Do you prefer or read the book first, or watch the movie?

Usually, I prefer to read the book before I see the film, because once I know how the story is going to end, I often don't want to spend the time reading the book. But there have been some exceptions to this.

When American Psycho came out at the cinema, I hadn't even heard of Bret Easton Ellis, but my boyfriend at the time was such a fan that he made me go to the cinema with him. I loved the film so much that I asked to borrow the book from him so I could read it after seeing the film.

Similarly, I went to the cinema to see Trainspotting and then bought the book by Irvine Welsh shortly after.

I mention this as I am currently reading "Skagboys" by Irvine Welsh which is the prequel to Trainspotting.

Which do you prefer? Reading the book first or watching the film?

 

I do like reading the book first before seeing the movie. It is true that you will know what will happen next, but it seems like some one will always change things for the movie adaption. I have read Frankenstein, Lord of the Rings and Jurassic Park. I enjoyed each movie, but the changes to certain characters and certain situations were bothersome. People will not always want to see movies that are extremely long, so I also understand why changes to movies based off books occur.

However, I will still stick with reading the book first before seeing the movie. Reading about the characters, the surroundings and motivations are indeed captivating.

 

I also like to read the book first, before going to see the movie. When I go see a film based on a book that I have read, I usually become much more interested in the overall plot of the movie. After all, if I have made the effort to read the whole book before going out and watching the film, you can bet that I'll be paying far, far more attention to any plot holes or tiny details that, otherwise, I would not be focusing on too much.

The thing I like the most is noticing the parts that are different in the book and in the movie, because these are the kinds of changes that generate the most interesting discussions about both versions, especially in cases when the movie changes the overall mood of a scene into something different than that of the book.

 

I prefer to watch the movie first, and then read the book. The movie is life set before your eyes. The story is being told in living color. It has become a living entity of which can be memorable forever. But all movies are fast paced and short on time. So in order to get the complete story I take time to read the book version.

The book version has all the details that are missing from the movie. It fills in all of the parts for a greater understanding of what the writer is trying to convey, becoming a deleted scenes storage bin. The movie becomes more understandable after reading the book.

Then I go back to watch the movie again. With the book in my mind, the movie version is even more alive, memorable and enjoyable. You can get a ton of value from both the movie and the book together.

 

Ideally, I like to read the book first, and then if I like the book I'll feel inspired to watch the movie. Reading the book is like taking the full semester at school; watching the movie is like reading the CliffsNotes. I find for the most part that books are much meatier than movies, and therefore better, although sometimes I'll like the movie version of something waaay more than I liked the book.

Sometimes, if I don't think that the book will be a good read, or if I'm not really really into seeing a certain movie (and therefore not interested in the book at all), I'll invest a couple of hours into watching the movie first before purchasing the book. If the movie proves interesting enough to me, then I'll more than likely be moved to buy the book and dedicate some time to reading it.

 

I usually always want to read the book first and then maybe watch the movie if I’ve heard something good about it or if it has any actors I like. But this tends to lead to me watching the movie and going ”nope, that’s not how it happened” and ”this didn’t happen in the book at all” and ”who even is this guy?” for the whole duration

I generally agree that the books are almost always better, but there’s one exception: Fight Club. The book’s a bit incoherent and the movie is just that great. From what I’ve read, the author actually prefers the movie too.

 

I prefer reading the book first. I feel that the book offers more detail and mental imagery. This way, when I finally watch the movie, I get to see how close the movie compares to the book. Oftentimes, the book is better.

 

I would preferably read the book first before watching the movie. There are several book-based films these days which skip loads of good parts from the book adaptation. Despite the fact that there are still book-based films which are better than the book, I think I'll still check out the book before jumping into the film. With that, perusing the book gives me a heads up about the origin of the story, at that point I'll simply look at both renditions subsequent to viewing the film.