Blu-ray Covers, DVD Covers, Game Covers...

**rickssg** · 02-23-2006, 08:34 AM

When I heard that The Lord of the Rings was being made into movies, I re-read the books so that they would be fresh in my mind when I saw the movies. I was already a fan of the Harry Potter books by the time the first movie came out. In both of these cases, I am glad that I read the books first.

I once knew someone who had read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory before seeing Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and she hated the movie because it was nothing like her personal interpretation.

When I saw October Sky, i had no idea that it was based on a book until it was mentioned in the credits, so I read that book after seeing the movie (great book, by the way).

My sister has a rule with her kids that if they want to see a movie that is based on a book, they have to read the book first. I think it is her way of motivating them to read.

There have been other movies based on books that I hadn't heard of until the movie came out, and the release of the movie has made me want to read the book, even though I have no interest in the movie.

So, the survey question: When a movie is released which is based on a book (and you are interested in seeing the movie), do you read the book before seeing the movie? If you see the movie first does it ever inspire you to read the book?

PS - an embarassing confession - I had seen countless versions of Dickens' Christmas Carol, but I never read the book until after I saw the Muppet Christmas carol. What was it about this particular version that inspired me to actually read the book? It was Gonzo's line at the end, when he says, "If you think that was good, you should read the book." I thought, "hey, yeah, I should read the book." So I did. And the most surprising thing about it was that it is so short. This is Dickens, after all. There wasn't anything that I saw in the book that I hadn't seen at least once in all of the various productions of the work. The other surprising thing was that aside from the obvious departures - Cratchet being a frog, there being two Marleys, etc - The Muppet Christmas Carol is one of the more faithful adaptations.

**gbk33** · 02-23-2006, 08:57 AM

Usually not a bad thing to do. I read all the LOTR books many times growing up. I have read a couple of the Harry Potter books, and I have to say that not a one of the movies has come close to the books. My next movie is The Da Vinci Code. I have a feeling the book will be better this time too.

**JupiterPrime** · 02-23-2006, 11:36 AM

Whenever possible always read first, and I agree with the above, always encourage your children to read it forst before seeing it....directors, writers and producers take creative license and sometimes distort the intention of a sceen or leave out pivotal moments due to time contstraints of audience imapct factor.

Sometime like mentioned above, Ill see a movie that I didnt know was based on a book, and then proceed to do so, and usually find that I enjoy the book so much more.....AND....I can revisit the book at my convenience - cant do so with the movie unless I have it.

starwarsgeek · 02-23-2006, 08:17 PM

I guess I'm of the opposite camp. I actually prefer to read the book after I've seen the movie whenever possible. 99% of the time, the book is always better, and reading the book first makes me feel like the movie sucks. If I go to see a movie and it's good, I'll want to read the book because there are always scenes that are left out of the movie for one reason or another, and that usually builds on the story and improves it if possible. However, if I watch a movie and it sucks, I'll still try and read the book, just to see if someone on the movie end fucked it up, or if the book just sucked from the start.

BlackWatch · 02-24-2006, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starwarsgeek

I guess I'm of the opposite camp. I actually prefer to read the book after I've seen the movie whenever possible. 99% of the time, the book is always better, and reading the book first makes me feel like the movie sucks.

ditto.

**rickssg** · 02-24-2006, 08:44 AM

I agree that the book is usually better than the movie, but for stories that I really care about (e.g. Lord of the Rings) I want to read the book first so that my perception of the book isn't tainted by someone else's interpretation. Also, if the movie is poorly done, it can ruin the effect of a good book. For example, the author of a book may write a plot twist that is clever, effective, and unpredictable. If the movie does a lousy job of representing that plot twist, and makes it boring and predictable, then it is not only lousy for the movie, but it has spoiled the book by telling you the result so that when you read it you lose a lot of the effectiveness of the writing. It's the same reason that a person who has not seen a particular movie or read a particular book or even watched a particular sporting event that is waiting on TiVo will tell you "don't tell me what happens!"

As I generally consider the book to be the superior product (over a movie based on that book), I would rather have the movie spoiled by reading the book than have the book spoiled by watching the movie.

**JupiterPrime** · 02-24-2006, 04:13 PM

Something about "You cant polish a turd, but you can crap on a crown" comes to mind while reading this debate

wilson420 · 03-22-2006, 11:16 AM

I am definitely of the theory of movie first, book last. I hate spending the whole movie going... "oih they screwed that up...", "what??? they left that part out? are they insane?", or my favorite... "what a second, this isn't the book that i remember reading. lol"

You see the movie and probably enjoy it for what it is. A movie. Then you read the book and say ok well here was the Author's original intent, and I'm ok with that.

**JupiterPrime** · 03-22-2006, 01:21 PM

thats understandle wilson, for you and me.....but im facing down a 14-y-o daughter whom I want to develop better literary skills, not to say she's dumb - far from it, but it takes her considerably longer to read a book becasue she has to re-read things, and her writing skills need polishing - to read some of the things she writes would sound very robotic, yet some other things, very poetic - she tries but she is struggling - kids today are force fed too much and their brains are more stimulated by American Idol than they are American Literature, or History or Science.....if there is a god in heaven then may it eternally damn ALL reality television

I never let her see anything based on a book before having read, or least attempted to read the book....she was unable to get through Lord of the Rings, and thats understandable - its a tough read for a 10 year old - which is where she was when it first started - so I let her watch the cartoon Hobbit and then went through the book with her, then proceeded to do the sae with all the rest

this is not to say that I read everything first - I try to, but it doesnt always work out that way - for example - I started reading the Davinci Code over CHristmas at my Mother's who has the book.....I dont yet, so i went unfinished - and with being as busy as I am right now during the ball season, chances are high Im not going to get to finish read it before I get it on DVD (not seeing it in theaters) - but I will still finish reading it after

**gbk33** · 03-22-2006, 01:45 PM

A teacher friend of mine was talking to me the other day about this very topic. She is a huge fan of the Harry Potter books and the movies, but wishes they hadn't been so quick to make them into movies. She feels that it's so rare to find a series of books that kids can't wait to read these days that it would have been nice to not have the movies around so they kids would be forced to read these books. I said well there is still some books that aren't movies yet, and she said, as a teacher, it's just not the same. She continued again, as a teacher, it's so hard to get kids to read anything these days that sometimes the movies make it just that much more difficult.