A question for the Bookish: Do you prefer to read the book before seeing the movie or to watch the m

If I’ve read the book, then watched the movie, I mostly find that a letdown. If I’ve played the story (from the book) in my mind, the movie disappoints.

If I read the book 1st the movie tends to be a disappointment. The reverse us nit always true.

Almost always the book is better.

Even "Full Metal Jacket" - is RADICALLY Better in the boo, even if the boot camp act is word for word from the book.

The rest of it isn't, and it's SO much meaner and ..right..in "The Short-Timers."

The thing is if they don't TRY they can't possibly achieve anything.

I just won't watch pablum, but I understand why they might try to make it (assuming they're gunning for art, versus a pure cash-grab).

For me it depends on the complexity of the story. Some books have so much going on that, when they try to make it a movie, you feel lost most of the time. If you've read the book, it fills in some additional details that they simply couldn't realistically add to the film.


Others bastardize the story so badly that you walk away angry that they butchered it like that.

In general, I prefer to read a book without having seen the movie simply because I like to experience the book without any pre-conceived notions. Reading a book is a pretty big investment in time, I want it fresh and unspoiled. A movie is a couple hours of getaway time for me. I don't treat them with the same level of commitment and I generally spend less time thinking about them. I like my movies to be semi-mindless time to take it easy and immerse myself in another world.

When The Great Gatsby movie came out it was still a book I was yet to read, so I rushed to read it first because I wanted to experience it in that order. I was amazed how faithful they tried to make the movie, and while I felt the book was superior, it made me like the movie more by reading the book first. Most movie adaptations aren't trying to be loving tributes to the books, though.

The Godfather is an interesting case. Puzo is fundamentally a good writer... great ideas, knows how to build a story, lots of practical, real world knowledge to draw on... but by his own admission, The Godfather was him throwing a bunch of stuff in there to try to sell books because he lost interest in being a starving artist. When it got picked up by Paramount, it was going to be a quick cash grab with some celebrities on a popular novel, with little thought about trying to make anything artistic. Coppola got hired, and felt the story had a lot of potential, but it required hyper-focusing on the good parts and knowing how not to fall into the pitfalls for the schlocky stuff. He wanted his own actors who weren't stars... Al Pacino and John Cazale were unknowns, Brando was considered a wash-up, at best a relic of a previous era. The studio kept their choice with James Caan, and I always wonder how it would've turned out if he was cast differently. Caan played a great Sonny, but is dramatically different to the book version... GF3's Andy Garcia is actually much closer to the original Sonny. To appreciate the story the most you kinda need both, because the backstories and character development is too deep for the movies. The movies become more interesting when you have more information, like who the Don's long time consigliere Genco Abbandando was, or about Sonny's mistress. Johnny Fontane's backstory is pretty cool too, as it is about taking Italian heritage and selling it out to Hollywood - in the book he's contrasted with his mandolin playing friend who remains more traditional, but never has commercial success.

Kubrick's MO was never to faithfully adapt a book. He adapted books because he felt like that he tried and failed to write original screenplays, and did his best work adapting other things. I've always been under the impression that he never thought Stephen King was a particularly good writer or that The Shining was a good book... he just saw something there he could use to make a movie.

I like reading the book first because I visualize the story in my mind as I’m reading and I prefer to not have that corrupted by seeing the movie first. Two books I didn’t do that with were Dracula and Frankenstein since I was seeing those old movies on campy horror shows from the time I was in grade school. The books each blow away their respective movies.

Reading a book is a pretty big investment in time

True dat

Book first. A lot of movie adaptations are so bad that if I saw it first, I probably wouldn't read the book.

I read a lot. Most of the books I read would make great movies but even best sellers don't make it to the big screen...Midnight Library...is one. For me books offer more in the way of details than film. I read Boys In The Boat a long time ago. While the movie was very good it left our or merged story lines to fit a few hours of the film. If I see a mo I it doesn't motivate me to read the book.

book first.....   movie?  meh....  i'm not much of a movie person but for ME,  i've not seen a movie that is as good as the book.  they can't afford to do it all.  i know others disagree and that's ok. 

Movie based on book: doesn't matter too much

Book based on movie: I don't bother