View Full Version : Book First, or Movie First?
07-09-2003, 11:20 PM
Since so many books are adapted to movies, I begs the question...which do you prefer to read/see first?
Case in point. I am half way through John Jakes' "North and South".
Being that I am married to a "Daughter of the Confederacy", my wife and I have made a tradition of watching the entire miniseries every year....Not including "Book 3" which totally ruined the entire storyline for me.
Anyway, I am trully enjoying this read, as it is a wonderful story. While I am usually dissapointed when I read a book first, and then see the movie, I am genuinely pleased that I decided to go the opposite route this time.
I loved the movie immensely, and now it is like meeting the same old characters that I love, but having them go through somewhat different experiences than I am used to. I.E. Orry gets a crippling leg injury at Churobusco in the movie, whereas he loses his left arm in the Novel.
I'm just rambling on at 1:15 AM, because I'm stuck here on watch until 6 AM. But anyway, I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Maybe even some opinions on the "North and South" series as well. (I love this historical stuff. LOL)
- Glenn Marquay
07-09-2003, 11:29 PM
The book is nearly always better so I have a tendency to see the movie first if I have a choice. That way I'm not dissapointed when the movie doesn't live up to my expectations.
A. M. Jauregui
07-09-2003, 11:43 PM
I prefer the book then the movie. I do not like the influence that the movie *projects* on the story. I also enjoy the comparision that of my imagined scenes to that of the ones found in the movies e.g. that is how I imagined such and such would be...
07-09-2003, 11:59 PM
I am with Ana here, give me the book anytime over the movie.
There have been too many disappointments with bad adaptations from books.
Said that if possible I will always try to read books in the authors native language as also a lot can get lost via translations.
Lord of the rings, IMO, they left out or didn't elaborate on some very important sections and overplayed minor sections of the book.
07-10-2003, 12:41 AM
I like to read the book about 6 months or so before the movie is released. That way I forget all the little details they (always)leave out of the movie, AND I can pick up on all the little hints for those who have read the books.
LOTR is a good case in point. I read the books and love the films...
Blackhawk Down was also really good. I think much of the movie is lost when you haven't read the book.
If possible I like to read the book first. It's always interesting to see how they are adapted to the big screen. Sometimes the mental image you have from reading is the same as the directors vision, sometimes not.
I usually approach the movie version with the expectation that part of the original story will be "creatively changed".
07-10-2003, 05:49 AM
Generally I find that book instead of the movie works well.
he first original format is usually the best
I would hate to read a book written after a movie (when I was a stupid child I made the mistake once), and a movie after a book is often a disappointment too.
Each media creates different limitations on the creation, and so, once they move from one to the other - they are normally much worse
There are exceptions of-course.
07-10-2003, 08:05 AM
I like the movie before the book. That way the movie is not such a disappointment. The book instead of the movie, like Mr. Williams said, is great too.
07-10-2003, 08:05 AM
Sorta like Clear and Present Danger(Tommy boy Clancy). The movie reduces key characters and plot.
North and South? God, I loved that series...the theme song was great.
07-10-2003, 08:11 AM
What about Gettysburg? I loved the movie but anyone read the novel "The Killer Angels"?
07-10-2003, 08:20 AM
I thought it was quite good. Never saw 'Gettysburg' though.
07-10-2003, 08:23 AM
It just usually winds up book before movie, and my opinion in BOTH cases is that the original media is better.
Exception: "Forrest Gump." If you hated this movie, you'd REALLY hate the book.(I'll admit to liking the movie, and it was a nothing little book.....)
Given a chance, though, I'll see the movie before reading the book.
07-10-2003, 08:24 AM
Yeah, the movie is brilliant...well, heartwarming. You watch it as a non-american and feel for both sides.
07-10-2003, 01:25 PM
I just finished reading "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and it was better than the movie. I'm sure y'all agree that the book is most of the time better than the movie.
A. M. Jauregui
07-10-2003, 04:12 PM
I have read all of the Potter books *yes I was there at midnight in line with the kids for the latest release and downloaded a copy so that could read it on my PDA while my students were taking tests* and must say that the books are far better then the film adaptation.
Some movie are better then the books they are based one but I have to say that they are the rare exceptions. So once again I say, the book before the movie. ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.