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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
A Long-Winded Comment In Defense of My Vote.
Date: 2008-03-16 05:33 pm (UTC)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.