Would you rather read the book, see the movie, or do both? And which would you do first?
With so many books made into movies, it seems that people either read the book or go see the movie. Some also do both. I would prefer to read the book first and then see the movie.
I would rather read the book first. I tend to lose interest in the book if I see the movie first, plus the book tends to have more details than the movie. Imagine a 350 page book compacted into a 1 1/2 hour movie.
I like the idea of trying to figure out what's happening in the movie and compare with what I read in the book.
I am usually disappointed by a movie made from a book that I love to read. I will watch the movie, in spite of this. I am not sure why. Maybe, I am an optimist.
I am almost certain that I would like to see the movie first. So many books that I loved just cannot be done justice in a 2 hour block of time. If I have seen the movie first then read the book, I am always delighted at the added details and fleshing out of the storyline in print.
I want to read the book first I like details etc. .. and if there is a movie.. I like to watch the movie.. just so I can compare...
I'd like to read the book first, with all the details before watching the movie. The movie may not include all the details of the author of the book. It is also good to visualize something in your mind through reading.
It is the words that tell the tale........................I will read, first, and then see how closely the screen portrays the characters of my mind.
Sometimes, I can not bear to watch................."Deep End of the Ocean"....................read the book, cried like a baby..............could not endure, even to this day, seeing it on film. My daughters tell me, that it is bound to be a classic..................Perhaps this is so....................but, I know how the story ends......
I can not bear "seeing" those emotions on a Mother's face. It was enough emotion to read the story to its end.
Definitely read the book first. Books go into such much more detail. The characters are fleshed out better - you know what they are thinking. Then I see the movie, knowing that it cannot come close to matching the book, plus it seems they change parts of the book when they make it into a movie. I guess that is necessary because they are trying to tell a long story in a 2 hour time frame. But I prefer reading the books. My nephew thinks I'm crazy, but I have always loved books. But I will see the movie if one comes out on a book that I have read and liked.
Depends on my mood, and the book or movie I am gonna watch or read. Most interesting one will come first.
Some stories are meant to be made into movies and only movies. "Poseidon Adventure" could never really be translated into a book which captures the scary scenes in reality.
Similarly, there are stories which depends only on the imagination of the reader. Most of the fairy tales, could and are made into movies, but they are better when they remain in the imagination of the people.
Me I like to do both.
I am the same as homeybee2u. I prefer reading the book first and then the movie. I find that the book has sometime more details in than the movie.
It depends on the book and the movie. I've heard several opinions saying the the 'Bourne' books are boring and the films much better. Alternatively, I find Tom Clancy novels so much better than the films.
Hi, I'm a newbie to hubpages so excuse my number! I was never too worried about this as being a film fan I used to enjoy seeing how the director and actors interpreted the story, and I always felt I was watching something different so I had no expectations, they were separate in my mind...however, I heard this year that the film version of Sunset Song is nearly finished and will be released soon....that was a book I read several years ago now and I loved it, I wouldn't stop recommending it to people and I still remember how much it affected me. I found myself for the first time being all protective of the book, so my opinion has changed! If anyone asks I would say read the book first but actually even if the film is great or a flop I would still tell people to read the book anyway for the reasons people have already mentioned.
Read the book first, ALWAYS. Then see the movie. It's how I refuse to watch the Twilight series. Books were good, movies were horrible. In Harry Potter, the books are still better than the movies.
Regarding Harry Potter, they could never have managed to get all the detail in, which is why it's good to read the books to fill in the blanks. It's still a lovely experience to see them brought to life though, I think. Agreed about Twilight!
Thank you! I believed it was just me irritated with Twilight!
That depends. For classics like Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, etc. I read the novel first and then watch the movie (the book is normally better with more materials in them). However, for “The Lord of the Rings” is a different story. I heard about this great fantasy adventure story long time ago, but because of the length of the book (over thousand pages long) I never gather enough interest to read it. And then, Peter Jackson’s movie trilogy came out. I was captivated at once. The story is so intriguing I ran out and purchased the book and also “the Hobbit”, read them all in three months, and have been a J.R.R. Tolkien’s fan ever since.
Because of the nature of books vs films, there are differences in perception. A page of description in a book can be seconds in a film, even with 'panning'. Because of that sometimes a director has to 'add' bits that weren't in the book, or take out others in the editing stage. There are few films true to the books they are associated with, and some of those are over-long. Books like Ian Fleming's 'James Bond' stories have been changed drastically by the advent of new technology. 'Lord of the Rings' was filmed in New Zealand's 'alpine' region because of its remoteness, but I would be willing to bet there are pages and pages of description in Tolkien's manuscript that have had to be 'doctored' for filming.
I would rather do both: read the book then watch the movie. I am an avid reader, so I enjoy being lost in a story and getting my own visuals. However, sometimes they just look so much better on the screen (i.e., Zack Efron in The Lucky One"?!) than they did in my mind. I often find myself disappointed by the movies, but every now and then I find one that perhaps I enjoyed a little bit better (i.e., The Lincoln Lawyer) or like how they twisted it (i.e., High Times).
About two years ago, I completely lost interest in movies and I hardly watch them at all anymore. I used to love them. My wife likes them, so I'll sit through one at home once in a while. But I have replaced movies with reading.
It depends which I come across first. I think I do tend to read the book first, which I did with Harry Potter, because I like to get all of the detail in my mind first - I think this enhances the experience I have when I watch the film, as I'm able to fill in the gaps. I think I get more out of the film if I already know the whole story.
Films are criticised for leaving too much detail out, but it's usually not possible for every aspect of a story to be included because of budget and time constraints. But I don't really think that the purpose of the film is to tell the whole story necessarily (I don't see it that way); I see the film as a chance to have the book brought to life, in just a small way. It doesn't really compare to what I see in my imagination as I read, but not everyone reads in the same way - imagine, some people don't see pictures when they read!
I don't tend to find the film disappointing if I've read the book first, because I just enjoy seeing a director's interpretation of a story that I have loved. (Although, I was hugely disappointed with the screen adaptation of 'Eragon' - it was pretty dire!)
Watching the film first and then reading the book is probably the more logical way to do it. You get a taste for the story, and then read the book to learn more. Kind of like saving the best to last.
So, now that I've talked that out for myself, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really make a difference which way around you experience the book and the film!
I'd rather read the book first then see the movie. Usually if I've seen the movie first I have no desire to then read the book.
by Janis Goad5 years ago
Do you prefer reading books in paper or e-reader form, like Kindle or Kobo, and why?
by SJ Rose19 months ago
Do you prefer reading from an actual book, or from an e-reader like Kindle or Kobo?
by Nichol marie2 years ago
What book did you read and then watch the movie and was disappointed?
by wytegarillaz6 years ago
Would you rather read a good book or watch a movie ?If so why ? I personally love to read a book as there are no adverts !
by letterme4 years ago
What do you prefer ? Reading many books from the same author or many books from different authors?We often find many similarities, patterns, ideas recurring in many fictional works by the same author.Do you find...
by tomsum6 years ago
Do you think books are always better then the movies that come after them?A lot of the big name movies use IP's from already written books. Which is better? For me personally, I think the Harry Potter books are better,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.