Better to read book before seeing film adaptation, or vice versa?

MakeEmLaugh

What do people think ultimately leads to a better experience, reading the book source before you see the film adaptation, or seeing the film adaptation and then going back and reading the book?

In my experience, whenever I see a film shortly after having read the book, I am usually disappointed, and constantly notice changes to the source material I wouldn’t have made, or interpretations which didn’t match mine.

However, if I see a film – such as Trainspotting – and love it, then go back and read the book, I find it an extremely rewarding experience. This is because

(a) Film adaptations often change signficant plot points and climaxes from their source material, so reading the book of a film you’ve seen does not guarantee you’ll know how it ends and

(b) Books are almost always more rich, and so when you read them, you are getting much more detail than the film. Conversely, when you see a film adapatation of a book, you usually feel short-changed because of the amount that has been left out.

What are other people’s thoughts on this? Film-before-book or book-before-film?

Mr Benevolent

You're just looking for an excuse to read Shades of Grey.

Beruthiel

Book first.
No question.

Hardonraging

Debbie does Dallas wasn't really a big hit on paper ...

FatherLen

books. without a shadow of a doubt books. film and tv adaptations are limited to timeslots and leave so much out and they are usually portrayed by someone other than the author so you're getting someone else's interpretation as opposed to making your own.

ScumLord

Watch the film first or you'll just end up disappointed. The book usually has way more content so you'll go deeper into the story. The film having reduced content will make you feel like it wasn't done properly if you watch it after the book.

fishy fishy

book. definitely. You can form your own "pictures" by reading the book. The film afterwards is always a disappointment.

TPD

Book first. Watch the film first and you'll be picturing all the characters in the book as the actors who portrayed them. Taints the experience I find.

gobnaitolunacy

Saw the size of the Lord Of The Rings book.

Said fcuk that, wait for it to come out on illegal download.

usernamegoes

The book Forrest Gump is really bad compared to the movie; really bad.

MJoriordan

Definitely book first

Biggins

Always book first.

SEPT 23 1989

Bukes always

Pherekydes

Saw LOTR:TFOTR before reading the book. I decided to read the three books before second film came out. I had a clear picture of each character in my mind as I read, so it turned out well.

Mostly, you're better off reading the book and remembering that the subsequent film is an adaptation, and may differ substantially.

danslevent

Read the book first...then you get the job of explaining to your friends bits that weren't as clear in the movie but evident in the book. I love reading the book first, then I get to compare the characters appearance with the actors, rather than already having a clear, movie star star image in my head. It's nicer to try picture the characters yourself, rather than just being given an image...for me anyway!

danslevent

usernamegoes wrote: »

The book Forrest Gump is really bad compared to the movie; really bad.

Same with"The Reader". The book read like a screen play and the twist was obvious, the movie was so much better.

Merkin

Always read the book first as ones own imagination is invariably better and few films do a really good book justice. There are obviously some notable exceptions but I think much of a story is lost or imbellished when adapted for screen. I think the film Atonement was a pretty good job and I think One Day was a heap of sh!te but maybe that's because I think Anne Hathaway is the most irritating talentless numpty that ever lived.

Funglegunk

Book first. Your imagination is at the mercy of the actors, directors, set designers etc. if you watch the film first and its difficult to get that out of your head when you sit down to read the book after seeing the film.

If you read the book first, it's just between you and the author.

Merkin

danslevent wrote: »

Same with"The Reader". The book read like a screen play and the twist was obvious, the movie was so much better.

I thought the book was brilliant

GLaDOS

With one or two exceptions (The Shawshank Redemption being one) I always prefer the book.

stunmer

I always find I'm disappointed when watching a film after reading the book as the book is usually far better.

It is definitely better reading Silence of the Lambs after watching the film. Every time Hannibal spoke in the book I couldn't get Anthony Hopkins voice out of my head. Maybe it was just because he was brilliant in the film but I would definitely recommend anyone who hasn't read the book to read it after the film.

Not sure if this works for all films but if you don't want to be disappointed with the film definitely watch it first!

MakeEmLaugh

Just to clarify, this isn't a thread about whether you prefer books to films. It's about whether it is a better idea to

(a) Read a book before you see a film (which will almost always make the film disappointing) or to

(b) See the film first, then read the book (from which both the book and film can emerge good in their own way)

FatherLen

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Just to clarify, this isn't a thread about whether you prefer books to films. It's about whether it is a better idea to

(a) Read a book before you see a film (which will almost always make the film disappointing) or to

(b) See the film first, then read the book (from which both the book and film can emerge good in their own way)

i'm sorry, we own your thread now.

GLaDOS

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Just to clarify, this isn't a thread about whether you prefer books to films. It's about whether it is a better idea to

(a) Read a book before you see a film (which will almost always make the film disappointing) or to

(b) See the film first, then read the book (from which both the book and film can emerge good in their own way)

In that case, I always prefer to read the book first. Often if I've read the book I won't bother with the film/tv series (see Game of Thrones)

ArtyC

Ya like mentioned before I want to picture the characters myself and not whatever actor hired! So book first ya ya

krudler

Depends really, some movie adaptations are better than their books (they are, get over it) but its mostly vice versa. I like reading books that were turned into movies and comparing the two, like was already said its hard to not see an actor in your head as you read a particular novel, try reading LOTR now, you cant help but hear Ian McKellans voice when reading Gandalf's lines etc.

Quorum

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What do people think ultimately leads to a better experience, reading the book source before you see the film adaptation, or seeing the film adaptation and then going back and reading the book?

In my experience, whenever I see a film shortly after having read the book, I am usually disappointed, and constantly notice changes to the source material I wouldn’t have made, or interpretations which didn’t match mine.

However, if I see a film – such as Trainspotting – and love it, then go back and read the book, I find it an extremely rewarding experience. This is because

(a) Film adaptations often change signficant plot points and climaxes from their source material, so reading the book of a film you’ve seen does not guarantee you’ll know how it ends and

(b) Books are almost always more rich, and so when you read them, you are getting much more detail than the film. Conversely, when you see a film adapatation of a book, you usually feel short-changed because of the amount that has been left out.

What are other people’s thoughts on this? Film-before-book or book-before-film?

Depends entirely. Saw High Fidelity before reading the book, and actually prefer the film, as the casting is so spot on.

I don't think a film adaptation has to slavishly follow its source material, but I think it needs to capture the essence of the book, and the point of the book. Otherwise, there's no point.

Film and book are different media, a film CAN'T progress as a book does, as it will make it ponderous and not do the book justice.

The Godfather films TROUNCE the book.

Niles

Book first... I find the films often leave out scenes/characters. Sometimes even merge them. That said it can be interesting to watch them to see the differences.

I'm sure there are examples of the film being better than the book though, can't think of any of the top my head.

There can also be other factors - for instance I really enjoyed the Harry Potter books, but was never that bothered about going to see the films (haven't seen them beyond the first three believe it or not!). I just don't feel they can add to it too much, the author has already revealed all they're to reveal, the film isn't going to add to the mythos. Then again some people may want to see how the text has been adapted, all comes down to personal choice really.

I suppose if nothing else it allows you to come on sites like this and moan about how bad the adaption was!

Wee Willy Harris

Book, before film you read the text and build an image in your mind of how it looks; or how it should for you then go see how wide of the mark the screen interpretation is. Cos it's only that; one persons vision dictating in peoples minds how it appears.

ArtyM

If I like a book and the movie comes out, I will definately go see it. Its interesting how a Director can offer a totally different experience to the one I had in my mind when reading.
I liked most of the Stephen King Books - some have been made into great movies, some truly, truly awful.
Looking forward to the forthcoming first adaptation of Lee Child's reacher character. Have to say I have low hopes of Tom f**kin Cruise being able to pull it off. Strange, strange casting.

af_thefragile

Q. What's the best thing about watching the film?
A. No reading!!!