When you watch a movie based off a book,,

,,do you make it a point to read the book first? I've done that several times (with Watchmen for example) and it is interesting seeing what was cut out of the book and what was added in. OTOH, if i read the book of Forrest Gump before seeing the movie i would be completely confused (the book is almost completely different from the movie, Dan and Jenny are in it and forrest does go to vietnam but thats about all thats the same).

I read Pet Sematary and loved it. So I was really excited when I got to rent the movie. It totally sucked.

Depends. Usually if I enjoyed the book the movies pale in comparison.

Oh, and the same goes for The Stand. Loved the book. Quit watching the movie about halfway through.

I don't even compare them. Books and film are completely different mediums, you have to make myriad changes to a book to mold it into screenplay form. Plus, when you read a book your imagination tells you what people look like, what the town looks like, etc. Once you see the adaptation it's never the same as what you imagine in your head, so no matter how good the film is you're always going to be a little disappointed.

So I just keep them separate and judge each on its own merits.

Book are better because they are longer and have more information/story. Plus, you visualize with your imagination. When you see a moive you are putting a whole book's worth down to 2 hrs and seeing someone else's imagination.

I like to see the movie first then read the book then I end up like both better. If I read the book first I like the movie less.

Currently reading "The Body" by Stephen King. The story and "Stand By Me" are equally as good.

S.D. wrote:

I don't even compare them.  Books and film are completely different mediums, you have to make myriad changes to a book to mold it into screenplay form.  Plus, when you read a book your imagination tells you what people look like, what the town looks like, etc.  Once you see the adaptation it's never the same as what you imagine in your head, so no matter how good the film is you're always going to be a little disappointed.  

So I just keep them separate and judge each on its own merits.  

I agree with this 100% and even watch movies, like biopics and movies based on real events, I keep in mind that some of the facts are going to be altered, ommitted, etc. Two different mediums like S.D. stated.

manny wrote:

S.D. wrote:

I don't even compare them.  Books and film are completely different mediums, you have to make myriad changes to a book to mold it into screenplay form.  Plus, when you read a book your imagination tells you what people look like, what the town looks like, etc.  Once you see the adaptation it's never the same as what you imagine in your head, so no matter how good the film is you're always going to be a little disappointed.  

So I just keep them separate and judge each on its own merits.  

I agree with this 100% and even watch movies, like biopics and movies based on real events, I keep in mind that some of the facts are going to be altered, ommitted, etc. Two different mediums like S.D. stated.

Yep - I do the same.

I don't always read the book before seeing the film. In fact, most of the time it's the opposite - I see the movie and then track down the book later. I remember when I started reading Ian Fleming's James Bond novels as a teenager, being surprised at how different they were from the films... in some cases the only things that transferred to the screen were the title and some character names. Haha!!

I didn't read Stephen King's "The Shining" till years after I'd seen the film version, and again, I was very surprised at how much the movie deviated from the book. (I remember sitting there reading the book and thinking "This wasn't in the movie. That wasn't in the movie either. Neither was this. What the f*ck, Stanley?" Haha) There was tons of back story that Kubrick didn't even touch on. King himself alleviated that with a late 90s TV mini-series version that stuck extremely close to the events of his novel. (Plus, it had Rebecca DeMornay playing Wendy Torrance, who was a hell of a lot easier on the eyes than Shelly Duvall. Haha.)

One time I *did* read the book prior to seeing the movie was "The Lost World," the second book in the "Jurassic Park" saga. I was very disappointed in the movie and wished they'd stuck to the events of the novel. The book was great, the movie sucked!!

The film The Shining is brilliant, a classic. No, it has little in common with the novel, but in this particular case that doesn't matter.

The novel is great too. The mini-series? Watched once in the 90s and forgotten, not a very good series, not even a 10th as good as Kubrick's film, not nearly as impactful as the original novel either.

Oh yea, Kubrick's film is still the Big Kahuna, no doubt. Even King himself acknowledges that it's a great movie, it's just not "his" story.

I guess my answer is maybe. It really depends on the book/movie. For instance, I had read Tolkien's books many times before seeing The Lord of the Rings movies and The Hobbit. The movies are far inferior to the books, but I enjoyed LOTR movies for what they were. The Hobbit movies are garbage and very disappointing.

Stephen King books are generally terrible movies IF Stephen King is directing or involved in any way. When he's not - e.g. Stand By Me, The Shining, and The Shawshank Redemption - the results are usually good.

I love both The Shining book and movie. The movie is very unsettling and that's all Kubrick's doing. The way he manipulates the sets and camera shots to cause unsease in the audience is amazing. Who doesn't like a movie that's told from the viewpoint of unreliable narrators? You never know what's real and what's not. Masterful.

Haven't done that in quite some time, but when I did read the book first, then the movie, I pretty much found the book to be better in most cases. Mostly for the reasons someone else said. Imagination and all that.

While I enjoyed the book first, I always thought the movie adaptation of Stephen King's Christine was good in it's own right.

Christine is another case where the book and film are quite different but both are worthwhile on their own.

S.D. wrote:

I don't even compare them.  Books and film are completely different mediums, you have to make myriad changes to a book to mold it into screenplay form.  Plus, when you read a book your imagination tells you what people look like, what the town looks like, etc.  Once you see the adaptation it's never the same as what you imagine in your head, so no matter how good the film is you're always going to be a little disappointed.  

So I just keep them separate and judge each on its own merits.  

Agree 100%.

S.D. wrote:

I don't even compare them.  Books and film are completely different mediums, you have to make myriad changes to a book to mold it into screenplay form.  Plus, when you read a book your imagination tells you what people look like, what the town looks like, etc.  Once you see the adaptation it's never the same as what you imagine in your head, so no matter how good the film is you're always going to be a little disappointed.  

So I just keep them separate and judge each on its own merits.  

This is how I see it.

I have no idea how to not be long winded on this subject, so I'll just pass through. Although i well say my favorite adaptation would have to be Atonement. Very well realized.

Can't say I'm as big a fan of The Shining though. And that's coming from a disciple of Kubrick.

I generally read the book first. Its a guarantee the movie will be different but I do find it interesting to see where the movie and book is different.

I know sometimes just the casting decisions of a movie based on a book is enough to tick off readers of the book. I know my dad, who loves the Jack Reacher novels, was disgusted at Tom Cruise being picked to play him.

Another one: A Christmas Story. The film is better than the book because in the book the "story" takes place in only one chapter.

Big Fish is another where the movie is better than the book.

The most fascinating transition to me was Dune '84. Lynch had everything right, key points included, until the third act when everything fell to shit. And then to tack on that ludicrous, inane final sequence really did it in. So much potential in that movie, and the book is almost unfilmable if you ask me.

Don't get me started on the miniseries though haha.

I actually loved the '84 Dune film. As for the book, I was never able to get through the first couple of pages. Granted that was about 20+ years ago and the book was probably too advanced for a young teenager.

It really was a better film then many have purported it to be. The casting was spot on and the effects really good for that era. Lynch's additions--the navigator, weirding modules--were pretty obvious and unnecessary. And rain was the LAST thing Arrakis needed (would have killed off the sandworms and collapsed trade). But Lynch was really under fire when the studio meddled in what was supposed to be under his compete control. I digress...

If I read the book, I don't want to see the movie, since I know what's going to happen.

Same goes the other way round.

corplhicks wrote:

The most fascinating transition to me was Dune '84. Lynch had everything right, key points included, until the third act when everything fell to shit. And then to tack on that ludicrous, inane final sequence really did it in. So much potential in that movie, and the book is almost unfilmable if you ask me.

Don't get me started on the miniseries though haha.

I LOVE that book! I'll have to agree with that. If they would have been forward thinking, they could have made it into a trilogy, because there is no way that you can make that book into a single film! Stupid meddling studio.

Arrakis didn't turn green until much later in the book series.

The miniseries had the content correct, but it looked terrible............