Movies before books? Books before movies?

[afuna]

[Poll #1155065]

(This comes from a discussion that aveleh and I are having, because I haven't seen/read The Princess Bride, but I have both the movie and the book on hand, but started reading the book first).

Comments

[anchan218.livejournal.com]

With the Princess Bride I did the same thing you're doing (but I guess in my defense I didn't know the book existed until after watching the movie?) Generally I read the book before the movie is made, though.

[lady-angelina.livejournal.com]

Preferably, I would read the book first before the movie is released, especially one that I would want to see on the big screen. But there have been a few instances where I saw the movie first before reading the book, and it in no way harmed my enjoyment of the book.

Of course, I'm a bit weird in that it is literally hard to spoil me on something, and I happen to be a horribly slow reader, so it would make sense for me to go ahead and see the movie now while it's still out, and to read the book later. Obviously, this doesn't apply to most people. ^^;;

By the way, as far as "The Princess Bride" goes, I've both seen the movie and read the book, in that order (because I didn't know the book existed). Both are definitely worth it. Now, I've heard from other folks that they loved the movie better than the book, but I thought the book was at least as good.

In any case, enjoy! :D Edited to add: D'oh! Looks like you already did. ;)

A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.

[habeo.livejournal.com]

Some postulates which we *will not* question (erm, ok, fine, my ideas and things that I think hold true):

1) Nine times out of ten, the movie will pale in comparison to the book, in all it's wonderful glory.

2) Movies tend to be more graphic and direct with their depictions of what's happening. There is less room for imagination, but at the same time, there is more hand-holding in terms of directing what you, the audience, should see, hear, etc., but they at least keep your feelings and thoughts preserved.

3) Books on the other hand allow for more imagination development, and it's extremely possible that you can interpret what you are reading in a COMPLETELY different way than the movie based on it will depict it.

4) Movies based on books rarely stick to the whole story; directors take some liberties.

I think that if you watch a movie, then read a book, there is less disappointment on the road for you.

You will not feel so cheated, as, say, when you read "The Tales of Tom the Tiller of Tomatoes", only to find that the movie rendition didn't quite get the feel of the book, or wasted 3 hours of your life (and 150 php) by being bad, or by saying that there was horrible casting with so-and-so actor as the lead man.

On the other hand, if the movie was bad, yet you have yet to read the book, there is a slightly better chance the book, with the help of your imagination, will turn out better, and in doing so, you will feel redeemed. If it still fails, then the movie was doomed to fail to begin with, but at least now you know it's not the movie's fault, and that in the end, it did try given the shabby quality of the book it was based on. You will then pity the director, who despite having to work with the novel, actually came up with something *rather* decent.

(To my knowledge, no movie-based-on-a-book sucked so bad that it wasn't worth watching. But, if you treated yourself to the awesomeness of the book first, you might feel otherwise.)

Watching the movie before reading the book provides a framework for your imagination to work with - good or bad, you be the judge, but I like the idea of staying on track.

You do not lose anything by watching the movie first, since it is an interpretation of the book, which has many ways of being read. While the story is still there, and the characters already introduced, much of the story in the book cannot be spoiled by a single persepective.

Reading the book before the movie though, spoils the movie, as it has to live up to the book, and no matter what the movie does to wow you or change the story, you already know the full basis of the story, which the movie will take in.

(ex. LOTR movie's liberties on the LOTR book like the MOVIE SPOILER END SPOILER, which never happened in the book, thus, doesn't spoil it.)

So that's why I think the book should be saved for last.

Whew! Sorry for the spammage.

Re: A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.

[lady-angelina.livejournal.com]

To my knowledge, no movie-based-on-a-book sucked so bad that it wasn't worth watching.

I beg to differ on this: The sequel to the "Neverending Story" movie was what I thought to be an unwatchable disgrace and discredit to the second half of the original book. ^^;; The first movie did the book justice, though, IMHO.

Re: A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.

[habeo.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, in fairness, I meant that in the context that you watched the movie first before reading the book.

Once you read the book (and feel that the book is awesome), you will naturally want the best treatment possible for the book on the silver screen. This will be ultimately based on your perception of what the book meant to you, etc., and this is why I think you feel that way.

That said, my sweeping generalization was unjustified. I never saw the Neverending Story, I'm afraid, and neither have I read the book (on the pre-text that It might never end? XD). If the second part was so unwatchable, then I shall have to take your word for it, lady_angelina

Re: A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.

[lady-angelina.livejournal.com]

Actually, I had in fact seen both movies before I even knew the book existed. And even without having read the book, I already thought the second movie was awful. Reading the book itself afterwards kind of confirmed that for me. ;)

And there are a number of books I read for which I saw the movie versions afterwards, that I thought were "eh" compared to the book, but they were at least watchable, or in some cases, very nicely done. But as I meant to point out, there are still some that were very poorly adapted to the screen, that I would actually leave (or shut off the video player) in the midst of it.

If the second part was so unwatchable, then I shall have to take your word for it, lady_angelina

Hence the number of qualified statements I made, saying that it was my opinion alone and that another person might think it was the best movie ever made. It was just a specific example I thought of immediately. *Shrug*

Re: A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.

[habeo.livejournal.com]

No worries. I mean, this discussion on "how to go about watching movies and reading books that they are based on" is about matters of personal preferences and opinions. :)

Additionally, you've piqued my curiosity, I think I shall find a copy of that book.

Re: A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

I've never watched the sequel, but I think that it deviated from the book quite a lot in a bad way?

Although I've never read either the first or the second novel either. :)

Re: A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.

[aveleh]

That's pretty much my reasoning too. Books are almost always better and so they should be saved. While there is a disadvantage with watching the movie first because you won't necessarily build the world to the same degree in your mind, you're much less likely to be disappointed by the movie if you watch it first. It also makes me way less mad when they make huge changes to the story to appeal to a movie audience.

Using Harry Potter as an example, there's just no way to fit that many pages into a book. So watching the movies first makes sense, because you can then get awesomely fleshed out by the books. However, I always read the books first, since I could put enough time between me and the books that it was much easier to watch the movies as an interpretation of the book rather than a movie of the book.

Re: A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.

[habeo.livejournal.com]

...it was much easier to watch the movies as an interpretation of the book rather than a movie of the book.

If you put it that way, then yes, there will be more satisfaction in the end.

At the end of the day, it's always about appreciation of the material, whether it's a movie or the book. It's always hard to compare both as equals, because they aren't really.

But when you place it in that context, the comparison becomes possible and plausible. :)

[pauamma]

Read the book and claim I'll see the movie someday. That day blessedly seldom or never happens.

[afuna]

Now I'm curious! Have you ever seen a movie that you actually liked?

[pauamma]

Oh, I have. :-) (Although I don't see many movies, actually.) But usually, it's either a movie not connected to any book, or one where I'm unaware of the connection.

[afuna]

Hah, okay. I guess that with your being so anti-television, I was wondering if it extended to movies as well :-)

(Luddite)

[pauamma]

Luddite? Mwah?

[afuna]

No, I'm talking to the other person who left the comment above.

(Okay, granted, it's unfair to accuse you of being a Luddite when you're more technically ept than I am)

[pauamma]

Not more (IMO) - just in different spots. :-)

[afuna]

*blinks*

I... thank you.

[pauamma]

It's true. You know much more about Javascript (and whatever GreaseMonkey uses), CSS, and Ruby than I do, to list the more obvious areas. :-)

[afuna]

GreaseMonkey uses Javascript with some domain-specific functions. And, but, and. But, those are all easy! At least, I mean they're all pretty much designed to be :-)

[pauamma]

Maybe they are, or aybe they feel easy to you because you mastered them. The point is, you *did* master them, and I didn't. :-)

[afuna]

Maybe they are, or aybe they feel easy to you because you mastered them.

That reminds me of something I've been thinking of for a while, only I can't quite find the words for it right now.

[pauamma]

I'll wait. :-)

[idonotlikepeas]

The book is better in 99.9% of cases, so if you read it first you'll be disappointed in the movie.

Note that this assumes you want to experience both. There are many cases where you should just read the book and skip the movie completely. >.>

[afuna]

I don't mind the movies as much, but I hate movie covers with a fiery passion.

[herrsatan.livejournal.com]

I like to read the book first so I can complain about what they changed when they made the movie. I'm trying to break myself of that habit though.

[afuna]

Haha. I used to do the same, though I didn't do it consciously; each time, I'd only realize what I was doing when I was halfway through the movie.

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

I guess it really depends. In your case, Princess Bride (both the book and movie) are classics.

For more recent stuff, it depends on the direction of the film - did it have generally favorable reviews or just a cash cow exploiting the book? Hehe.

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Also, you have to remember that the film is an adaptation of the book - 300 pages vs 2 hours isn't really a very good apples-to-apples comparison, but comparing them is still fun nonetheless, as long as you don't totally bash the film for changing this or that (unless it was REALLY bad).

[afuna]

No! I try not to do that! Mostly I poke good-natured fun, when I can. Though I did grumble loudly at some parts of LOTR ;-)

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Haha! You've watched the Extended editions, I presume? :))

[afuna]

Yes! My brother bought them ;-)

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Nice!

I didn't know you were a fan of the novels! :o

[afuna]

I think what made me saddest was that they didn't have time for Tom Bombadil.

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Well, unfortunately, he was a bit of filler (if in terms of the movies).

[afuna]

Yeah he was. I guess I can understand, but I really like him :(

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Hihi.

He wasn't in the Hobbit though, no? They're making that into a two-part film, but I kind of feel that it's gonna be too long. Or maybe two 1 and a half hour films instead of one 3 hour special, just so they can milk the profits. XD

[afuna]

Hmm. No, he wasn't. I didn't realize they were making a Hobbit film! Who's the director?

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Yes they are! None other than Peter Jackson himself!

And, in a very Peter Jackson-esque move, they are going to make two (not one, BUT TWO!) films out of The Hobbit. :))

Serves two purposes, imo: to fit lots more content in (although I do remember the Hobbit was about half or three-fourths the length of any of the Trilogy?), and to sell more. :)

[afuna]

Oh! Thanks for the information. Yeah, the Hobbit was about three-fourths the length of any of the Trilogy. OTOH, I vaguely remember that it had less of the sweeping descriptions of landscape?

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Yes, I believe it did have less of those (which take up a huge part of LotR). XD

More riddles though! Haha!