited the role well enough in my head anyway lol.

I have to disagree with you here. I read the book before any talk of the movie, and I had a much more flawed down to earth middle aged man pictured for the father. I think Vigo is far to heroic for the role.

For example in Eastern promises he brutally fights 3 men in a shower. Thats not really what I had pictured about the father.

I cant put my finger on the actor, but there is a balding man, who stars in a load of westerns and I think one of those CSI's that would have been great for the role.