Seeing the Movie BEFORE Reading the Book
I realize that I am probably in the minority with this, but it has come to my attention that, as far as I am concerned, it is better to see the movie before you read the book. The first hint of this occurred when I was a freshman in high school and my class had just finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird. The book, of course, was incredible, which is why I was so excited to see the movie. However, when we actually got around to it, despite the critical acclaim that it had received, I thought it was terrible in light of the book on which it was based. I thought about it a while and it eventually occurred to me that the reason for this was that it felt like a major downgrade from the book which had had such an impact what with all its symbolism and meaning. Flash forward to now and I have just purchased the novel Let the Right One In because I so enjoyed the movie that bears the same name. Now, I'll be the first to admit that the style is not excellent, however, this might have something to do with the fact that it is a translation. (In case you were wondering, the original language is Swedish.) And yet, even though this book is most certainly not on par with To Kill a Mockingbird, I am still enjoying it because, unlike the movie version of To Kill a Mockingbird, this actually feels like an upgrade. Aspects of the movie that were ambiguous are now made clear and characters explored more deeply. In summary, I feel that is it better to see the movie (if there is one) first because reading the book, which has greater license to dig deep, will probably feel like an improvement as opposed to something that has been watered down.
What do you think? Movie first or book first? Why?
Well, in my experience the book is ALWAYS better. The only movie-book combination where I thought the movie actually did the book justice and was pretty close to the book was "The Namesake".
I still prefer reading the book first though.
I like to read the book first - I want to develop the characters in my own mind, what they look like - how to pronounce their names etc....then I watch the movie to see if my vision was even close! Usually it's not - the furthest a movie was in that regard was Clan of the Cavebear...couldn't believe it! They even pronounced Ayla's name wrong!! 
@alibsam: In the latter case that I refer to, the movie is by all means better than the book. However, I guess I should say that the book complements the movie in the sense that it expands and clarifies on the movie material. That being said, not all movies make me want to read the book that came first. Case in point, Upton Sinclair's novel Oil! on which the movie There Will Be Blood is based. Though There Will Be Blood is among my favorite movies, I feel as though the movie alone did near-complete justice to the plot and characters at hand.
I haven't read "Oil!" but "There Will Be Blood" was amazing.
I'm just saying in my experience every book I've read that's been made a movie, the movie epically fails to do the book any sort of justice. "The Namesake" is the only one that did for me. However, I don't typically see a movie and want to rush out to find the book. I guess I just never think about it.
Actually just thought of one... "Everything is Illuminated". Loved loved loved the movie. One of my favorites so I read the book. Also amazing.
Original Post by anewdawn:
I like to read the book first - I want to develop the characters in my own mind, what they look like - how to pronounce their names etc....then I watch the movie to see if my vision was even close! Usually it's not - the furthest a movie was in that regard was Clan of the Cavebear...couldn't believe it! They even pronounced Ayla's name wrong!!
I see your point and that makes me think that perhaps my question is circumstantial. For example, Let the Right One In is an incredible movie and the book backs that up by being very similar, albeit more thorough. Nevertheless, the way in which the author presents the source material is not as elegant as the way in which the director presents the film version. In other words, both versions have their merits. That being said, not all books and the movies that follow complement each other so well. For me, some perfect examples of this are various movie installments in the Harry Potter series. While some are faithful to the book, others feel rushed, reduced, and overall like an insult to the source material.
Original Post by alibsam:
I haven't read "Oil!" but "There Will Be Blood" was amazing.
I'm just saying in my experience every book I've read that's been made a movie, the movie epically fails to do the book any sort of justice. "The Namesake" is the only one that did for me. However, I don't typically see a movie and want to rush out to find the book. I guess I just never think about it.
Actually just thought of one... "Everything is Illuminated". Loved loved loved the movie. One of my favorites so I read the book. Also amazing.
But you see, and perhaps I am not being clear enough, that is what I am trying to say. No matter how well-directed, most movies will fall short in terms of depth when compared with the source material. That being said, if you happen to connect with the particular characters in a movie, and assuming you have not already read the book, then it is not implausible that you will want to know more by reading the book. Further assuming that the book is at least decent, it will most likely either be a complement to or improvement on the movie in question. However, not every movie will be good enough to make you want to go out and read the book. In other cases, you will have already read the book, possibly years before a film was ever even in the mix. In the end, I just think that seeing the movie, then perhaps reading the book if you really enjoyed it, will give a person greater satisfaction given that the book will likely either expand on the movie more or simply be better overall.
I saw the movie of Schindler's List and it so moved me that for days it was like I was in a fog - but I have never read the book - I feel like I don't really have to - the movie was that good - conversely I read the The Reader and because of that book - really coudn't care less about seeing the movie...I thought the book was really meh.....I guess it boils down to some people are just amazing visionaries - some get that across to us by the written word - other's show us visually. Thank goodness for both! Perhaps I should go and read Schindlers List and rent The Reader??!
Original Post by vincent_louis:
But you see, and perhaps I am not being clear enough, that is what I am trying to say. No matter how well-directed, most movies will fall short in terms of depth when compared with the source material. That being said, if you happen to connect with the particular characters in a movie, and assuming you have not already read the book, then it is not implausible that you will want to know more by reading the book. Further assuming that the book is at least decent, it will most likely either be a complement to or improvement on the movie in question. However, not every movie will be good enough to make you want to go out and read the book. In other cases, you will have already read the book, possibly years before a film was ever even in the mix. In the end, I just think that seeing the movie, then perhaps reading the book if you really enjoyed it, will give a person greater satisfaction given that the book will likely either expand on the movie more or simply be better overall.
No, I understood what you said. I just don't agree.
Original Post by anewdawn:
I saw the movie of Schindler's List and it so moved me that for days it was like I was in a fog - but I have never read the book - I feel like I don't really have to - the movie was that good - conversely I read the The Reader and because of that book - really coudn't care less about seeing the movie...I thought the book was really meh.....I guess it boils down to some people are just amazing visionaries - some get that across to us by the written word - other's show us visually. Thank goodness for both! Perhaps I should go and read Schindlers List and rent The Reader??!
I feel the same way about Schindler's List as I do about There Will Be Blood. As you said, these movies simply appear to have covered just about everything that I have any interest in knowing. I also agree with your second point about how not all great movies are related to great books and vice versa.
Original Post by alibsam:
Original Post by vincent_louis:
No, I understood what you said. I just don't agree.
You believe that the book usually trumps the movie, correct? Well, if that is indeed the case, then all I am saying is that seeing the movie first, followed by the book, is better simply because the book will likely feel like an improvement in comparison with the movie. In other words, I agree with you with a caveat.
There are very few instances where the movies are better than the books in my opinion.
The only ones I can think of, are movies that are only very loosely based on the book, such as "Blade Runner", but then I never enjoyed reading Phillip K. Dick.
Honestly, I would prefer to see the movie first and read the books afterward, but it rarely happens as I love to read, and usually don't find out a movie is being made until long after I have read the book.
Currently though I have really been onjoying the HBO series True Blood, and I refuse to read the books it is based on because I'm afris it will ruin the series for me.
I just hate when they take a book that I have loved and read over and over and then make it into a *bad* movie. Where the actors are terribly fits for the roles. I could go on and on about that.... "Interview with a Vampire" was a complete travesty as far as I'm concerned.
Original Post by vincent_louis:
You believe that the book usually trumps the movie, correct? Well, if that is indeed the case, then all I am saying is that seeing the movie first, followed by the book, is better simply because the book will likely feel like an improvement in comparison with the movie. In other words, I agree with you with a caveat.
But again, I said I've never seen a movie that has made me want to read the book. The only exception was "Everything is Illuminated" and both the book and movie were excellent.
I guess I just don't see the point in this regardless. If a movie is mediocre, I'm not going to want to read the book and in most cases, if the movie is amazing, I'm not going to care about reading the book. So it's moot.
I can think of a few instances like where the movie got me to read the book - books that I wouldn't have gotten through had I not seen the movie.
Last of the Mohicans, for instance. Seeing the Daniel Day Lewis movie had me read all of the books when I was in 6th grade. No way I would have done that without the movie. And honestly, I love the movie more - I don't care how inaccurate it is.
Seeing the Pride & Prejudice miniseries got me to read the book - and I still love both.
I don't remember which I consumed first, but Princess Bride is wonderful in both formats, but that's partly because the author was very involved in the making of the movie (and has written other screen plays).
But in general (Clan of the Cave Bear is a perfect example) the book is so much better than the movie.
Original Post by amethystgirl:
I can think of a few instances like where the movie got me to read the book - books that I wouldn't have gotten through had I not seen the movie.
Last of the Mohicans, for instance. Seeing the Daniel Day Lewis movie had me read all of the books when I was in 6th grade. No way I would have done that without the movie. And honestly, I love the movie more - I don't care how inaccurate it is.
Seeing the Pride & Prejudice miniseries got me to read the book - and I still love both.
I don't remember which I consumed first, but Princess Bride is wonderful in both formats, but that's partly because the author was very involved in the making of the movie (and has written other screen plays).
But in general (Clan of the Cave Bear is a perfect example) the book is so much better than the movie.
Last of the Mohicans is one of my all time favorite movies! I love the sound track for that movie, the breathtaking scenery and the actors were superb! Haven't read the books - now I think I am going to! You said 6th grade....are they for that age group or were you just an advanced reader?
personally, i'd rather just read the book and skip the movie.
i never see the movie first for a few reasons.
first, i hate knowing the endings to things, but i'd much rather already know the ending to a movie that is going to take me two hours to watch than a book i'm going to devote much longer to read.
also, there are plenty of books i absolutely adore with movie versions that fell so short for me that had i seen the movie first i'd probably never have picked up the book. Harry Potter is a good example of this. i ADORE the Harry Potter series, but the first couple movies? meh. you don't even get to brush to surface of who the characters are in those movies.
same for The Golden Compass. i hated that movie!
i would much rather read the book first and then be able to see the movie and go "oh, they left that out!" or "oh i did/didn't picture them that way!"
i guess books are way more important to me than movies. if i see a movie and i think it sucks cause the book was better, it doesn't matter to me at all.
i'd rather read the book. the movie is optional. i want to form my own scenes in my head, not see someone elses vision.
Original Post by vincent_louis:
Original Post by alibsam:
Original Post by vincent_louis:
No, I understood what you said. I just don't agree.
You believe that the book usually trumps the movie, correct? Well, if that is indeed the case, then all I am saying is that seeing the movie first, followed by the book, is better simply because the book will likely feel like an improvement in comparison with the movie. In other words, I agree with you with a caveat.
I think it depends on what kind of person you are though. Most people agree that the book is usually better than the movie. We are in agreement on that. However, I have a very vivid imagination. I always have. I love letting my imagination run wild when I read a book. Therefore, for me I always want to read the book first. Then I'll watch the movie to see how the director's vision differed from mine. I think Ali might be the same way. Especially if she is a creative person.
However, not everyone is like that. I don't believe that either way is wrong.....it's just different strokes for different folks. But I do agree that you are probably in the minority, Vincent.
Book first and then movie, I usually enjoy putting a real face on the characters only when they actually look as described in the book.
I've never liked a movie that I read as a book, it's not surprising though. I'm really picky though, I hate when they change scenes, add scenes and change stuff. D:
Books are the meat and potatos and movies are candy.
I never would have read Lonesome Dove if I hadn't seen the mini-series. But after I read the book, I went back and rewatched the series. It held up very well.
My favorite book of all time is the Lord of the Rings and I was so excited yet scared to learn that it was finally coming to the big screen. But it was fantastic.
A movie that was way better than the book was Jaws.
I'm almost guaranteed to see a movie based on a book I've read, even if I didn't really care for the book. (That's not often though, since I usually like whatever I read.) And if I see a movie that I like, I'm very likely to read the book, too.
