Book before movie vs movie before book

[pang]

After watching The Hunger Game, which I love, ages ago, I finally get down and read the book and I absolutely love it. But the thing is, I have inkling that I wouldn’t love the movie so much if I read the book beforehand. At least for the absent of Marge

.

Then I think of The Lord of the Ring which I also watch before reading the book and loving both and remember the bitter disappointment people who read the book say about the movie. Then there is The hobbit that I read before the movie come out that I don’t like that much. At least I totally don’t understand how such a small book warrant 3 long movies.

 

Then there are Harry Potter, Twilight, Eragon, and Percy Jackson. All of which I read the books before watching the movies. And I like all those books and loathe all the movies.

 

So I guess it’s no coincident since it happens all the time. And I wonder why that is so.

 

What’s your thought? And by the way, have anyone ever watch a movie after reading the book and love the movie as much as the book?

[rprprpz]

I read the Hunger Games before watching the movie, and I would say that I like them about equally. They made some changes, but most of them were understandable because of the time constraint. I thought the movie was actually a pretty close reproduction of the book, as far as books to movies go.

[missmadiemay]

With this series, I think reading the books actually enabled me to enjoy the movie more. I had a better understanding of what was going on, and was having to explain things to my boyfriend haha.

 

Although I don't see how they are going to make the 3rd movie into two parts. I loved the first two books, but the third was just kind of.. blah. Maybe I need to read it again.

[.Brianna.]

I read the books before the movies and so I really don't enjoy the films as much. Part of what made the story so interesting for me was Suzanne Collins' language and writing style - which you can't convey through film.

 

I was an English major so I tend to prefer books to movies as a general rule (although I think The Book Thief was done exquisitely - I was skeptical about how they would pull off the role of the narrator). If there is a book I want to read that is being made into a film I won't watch it until I have completed the book. I am the same way with TV - i.e. Game of Thrones :laughingsmiley:

[Shelley]

I'm a really big reader so I can't think of any movie that I've seen before reading the books. I even read all the game of thrones before watching the series. I've always loved the hunger games even before there was any talk of making them into movies. Whenever I tried explaining them to my friends thy thought they sounded awful XD haha Some movies have been a disappointment. I actually just watched the Host, oh gosh it was terrible..not that I cared much for the book :/ And I've actually never read Lord of the Rings although I LOVE the movies, same with Gone with the Wind. I wonder if I would like the books.. hmm

 

Although I did recently start reading the Hunchback of Notre-Dame,...I don't think you can even compare Disney movies to the stories that inspired them though, completely different ball game haha XD

 

The Book thief was an excellent movie rendition of the book. I'm looking forward to The Maze Runner and The Night Circus also being made into movies ^^

[muertadivina]

I am an avid reader and love reading the books i watch as movies. i will read them before hand as well as after.

 

Sometimes i am fond of both movies and books, regardless when i read them. I read the 'Lord of the Rings' series purposefully prior to watching the movie. I liked both the movies and the books. I recall one of the books being a bit stagnant in the middle though. I also read the hunger games series prior to watching the movie. I love both. The same goes for a few Stephen King novels, 'Salem's Lot', 'Pet Sematary', the short stories 'the body' which became 'Stand by Me,' 'the running man', and the 'shawshank redemption.'. Some i read after watching the flicks and liked both. For instance, there's William Peter Blatty's Exorcist, and the harry potter books.

 

The ones i felt transitioned badly were stephen king's 'It' and Stephanie meyer's 'host'. I didn't like the 'twilight' movie series at first either. It sort of grew on me, maybe. I still like to gripe at the movies when i watch them, but i will watch them. All these i read beforehand.

[siniri]

Whichever came first is usually (almost always) better. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I read some movie-based books as a kid, and they just didn't translate well because they didn't add any depth. Books can usually dive deeper into the characters than movies can, and since that's what I like about books, it makes sense that I would tend to prefer the books.

 

I liked the movie "Circle of Friends," and then when I read the book I found it so much richer that I know I would have hated the movie had I read the book first.

 

I didn't care for the Harry Potter films. The first 2 were rather faithful, but the movies didn't really add anything to the story. And then in later installments, they cut so much -- and changed so much -- that they really lost some of the important themes of the books. There were a few changes that I did enjoy, and I loved some of the casting (film Bellatrix has completely replaced my own image of the character), but overall, I am not a fan of the films.

 

The Hunger Games is one of the notable exceptions. I question the choice to keep all 3 books in the first-person narrative, and I love that the movies get us out of Katniss's head. This enabled certain parts of the story to be ordered in a way that created a tighter story-telling, and we also got to see things that Katniss just guessed or "told" us instead of showed us. Sure, I have a few quibbles here and there with what was cut, but so far I have preferred the movies, and I really hope the third movie is far superior to the book (which is the one I thought was hurt the worst by being stuck in Katniss's head -- the ending was downright clunky because of it).

[Spritzie]

Rather by accident or not, I always read the books before the movies.

 

It's hard to get past the "this didn't happen in the books" thoughts, at least for me, but I prefer it that way.

 

How well it works depends on how the movie is done. I read Hunger Games before watching the movie, but my husband watched it with me, without having read the book. I had my little running list of differences in my head the whole time, but I enjoyed it. While my husband enjoyed it, he had to stop it frequently to ask questions because they did the movie with the assumption that most had read the books. There were things that were vaguely hinted at or mentioned that weren't clarified the way they were in the books.

 

Generally, I rarely think movies meet the same level of the books. I love how books can be so much more detailed and character/dialog oriented. They generally have to change things a lot to make them enjoyable for movies. I specifically think of Twilight. I thought the movies were terribly boring, but I loved the books. The books had so much good dialog and that's really what was the strength of the books. That was majorly lacking in the movies, which made them have to change things around to try to keep people interested.

 

The only movie that I've loved as much as the book was the Mortal Instruments City of Bones. There were changes made, some bigger than others, but they were made for good reasons and they didn't disrupt the flow of the story at all. It's the only book to movie movie that I didn't sit there comparing it to the book through the whole thing.

[HomuraAkemiTheHero]

I think whatever comes first is usually better although most of the time for me I always prefer the book version better. I read the whole Hunger Game series before I saw the movie and I couldn't get over on the little things that were missed especially the Harry Potter movies since I read the books beforehand. I haven't seen any movies before reading the books since I normally read the books first so I won't completely lost in the movie. Also I just don't have the patience to watch a whole movie. Also movies are easier to be spoiled when I found out how the Book Thief ended I couldn't stand to watch it because the ending was different from the book.

[dawnshine]

It just depends on the book and movie I guess. I read the Hunger Games books many years before the movies came out, but I loved the movies just the same. They did a good job portraying characters and the movie stuck to the plot and identity of the characters very well.

 

I read the Harry Potter books before seeing the movies as well, and I think they did a great job too. I think movies have a hard time living up to reader's expectations because we have the power of imagination. There is no budget, no one else's vision other than the authors that we have to work with, no preconceived notions.... We get to sculpt them in our minds on a case-by-case basis. Movies only get one shot to portray what every reader has envisioned. There is never any one way to please everyone.

 

I watched Queen of the Damned and Interview with a Vampire as a youngster BEFORE reading the books. While I don't mind the movies, Anne Rice's books are SO different from what they did with them that it's not even the same story. Some of the characters share names and resemblance but the plot and goings-on are ALL different. Basically they just named their movies after her books. I don't like it when stuff is like that.

 

Another book that I read AFTER watching the show was Game of Thrones. I watched a few episodes and become hooked, and so I picked up the books and devoured them immediately. Although I like and watch the show, it doesn't even remotely measure up to the books.

 

A comic that I haven't gotten to read but have seen episodes of is The Walking Dead. I'd really like to get my hands on a copy.

[Kyurri]

Actually the movie and book is actually quite good. Sure some details are missing but, everyone's needs can't be fulfilled right? Especially because of director's budget, casting, etc. Not everything can be filled in because of that.

 

Some friends say to watch the movie before the book to avoid disappointment. Well, I prefer Book before Movie to understand the movie.

[soccergurl2967]

I usually prefer reading the book over watching the movie. Books provide a lot more insight into the mind of the main character that movies often don't portray. Changes between the book and the movie also really annoy me, but two that I did enjoy were Ella Enchanted and Breaking Dawn Part 2. The Ella Enchanted movie didn't ruin the book, but instead offered another equally pleasurable storyline. I loved the twist in Breaking Dawn. They didn't change the story per se, but provided a great surprise for people that had already read the book.

[Spyke]

I think I agree with the sentiment that whichever exists first is usually better. I have gotten into the Book Before Movie habit because I'm an avid reader, but I almost always am resentful of things that are cut when they get to the movie. Some of the things that are cut for time's sake, while I understand it, they tend to be some of my favorite parts.

While I like reading the book first, I always tend to enjoy the book more regardless. A lot of the little details in books are lost in film. I know my parents frequently go with me to movies without having read the books, but they enjoy the movies. I catch little nuggets of detail they put in for the people who have read, but have a checklist of differences and things they did "wrong". My parents just enjoy the movies for what they are, but frequently miss little things that matter because they don't quite realize they should matter.

I'm not sure which is better, but that's just usually how it ends up going. lol

[KyokoHateshinai]

For me it really depends on what I read/watch first. The only exception would be the Hunger games, which I loved the book and the movie (I read the book first btw). But for another series, like Divergent? I watched the movie first cus I didn't want to spoil anything but when I did read the book, I liked the movie way better. There were a lot of things that the book described in more detail and made more sense, but I did like the movie a lot more in general. I thought the movie was more intense, like they actually changed some of the plot to make it more dramatic, and I actually liked that.

 

So...in general, I think it really depends on what you read/watched first. If you read the book first I think you're more likely to like the book more than the movie. And so is the opposite way around.

[Rune Valentine]

I'm a book lover, so I'll always love the books better. But some movies are well-made in their own right. Let's not forget the time, effort and talent that production crews and actors put into making good movies. Sure, things like Harry Potter and LoTR could have been better if they stuck exactly to how the story was told in the books, but I think we have to be fair here: There's a really great divide in having a narrator in a book translating into details in a movie. One detail can be present in the movie, but its significance isn't delved into as much as the books. They're still good movies, people who haven't read the books will follow along just fine (except perhaps in the 6th and 7th HP movies, they will get confusing to those who haven't read the books) I, for one, appreciate my most beloved worlds coming to life on screen.

 

I normally don't expect everything to be the same as the books, and I think that just makes it easier to watch for me - less disappointment :P

 

Although if I have to rant about one movie that I'll never get over: Avatar: The Last Airbender. Oh my goodness, to day it was "freely adapted" is a gross understatement. I wanted to hurl my popcorn at the screen three minutes in -___-;

[agrinwithoutacat]

I don't know that it matters what order you do it in, as far as reading the book or watching the movie first. I've done it both ways, and I can't say I like it better one way or the other.

I tend to look at the book and the movie almost as separate stories, though. Sometimes they're very close to each other. Silence of The Lambs was almost word-for-word the same as the book, for instance. A lot of times, though, the movie is an interpretation of the book, and not a literal retelling of the story. Wicked is a great example of this, although it's a play and not a movie. It's the same basic story, but it really is an interpretation of the book, made to be family friendly and more suited to musical numbers. It's not the book brought to life. If you go into it expecting it to be the same as the book, you'll be disappointed. But if you look at it as two separate things, you can enjoy them both.

Although if I have to rant about one movie that I'll never get over: Avatar: The Last Airbender. Oh my goodness, to day it was "freely adapted" is a gross understatement. I wanted to hurl my popcorn at the screen three minutes in -___-;

I never saw that one, and from what I've heard about it I'm glad I didn't. Even just the trailer looked wrong, to me.

[neopets98]

I read Hunger Games before I watched the movie. I thought the movie really followed the book and it included most of the details. The movie was very similar to how I imagined it to be in my head, so I loved it.

 

I think you definitely have to read the book before the movie. The other way doesn't work for me.

 

When I have read a book after watching the movie, I didn't really care for the book because it always seemed too much like the movie for me.

[slavecrown]

Usually I've read the book by the time I've watched the movie, although this is generally by coincidence rather than being deliberate. Hunger Games is actually one of the books I only read after the movie - I watched it one day when I was bored, and I had previously dismissed the books because I'd heard they were basically rip-offs of Battle Royale (which is a very enjoyable book, as is the movie). Watching the movie changed my mind and I ended up buying the trilogy. Watching the adaption first has never ruined the book for me personally - movies always have to change a bit and leave things out that were in the original. On the other hand, reading the book first has spoiled a few movies for me - I probably would have enjoying watching Stardust a great deal more if I hadn't read the original first. The movie was sillier in tone than the book was, and there was a lot more emphasis on the romance. I'm used to movies doing kind of thing and so can normally overlook it, but I was expecting something rather different because I had read the book.

[Azurablue]

I've done both. Usually, I prefer the book since it's the author's pure vision of what he/she wanted it to be. The movie is the director's vision and extremely rarely does the writer get any say in it. When they do, it's never exactly what they envision. It's always a compromise. Also, what I see in the book isn't the same as what anyone else is going to see, so that makes it a very personal experience. I'm usually disappointed in the movie version despite the special effects. Occasionally, a director rises to the challenge of being as true a possible to a novel and acquits themselves well. The LOTR trilogy, while not perfect, was such an example. I never rate a movie that's based on a book higher than 9 out of 10 for that reason. No director, no matter how good they are, is ever going to match the book.

 

Not to say that I don't enjoy the experience of seeing the movie. The Hobbit trilogy is a terrible adaptation of the book, but it's a really fun ride. I am an avid comic book and graphic novel reader as well and though it makes me want to tear my hair out when the movies go so far off beloved storylines, write utter nonsense and pass it off as the origin stories.... I still like watching them. (What they are about to do in The Fantastic Four reboot sickens me, but I'll probably still watch it on TV when if comes to cable.)

 

I suppose it's pretty safe to say that I will always prefer the book to the movie, but it's not goign to stop me from watching them to see how well or badly they do. :laughingsmiley:

[Mistress Dizzy]

I usually prefer the books first, just because you can do so much more with a book than a movie. I do, however, enjoy it when a movie enhances the bits that were let to interpretation in the book.

I think the Hunger Games is a great recent example of that. The books were something I truly enjoyed. The movies add layers to the story that would have bogged down the books. It does help that HG is purely first-person limited POV. I love that the movies show things that were guesses or hints in the narrative, and it solidifies the world and plot. Seeing the Gamemakers in action, seeing other tributes, getting visual detail of the Capitol decadence... In this case, I think the movie can actually save the third book by expanding the narrative. Unfortunately, there is so much in the third going on without Katniss that unfortunately the reader is forced to infer, or plain guess a lot of it. I think the third book being split into 2 is to put in all the things that Katniss isn't present for, and I don't doubt that it'll make the story stronger.

 

Hmm... I do admit I dislike it when certain changes are made. Divergent is one- I loved Tris' mom, and I really felt like the movie shortchanged her character.

 

*thinks*

All in all, book first, movie second.

Unless it's comic-book movies, in which case I have to reverse that. The Marvel movies have done a wonderful job in restoring my enjoyment in comic books, and providing a consolidated point of reference for the scores of information that their universe has.