Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonJim
Why?
|
It's axiomatic.
That said, books are far more important to me than film and I want my experience of the book to be unadulterated by the interpretation of a large group of people.
Also, there's something to be said for experiencing the content in the order it was produced. If it were a novelization of a film, I'd just as soon see the film first.
Quote:
|
If you read the book first, then the movie will nearly always be a disappointment. It can even incite anger and other negative emotion as you are forced to critique its accuracy, consciously or unconsciously. If you watch the movie first, then you have no preconceived notion about how it should be performed. Reading the book later will either validate or correct it, while avoiding the disappointment.
|
I find this to be rather absurd. Any reasonable person understands that the film version of a book has to involve significant cuts and changes and the choices made are interesting in themselves, if you've read the book first. Anger? It's a movie! Anger seems misplaced, to put it mildly.
The bottom line is that whichever you choose, the first will be a spoiler for the second. I prefer my books unspoiled, thank you
very much, and can look to enjoy a film for performance, set direction, scenery, costumes and so forth that are in addition to and in support of the story being told.