Book or movie 1st?

BigG67

I've always been an avocate of reading a book before seeing the film version but twice lately I've had reason to rethink.

I read Let the Right One In and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (I'm on a Swedish bent at the moment!) and then saw the movies. Both films were really well recieved and I did like them but wasn't as bowled over as the reviewers - Mark Kermode rated LtROI as highly as any last year. Both times I flet that the sublety and character development was missing, which is natural given the need to cut the text down.

So what do forum members think...book first or film...?

Crapaud

They are different mediums. Sometimes the book is better than the film, sometimes the other way around.

The trouble is that, whichever way round you experience them, it creates an expectation that isnt always realised.

In general I prefer a book first approach.

brin

Book 1st for me too, to many films have been a huge disappointment compared to the excitement generated by the author of a good novel, must say tho 'Misery' was an exception, as close as could be to the book.

guinea

I try to read the book first otherwise I can't help but picture the actors from the film.

Your mind and the author should decide what the characters look like, not a casting director.

prawny

I generally like to see the film first so that I'm not dissapointed. I can only think of one time the film was better than the book - High Fidelity obviously.

But

guinea wrote:

I try to read the book first otherwise I can't help but picture the actors from the film.

Your mind and the author should decide what the characters look like, not a casting director.

Is a good point. Hmmm.

craker

Is the film adapted from a book? Or is it a novelised screenplay?

I'd like to meet the folk who read Star Wars first and then try the film to see if it reaches their expectations...

_Brun_

This is weird. Yesterday afternoon my flatmates were discussing these exact same movies and the topic of book or film first came up. Somewhat unhelpfully, I can't remember what the conclusions were.

BigG67

_Brun_ wrote:

This is weird. Yesterday afternoon my flatmates were discussing these exact same movies and the topic of book or film first came up. Somewhat unhelpfully, I can't remember what the conclusions were.

:shock:

I was firmly in the book first camp up 'till now but these have made me question that. I'm absolutely sure I'd have taken a lot from the books even after seeing the films but do believe the films were spoilt to an extent by it being the other way around.

Could be that so often the films just aren't as good as the books but in these cases I think they are.

Pross

A 2 hour film can never do a good book full justice so it is better to watch the film first IMO otherwise I'm just thinking "that's not right" all the time. I really wish I'd watched the Bourne trilogy before reading the books as the films changed pretty much everything!

Heckler1974

Two films that in my opinion were far better than the books were:

The Dumas Club - Arturo Pérez-Reverte which was made into The Ninth Gate, a pretty drab book about book collectors chasing lost chapters of an Alexander Dumas book turned into a cracking occult thriller.

Falling Angel - William Hjortsberg which was made as Angel Heart. Again pretty dull book which the film follows fairly closely but squeezes every ounce of atmosphere out of it.

+1 on Bourne books, read them after seeing the films and couldn't believe how dire the books are.

Pross

+1 on Bourne books, read them after seeing the films and couldn't believe how dire the books are.

I guess that sort of proves a point - I was disappointed in the films after reading the books and especially as the films had been credited with the Bond films having to moderise :?

passout

Lord of the Rings made a good film but I couldn't stand the book - tedious. Usually it's the other way around.

HonestAl

If I'd have read the book version of Blade Runner ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K Dick) I'd probably not have gone to see one of my all time favourite films.

Conversely if I'd seen Dune on the big screen before reading it I'd certainly not have read a brilliant book

Perhaps it's just sci fi that's so contrary!!

bobtbuilder

I think each case is unique.

As pointed put above, there are examples where the book is better and vice versa.

Also, some books can have major changes when made into a film, and the result is that both are excellen, but very different. I'd use "Q & A" which was made into Slumdog Millionaire as an example of this.

However, if a book is released after a film it tends to be dire (and usually just an excuse to wring some more money from a successful film).

Going back to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I saw the film first and am currently reading the book. Both are excellent, and I'm very impressed by how close the film remained to the book.

Ben6899

I made a point of reading 2001 and 2010 before watching each movie... it definitely helped with understanding 2001 which, without the book, could easily come across as mere self-indulgence on Stanley Kubrick's part!

BigG67

bobtbuilder wrote:

Going back to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I saw the film first and am currently reading the book. Both are excellent, and I'm very impressed by how close the film remained to the book.

Ah ha..that's my point . Not is the book or film is better? What I mean is if they're both good then I now think the film should be seen first.

In "The Girl...." movie I missed the build up of the relationship between Salander and Blomkvist and the slow story of why he moved to the island (hope you've got that far) and his relationship with Erica. All necessarily cut from the film but when you know they could be there they felt missing.

I'm also going to struggle with the way they plan segue into the 2nd movie given how the 1st book ending differs from the film.

Likewise with LtROI the relationship between Eli and Oskar developed far too fast in the film ONLY because of how slowly it happened in the book. The bullying was so much worse in the book because it happened more often and was more emotional...again had to be cut from the film

verylonglegs

Pross wrote:

+1 on Bourne books, read them after seeing the films and couldn't believe how dire the books are.

I guess that sort of proves a point - I was disappointed in the films after reading the books and especially as the films had been credited with the Bond films having to moderise :?

The connection with the Bourne films and the books is actually really rather loose when you consider the book content and its politics, the only real similarity was a guy called Bourne with memory loss who worked for the government at some point in the past. I read the books in the early nineties so treated the films as a seperate creation really and as a consequence still look on them both in a good light.

guilliano

In general I am disappointed by the film if I read the book first. Prime example (although it was actually a very good film) was The Green Mile. The bodged execution scene in the book made me feel physically sick, but in the film I thought nothing of it.

The Bourne books are another good example. The films are very loosely based on the books, but the story is completely different. Would be interesting to see a film version of The Bourne Legacy, where he is hunted by his "dead" son.