Personally, I prefer reading the book of a soon to be movie first. That way I can critique the movie more critically, seeing if it is anything like the book ... or if Hollywood went wild with their imaginations, using the book as a loose story line.
A friend of mine likes seeing the movies first, because then if she really enjoys the movie she'll actually pick up the book to read it.
So which do you prefer reading/seeing first?
(I searched and I couldn't find a thread like this....so I'm sorry if there already is!)
Full Version: Book or movie first?
Yeah I agree, I always try to read the book first. So then I can rant about how bad the movie is compared to the book. When a book is made into a movie, it doesn't really feel like the book and the movie are the same things.
movie definitely. its way less boring and way less time consuming. i really cant remember the last time i actually sat down and read a whole book...unless it was like dr suess or something.
I watch the movie first and if it's a good movie I'll read the book....
depends, usually the movie, but if its really good i'll go to the book first
books because then you know everything and can point out some things they missed in the movie.....and the TWILIGHT movie is coming out pretty soon!!!!i'm so excited!!!!!probably everyone has read the book by now
Book first for sure!!
i always like reading a book before i watch the movie.
books go way more in depth with detail and the movie
always doesn't follow what the book says.
So book before movie
FTW!
books go way more in depth with detail and the movie
always doesn't follow what the book says.
So book before movie
FTW!
QUOTE(i_like_cupcakes @ Jun. 16, 2008. 09:18 AM) [snapback]1019316[/snapback]
books because then you know everything and can point out some things they missed in the movie.....and the TWILIGHT movie is coming out pretty soon!!!!i'm so excited!!!!!probably everyone has read the book by now
Oh I'm so excited for Twilight its not even funny! I hope they don't butcher it.
Thats kinda what I was thinking about when I wrote this thread. =)
movie
I'll watch the movie first. If it's good I may read the book since they're supposed to be better. Readind the book first just might ruin the movie.
the book, because then i could say the movies are even more crappy
books. cause then if u can point out what is taken out from the book after u see the movie and u can determine whether the movie sucks or not
Book.
Books, for sure.
Book, because then you can imagine what all the persons and things looks like.
book.
I really like reading the books first. Most of the Stephen King books that were made in to movies are way better in the books. Their is more detail and you can imagine whats the characters and settings look like instead of the director changing it.
I read the book first.
I read the book first. And most of the time I like the book more than the movie.
book first
because the movie will NEVER be like the book, i think we've all learned that already
because the movie will NEVER be like the book, i think we've all learned that already
yeah book first. but i find whatever you see/read first you prefer. like i perfer hp books to films cos i read it first, but prefer lotr films to books cos i saw the movies first. does anyone else find this??
I always read the book before the movie, that way you can see what they left out, and you can give the movie a true rating
book more detail
who reads
book because inthe movie they always add and cut stuff out
The book definately!
I prefer to read the book, but nothing stops me to watch the movie before reading the book.
watch the movie and never read the book.
i personaly think movie gives a better impression. and if ur a person who likes reading u might enjoy the book better
I prefer to read the book first, then watch the movie. 
well for me it depends
Movie first book later.
Book
Depends, Battle Royale I watched the movie first, and the Sisterhood of the Travelling pants I read the book first.
I mostly watch the movie first, though.
I mostly watch the movie first, though.
Book first.
book first if i don't know they are making it into a movie,but i watched the ruins at the movie theatre so now i'm kinda interested in reading the ruins book
Book.
Personally, I'd prefer a book because they have more context and include more information. For example, Speak, the book elaborated much more on the characters and their personality. This is a pretty cool thread.
either way is fine for me
i think reading the book first cuz i like to read
but i like watching the movie first so i know what everything looks like in the book
i think reading the book first cuz i like to read
but i like watching the movie first so i know what everything looks like in the book
movie,
because that way your never ever disappointed.
cause you could always then go back and read the book and its like your getting more information on something you already like, so its like you cant loose. whereas, if you read the book first and then see the movie, and the movie is missing like 1000 things then your pissed.
p.s
fk nw pgz
because that way your never ever disappointed.
cause you could always then go back and read the book and its like your getting more information on something you already like, so its like you cant loose. whereas, if you read the book first and then see the movie, and the movie is missing like 1000 things then your pissed.
p.s
fk nw pgz
book. because whenever you watch a movie and then read a book, u'll be disappointed.
i say movie first becuase sometimes the books are written so slowly that its hard to tell wuts going on. and i know its not just me cuz i have straight as.
QUOTE(carpe-diem @ Jun. 15, 2008. 09:52 PM) [snapback]1018363[/snapback]
Hollywood went wild with their imaginations, using the book as a loose story line.
The definition of the Eragon movie, I think.
I like to read the book first, because sometimes I like to find and point out the tiny little things that get left out or changed for the sake of variation.
I'm basically a film-only kinda guy. I'm not a big reader.
It upsets me when I encounter the elitism inherent in those who feel the book will always be better than the film. At least the book elitists could be honest and say they simply prefer the book medium to the film medium, but instead the usual line of attack goes: "The film leaves so much out of the book, therefore the book is better."
I would never argue that the book will always be better than the film, or the film will always be better than the book. Both arguments are silly, unless you are a firm believer in one of the medium's undoubted superiority over the other. But I imagine that is a rare case.
Let us appreciate both mediums based on merit. Let us understand their unique potential and limitations, and judge accordingly. For instance, books provide virtually no visual or aural experience, while film provides that in spades. Does that mean the film will be better the book? No, it just marks a key difference between the two mediums. Surely one shouldn't fault a book for not containing moving images, just as one shouldn't fault a film for not having enough on-screen text.
The biggest complaint I hear from the book elitists revolves around what I believe to be the film's biggest limitation: its runtime. A book can ramble on and on in incessant detail for hundreds of pages without losing its audience. It can do this because of the nature of reading: a reader can read a book in one sitting or over the course of a month and the book experience would remain mostly in tact.
The same cannot be said for the film. The film is designed to be experienced in one sitting. Usually that means two, unbroken hours of undivided attention. Anything less is the equivalent of skimming pages in a book. In this case, I believe the challenge for the filmmaker is far greater than the challenge for the author. Mass credit is due, then, to Peter Jackson for whittling down The Lord of the Rings trilogy into three high-quality mainstream films. The man deserved his Oscars.
I think what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't fault the book or the film or lacking qualities that they inherently lack. Instead, we should approach the book and the film separately as the independent pieces of art that they are. The film is not merely the "film version" of the book. It is a film.
I feel like I can write on this topic forever, so I'll stop for now.
It upsets me when I encounter the elitism inherent in those who feel the book will always be better than the film. At least the book elitists could be honest and say they simply prefer the book medium to the film medium, but instead the usual line of attack goes: "The film leaves so much out of the book, therefore the book is better."
I would never argue that the book will always be better than the film, or the film will always be better than the book. Both arguments are silly, unless you are a firm believer in one of the medium's undoubted superiority over the other. But I imagine that is a rare case.
Let us appreciate both mediums based on merit. Let us understand their unique potential and limitations, and judge accordingly. For instance, books provide virtually no visual or aural experience, while film provides that in spades. Does that mean the film will be better the book? No, it just marks a key difference between the two mediums. Surely one shouldn't fault a book for not containing moving images, just as one shouldn't fault a film for not having enough on-screen text.
The biggest complaint I hear from the book elitists revolves around what I believe to be the film's biggest limitation: its runtime. A book can ramble on and on in incessant detail for hundreds of pages without losing its audience. It can do this because of the nature of reading: a reader can read a book in one sitting or over the course of a month and the book experience would remain mostly in tact.
The same cannot be said for the film. The film is designed to be experienced in one sitting. Usually that means two, unbroken hours of undivided attention. Anything less is the equivalent of skimming pages in a book. In this case, I believe the challenge for the filmmaker is far greater than the challenge for the author. Mass credit is due, then, to Peter Jackson for whittling down The Lord of the Rings trilogy into three high-quality mainstream films. The man deserved his Oscars.
I think what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't fault the book or the film or lacking qualities that they inherently lack. Instead, we should approach the book and the film separately as the independent pieces of art that they are. The film is not merely the "film version" of the book. It is a film.
I feel like I can write on this topic forever, so I'll stop for now.
book. because whenever you watch a movie and then read a book, u'll be disappointed
i agree. they leave soo many chunks out of the harry potter movies.
i agree. they leave soo many chunks out of the harry potter movies.
I'd watch the movie and if it was good i'd read the book.
I would read the book first because books generally take a longer time to read then to watch a movie and you might get bored of the book if you've aleady seen the movie and know whats going to happen. Also they almost always leave parts out of the book when they make the movie.
i read the book first, i think the best movie they made out of the book is Holes. (out of all the books i have read) (i've never read Harry Potter)
the books are always better than the movies, always!
the movies usually leave out a lot of stuff and that kinda annoys me,
but i guess they can't put every little detail in or the movie would probably be like 5 hours long.
and no one wants to watch a 5 hour movie...unless it's really, REALLY good lol
the movies usually leave out a lot of stuff and that kinda annoys me,
but i guess they can't put every little detail in or the movie would probably be like 5 hours long.
and no one wants to watch a 5 hour movie...unless it's really, REALLY good lol
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.