Would you watch a movie or read a book first?

Discussion in 'Books' started by AngelikaSo, Mar 21, 2016.


If there was a movie coming out that was based on a book you haven't read, what would you do?

  1. See the movie first

  2. Read the book first

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. AngelikaSo

    AngelikaSo New Member

    If there was a movie coming out that was based on a book you haven't read, what would you do?
    Would you go see the movie or go out and get the book and read it first?

    I would definitely get the book and read it first. It might spoil the movie and ruin my perception and images of the characters, but I would want the whole story with all of the details first. Afterwards, I would still like to see the movie as it is someone's artistic interpretation of the book.

    What do you think?
    jeffzod7 and entity34 like this.
  2. nylaras7

    nylaras7 New Member

    I always try to read the book first, of course then I notice everything left out of the movie but I think it makes it easier to understand what's going on. Of course the book is usually better!
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  3. ColourPaper

    ColourPaper New Member

    I mostly agree with you. I would normally read the books before watching the movies that are adapted from it, but if it's a book adapted from a movie - not even going to bother. I do this because I prefer to be creative with the characters and events. If I'd watched the movie before the book, I would simply picture the movie in my head while I read... which I'd rather watch the movie again to save more time (maybe I'll even watch it with subtitles of another language!). The only exception I've ever made was Harry Potter. No offense but the book is way too long for me to be intrested in, especially when most of it contains actions (which I'd gladly rather watch than read) and the list of spells which I have no intrest in remembering.
    I don't think by reading the story it means the movie is spoiled. It just simply means you get to relive the moments again but this time you can see everything infront of you. You might also pick up on details that you've missed when reading but the director emphasizes on it.
    jeffzod7 and Zainab Farman like this.
  4. Bunnyriffic

    Bunnyriffic New Member

    Personally, I enjoy movies and video games a lot more than reading a book. My inclination is to go with watching the movie, just because I'm a lazy person, and reading makes my eyes hurt... :cry: Video games are what you would get if you combined a movie, book, and a little bit of real life into one awesome piece of art that everyone can enjoy! :rolling:
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  5. Sebastian Campos

    Sebastian Campos New Member

    Normally, I like to run to the local library and check out the book, before seeing a movie, however, this is usually before the general public is even made aware of the fact that a movie interpretation is coming out... On the other hand, if the movie has already come out, and the general public is raving about it, I'll go ahead and watch the movie, before reading the book, simply because I want to be able to enjoy the movie while it's in theaters and is in the eye of the public.
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  6. KassyRose

    KassyRose New Member

    That depends. If I see a preview of a movie and think it looks great, then I will read the book first before watching the movie. Now, If I see a movie preview and think it just OK, then I won't even try to read the book and watch the movie. I tend to stay within the "young adult" genre in books.
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  7. LaurenRink7

    LaurenRink7 New Member

    I am an avid reader. There is nothing I enjoy more than sitting down with a great book and putting myself in a whole new place. From experience, I know that the movies are never as good, or detailed, as the books. Anyone who has seen and read The Hunger Games series knows exactly what I am talking about. There can never be as many details or facts packed into an hour and a half movie.
    jeffzod7 and Zainab Farman like this.
  8. KaseyHopeMartin

    KaseyHopeMartin New Member

    I have a hard time with this question. Some of my favorite books have been turned into movies, and I absolutely hate them! Movies fail to capture the essence and detail of the books, and most often directors will cut out scenes from the book that don't seem relevant (but as an author myself, and an avid reader I understand their significance because of character development or the small details they miss out on explaining in those scenes.)

    However, if I watch a movie that was based off the book first, I generally like to see the movie first. My philosophy is generally the book is going to be better, the movie is going to fail to follow the story line to a complete accurate standard. So I watch the movie first so that I do not absolutely hate it and want that hour and a half or whatever of my life back.

    Then I will pick up the book, and chances are, I will enjoy it even more than I enjoyed the movie.
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  9. iclashenvy

    iclashenvy New Member

    I would read the book first, because the movie cuts so much out and then add things that's not there. The movie is nothing like the things going thru your mind when you are imagining things that happen. When you are reading it's almost like you have put yourself into the book and going thru the things yourself. The movie just makes you mad and want your money back.
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  10. alexseidler

    alexseidler New Member

    I would read the book first in order to create the images in my head which stimulates my imagination. It allows me to visualize the story by myself before I decide to see exactly how another person sees it in their own mind. The book also allows you to compare and contrast your own interpretation of the story to that of the screenwriter. It also provides more freedom in imagination with the characters, internalization and description whereas the screenwriter maps it out for everyone.
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  11. GreenEggsAndSam

    GreenEggsAndSam New Member

    I would definitely read the book first. The novel is where the writer pours their heart and soul into the characters, and truly gives them a life of their own without letting an actors personality affect the character. A movie cannot capture the writers true vision, or deliver it in the same depth as the book. To me, the movie is just a bit of entertainment based on the book, and never a true telling of the story.
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  12. nik23

    nik23 New Member

    I like books but lets be honest this is the age of movies and television
    people want to be visually exited not have to spend hours trying to figure out whats going on in their heads
    colors and sounds draw our attention and you can not always get that with a book .
    jeffzod7 likes this.
  13. TryHard

    TryHard New Member

    I am a very visual person. While books are great, I'd rather watch a movie over a book most of the time. It also leave less to interpretation. Words are retaliative in certain cases, and lead to confusion in some cases. I could say someone is tall and that might be different for someone 5'2 and someone 6'1.

    As they say a picture is worth a thousand words. So a motion picture must be worth millions.
  14. Shellbell823

    Shellbell823 New Member

    Sometimes I get really bored with a book, and I'm afraid that if I knew the ending from the movie then I would give up on the book I was reading way earlier than if I was still curious to know what happened. The exception to this is if the movie is good enough to where I want to know more about the characters and what happens that was left out of the movie (since stuff always is...). For instance, when I was a kid I thought Harry Potter was the stupidest thing. See, at the time you were "cool" if you didn't jump on a bandwagon. I mean, it really wasn't, but when you're a kid you think it is. Then my mom took me to see Harry Potter, nothing else was playing so we figured why not. I loved it, and I lucked out that my Aunt and Uncle gifted me the second book in the series the Christmas before (no idea why they got the second one...). So I went home and read that right away, then went and got the first and read that one. Then the third (cant remember if the 4th was out at that point or if I had to wait...)
  15. Sheryl

    Sheryl New Member

    I have no preference, but if I read the book first, I don't watch the movie. If I see the movie first, I don't read the book. However, most of the time I do believe that the books are much better.
  16. Marlie

    Marlie New Member

    I would read a book first before a movie. Books leave more to the imagination and creativity of an individuals' mind. It stimulates the mind and has been proven to do so. I love watching movies, but not when they have been modeled after books. The experience is less enjoyable and dissatisfying. It takes the wonder, imagination, and relaxation out of reading.
  17. blast_23

    blast_23 New Member

    I would prefer to read the books first, since it often happens that movies either cut out interesting portions of the book or just change the plot outright.For example, anyone who has read 'Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief ' can testify to it, since the movie completely changed the plot completely. Similarly, in the 'Harry Potter' series, subtle but definite changes were made to the plot.
  18. dayna

    dayna New Member

    I would read the book before I see the movie because a book is so much better and you can't get it all in the movie.
  19. Doxie

    Doxie New Member

    I prefer to read the book first. I am always upset when I accidentally see a preview of the film based on a book. The image of the film characters are already seared into my brain. It is difficult for me to create my own characters and images.

    Then the vision of the book is not really my own. It is hard to appreciate the original text when I have preconceptions about what the story should be.
  20. Sergio borges

    Sergio borges New Member

    The reason for I prefer to read the book first is because it always has a wider narrative line and allows deepen in the context of the history and characters. What I enjoy of the movie is the level of synthesis without to loss the essence of the story. Definitely I prefer read first the book.
  21. Elli Li

    Elli Li New Member

    I have done both before: I have seen a movie after reading the book and vice versa.
    But I have to agree with you: I prefer reading the book first. At least to me, the book is always more satisfactory and you can paint the character's with your mind, including their voices and traits.
    When I see the movie first and decide to read the book, there is always some part of it I wished it was filmed and added to the movie even though I know they cut it for a reason or it is of little importance for the story. Same happens if I read the book first, of course, but the fact that I know those small details about the characters and interactions makes me happy.
  22. smithabi

    smithabi New Member

    I would watch the movie, and then probably not read the book. If I read the book first, however, I would probably not watch the movie. If I do read the book first then watch the movie, then it really annoys me when something is different, and vice versa.
  23. Cadams1100

    Cadams1100 New Member

    I would prefer to read a book first. When I do watch a movie that is based on a book and I have read the book...I get upset when some good parts are missing or the movie doesn't follow the book closely.
  24. Jeff Y.

    Jeff Y. New Member

    I would read the book first, like many posters have said. There's no film that will ever be as detailed, engrossing and captivating as a book. A good author has such control over their story that they can literally take a reader on an adventure.

    After finishing the book, I look forward to the movie even more as well, giving another benefit to reading the book first.

  25. Duckbrador

    Duckbrador New Member

    I prefer to read the book first. That way the characters are mine. What I mean by that is that the way I picture them in my head is created by the author and not the filmmakers. I often find that if I see a movie before reading the book, the only way I can picture the characters is as the actors who portrayed them. I would much prefer to envision what the author was thinking through his/her character description, rather than as an actor who may look nothing like what that character was supposed to.

    I also find that if I've read the book first and have that picture in my head, it can be a lot fun to see the movie and see which actors are well cast based on the book and which are not. Reading the book first also allows me to see how the movie has changed the story either for time or based on what the filmmakers could or could not do with the story.

    In The Lord of the Rings trilogy, it was really easy to see all the pieces that were cutout because the filmmaker decided they weren't relevant to the main plot. In many cases, he was right, they weren't key parts of the story, but in the book they added to the story and the development of the characters which in places, especially The Fellowship of the Ring, was missing.
  26. Fitheach

    Fitheach New Member

    Well, I have experienced both ways and have a hard time saying. I first read The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit growing up and the book experiences are very important to me and my imagination. When I saw the movies later, it was a different experience and would no doubt have changed my experience of the books. I may have enjoyed the books less partly because I am not entirely thrilled with the movies -- particularly the Hobbit.
    But when it comes to Harry Potter, I wasn't interested in reading the books until I stumbled upon the first Harry Potter movie on TV years ago. I'm interested in fantastical worlds so I watched it and subsequently bought the book. I ended up reading all the books as a result, and the movies and the book worlds are closely related for me.
    So it is hard for me to say, as in one case, I like the books way more than the movies, and in another case, the movies got me to read the books.
    My wife likes the Hunger Games and wanted me to go with her. She has read the books. I haven't. I didn't read the books before I went, and I don't plan to read them, either. So it really depends on the situation.
  27. catwoman414

    catwoman414 New Member

    I always read the book first, so that I can get a picture in my head of what I feel that the writer was saying. Although I might appreciate the movie, the book is what really transfers me to the alternate reality the author is presenting.
  28. Sassafras

    Sassafras New Member

    I always like to read the book first. I read the Hunger Game series before seeing the movies and was very glad I did. It's a more fulfilling experience. The movies almost complete book. You get to see something you already enjoyed inside your imagination played out on the big screen. :)
  29. Matthew A

    Matthew A New Member

    My opinion is that you should read the book first. No movie or TV show, no matter how long, will let you experience the full depth of the book. When you read a book, you create a metal image of the story.

    Most books tell the story through the eyes of the protagonists. We get to experience their goals, feelings, desires, and memory's. It creates a stronger bond between the reader and the character. Some movies have voice overs and flashbacks, but it doesn't have the same originality as reading a book. It's better to read the book and know what the protagonists is feeling while watching it happen on the silver screen.
  30. Daniela Tecucianu

    Daniela Tecucianu New Member

    From my standpoint, the experience of watching the cinematic adaptation(s) of a literary work is completely different from that of reading the source text, be it a novel, a short story or a play. Cinema and literature are two different media and, hence, they employ different strategies to convey meaning. Operating a hierarchy of the two is, as far as I am concerned, highly misleading. Books are not necessarily better than films and this actually allows for great directors (the so-called auteurs) to take up the challenge of turning less acclaimed works of fiction into cinematic masterpieces. Indeed, the difficulty arises when the task at hand is that of adapting a famous book, because viewers always have the tendency to compare it with the movie. More often than not, this is done to the detriment of the latter. However, what people fail to see is that movies, too, have an inherent "grammar". Cinematic adaptations communicate a lot as well, but they do so by resorting to a special kind of "language", different from the verbal code. The problem is that not all of us are "literate" enough to see through that, namely not everyone is able to understand the meaning and effect of close-ups, long-shots, sound bridges, lighting, color filters etc. All in all, literature and cinema represent distinct, autonomous art forms and we shouldn't always feel compelled to compare them. Moreover, I do not think that the value of adaptations is to be judged on their fidelity to the source text, on the contrary. Is Laurence Olivier's or Al Pacino's adaptation of Shakespeare's Richard III better? Well, this is a question we cannot really answer. They are so different, and yet both of them so powerful that we cannot really make a choice. And yet, there is something else we need to take into account: it is quite frequent that adaptations rely on expansion rather than abridgment. Thus, they display a kind of creative effort that is quite amazing. To illustrate my point with only one example, I would like to mention the Wang's Smoke (1995), a brilliant adaptation of Auster's "Auggie Wren's Christmas Story".
    ProfessorButtons likes this.

Share This Page