Reading a book before/after seeing the movie

[Meditrina]

My husband has finally given in to me and we have started watching the Harry Potter movies. I have always liked books/movies of that sort, and I am so excited about seeing these. I decided to also start reading the books. This week I took out the Sorcerer's Stone, which I have just recently watched on DVD.

I remember seeing Stephen King's IT on TV before reading the book. Seeing first made the book even more vivid and more scary for me. I could really visualize it all. I still get creeped out when I see low flying balloons. As I am reading the Sorcerer's Stone now, I can also visualize it in great detail, like the movie. Would I have the same visual concepts if I read the book first, then saw the movie?

I was wondering how seeing the movie before reading the book effects your thoughts about the book? Is it better to read the book first, then see the movie or the movie first, then book?

[cookmo]

I typically prefer to read the book first, to get my own mental "story".

However, right now I am reading Seven Years In Tibet. I saw the movie awhile back and hated it, turned it off halfway through. But I love the book.

[fresnelly]

Your in for a treat! If the movie gets you excited about the world created in the books, you can only find more to love by reading the books second.

Its a far better experience than the other way around. This way, missing pieces will fall into place as you read along, and the world will expand and draw you in at the same time.

The first movie is very faithful to the book and the filmakers were very careful in casting and designing Harry's adventures. You won't be disappointed in their choices. After you've seen it, I doubt you'll be able to imagine the crew at Hogwarts any differently.

One thing the film does better than the books is showcase Quidditch. That's a hoot on screen. Enjoy!

[Grasshopper Green]

widow, the later movies (3 and 4) will make more sense if you read the books first. Because the later books are so thick, several smaller storylines or essential (IMO) details are left out, and it might be a bit confusing to watch before reading.

The books are very fast reading for me, I just re-read the entire series in two and a half weeks time. (I am a fairly fast reader though)

Personally, I like reading books before seeing movies, mostly for the reason I stated about leaving details out. I'll give you an example. When Sahara came out last summer, several smaller storylines were left out of the movie. I've read the book half a dozen times, so the movie made sense to me in places that didn't make sense to my hubby and our friends, particularly the helicopter scene at the end. I'm glad that I knew what was going on, because it made understanding the movie easier. I ended up feeling satisfied with the movie, while hubby and friends were critical about certain parts; I knew that there was no way to get all of the info in the book into a 2 hour movie...and the same goes for the 3rd and particularly 4th Harry Potter movies. Just my 2 cents

[Ch'i]

I always read the book before. I like to interpret and visualize the book myself, and then critique the movie based on that. Not the other way around.

If it's not a good book then I'd probably just see the movie, if that.

[nikkiana]

If I'm going to get any enjoyment out of the movie at all, I better watch the movie first and read the book second... I don't do well reading first than watching, usually the movie sucks in comparison.

[Lady Sage]

After seeing movie #4 I decided I couldnt wait any longer and polished off all 6 books in 7 days. Usually, however, I tend to read the books first.

[djflish]

I can't read a book if I've seen the film. I tried reading Interview With a Vampire after I watched the film, but I just couldn't get into it.
If a film is coming out that I want to see, and I know its based on a book, I'll make sure I read the book before I see the film.

[pan6467]

I don't know I read a few books that went onto become movies, "Bright Lights, Big City", "Less Than Zero" and I have been inspired by movies to read the book.... most notably my favorite book and author was found this way The Great Gatsby/F Scott Fitzgerald.

Then there are the books based on the movie and those are always interesting... Star Wars and the Star Trek series come to mind.

[Pip]

It depends, I think, on how the movie is made. Some, like the second Potter movie, is not much more than an illustration to the book. It doesn't make much sense if you haven't read the book because the plots aren't developed enough, it's just a big mess of scenes piled up. So in those cases I prefer to read the book first. A badly made movie can make me want to read the book sometimes! But if the movie is well scripted it doesn't matter to me which I read/see first. I just see it as different retellings of the same story, two different artforms. I'm one of those that (usually) don't care about "spoilers", because I tend to be more interested in the style and moods than in the actual plot. It's true - I almost never remember the ending of anything, I just remember the language and colours and stuff like that.

Opera, now that's a different matter. Nowadays I always read up on the opera before I go see it. (Sitting through The Marriage of Figaro without any prior knowledge of the plot is a very bad idea. Just FYI. )

[streak_56]

I read all of the Harry Potters after seeing the movies and I was really quite disappointed in what they left out... though only minute details, some of those details IMO were big in the long run.

I haven't seen The Davinci Code movie yet.... I really don't want to... it might ruin the book for me.

[abaya]

When I heard that the Lord of the Rings was coming out (in 2001), and also the Harry Potter movies, I decided to read both series before watching the movies. So I read the LOTR and the HP books that had come out by then, and was very glad to have done so... especially in the case of LOTR. Even though the films were incredible, the books were still far better.

So, for me, I prefer to read before watching. Even if that means I have to wait for the DVD... I still would rather take the time to read.

[Meditrina]

So far I am enjoying the first HP book alot. I cannot seem to get enough of it. I will try to get the 2nd book before I see the movie and see which way I like it better. I better hurry though, I think it is coming soon from Blockbuster.

[Eweser]

Almost exclusively I enjoy the book better than the movie because of the details. But that doesn't mean that the movies are not enjoyable. I was very glad I had read the book before seeing Goblet of Fire. I was trying to catch my husband up. He was constantly saying "Now what was that about?".

[Psycho Dad]

I like to see the movie first. But when we were first married, my wife and I had little money that could go toward entertainment. She had a bunch of paperbacks that we would read to ward off boredom. Among those books was the first couple of the V.C Andrews Flowers in the Attic series. We read the whole series and then when the movie came out scraped together the money to see it. That movie sure wasn't worth whatever we gave up so we could see it.

[ColonelSpecial]

I saw "Pride and Prejuidice" first before reading the book. I was kind of disappointed because some of my favorite lines in the movie weren't in the book at all. I liked both the book and the movie but I prefered the movie. It moved at a better pace.

[Toaster126]

I prefer reading books before seeing the movie. The only time I didn't do that was with Fight Club, and the movie was better than the book because Edward Norton wasn't in the book.

[Mephisto2]

Read the book first. Please God, for the love of all things decent, read the book first!!

Phew...

Glad I got that off my chest...

The only movies that bear any resemblance to the books, in my opinion, were the Lord of the Rings films. Not as good as the written word, but not far off.


Mr Mephisto

[kurtisj]

some books it doesnt really matter is you read it before or after, fight club for instance, was not very different at all from the movie. But i prefer to watch the movie before i read the book, dont really know why, i think it kind of helps me follow the book.

[robot_parade]

Personally, I'd read/view whichever the 'source' material is - ie, if the book came first, read that. If the book is an 'adaptation' of the movie, watch the movie first.

I can't recall a time when I enjoyed the movie 'more than' the book it was made from/about. Plus, if I watch the movie first, then when I read the book, the movie maker's 'interpretation' is what I see in my head.

For instance, whenever I read 'The Hobbit', I see the images from the old Rankin animated movie version, because I watched that about a zillion times as a kid.

....chip the glasses, crack the plates! That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!

[Min]

Often times, I haven't heard of a book before it is a movie in such cases as Harry Potter and a few others that aren't classics such as Lord of the Rings. If I like the movie, or in my case hear them dramatized on the BBC, I will get the book. My collection has expanded greatly because of it.

[Val_1]

The book should always be read second because there is no way that a movie can include ALL of the details from the book. That way you won't be disapointed or critical because some of your favorite scenes are missing. A movie is an appetizer. A book is the full meal.

[Paradise Lost]

Book beforehand mainly because I like having my own visualizations in mind and then seeing if the movie was even close... But I normally don't judge the movies on how they are in comparison to the book... you're watching a movie, not reading a book, rate the movie based on how good it is. Truth be told, in recent years, I've liked the Harry Potter movies better than the LotR ones, because of its closeness to the books and the enjoyable movie too.

But it also ruinings is seeing the movie and then going back to the books, because the characters start to seem how you see them in the movie, although, if you don't think of it, that type of instrusion in your mind rarely happens.

[Chemist]

I always try to read the book first, but usually fail

[shoegirl]

Definitely read the book first. I hate seeing a movie and having the book spoiled for me. But when I read the book first, I can't wait to see if everything in the movie will look like I imagined it.

[Derwood]

The film version of The DaVinci Code was like a Cliff's Notes version of the book. It left out about 80% of the details.

The closest book to film translation I've experiences was Fight Club.

[Meditrina]

I finally finished HP 1. It was good, and I was able to visualize it as in the movie. I am reading the 2nd one now, hoping to finish before we see it. It just came in the mail the other day. This time, I have not seen the movie first. I can picture what the characters look like from the first movie, but the rest is all my own images. I can't wait to see the movie.... but first finish the book.

[feelgood]

I saw The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy and personally, I thought the movie had too many holes in the plot and character development.

I brought the series book and am currently going through the resturant at the end of the universe and the movie now makes so much more sense now that I know more about the character's background.