Movie Adaptations

[seagull]

I'm wondering people's views on this, do you read the book a movie was adapted from before the movie? Afterwards? Has there ever been a movie that you liked that you thought was better than the book or vice versa? Right now I'm reading Up in the Air by Walter Kirn and I'm enjoying it so far, I haven't seen the film yet. There are still some movies that I love where I haven't read the source material yet, Lord of the Rings being the most embarrassing.

P.S. - Feel free to move this if it's in the wrong place

[banjobama]

It depends. Usually I try to read the book first but sometimes I don't know there's a book or I'm just not that interested.

Usually I like the book better, but there are a few exceptions, one of which is The English Patient. I loved the movie but I thought the book was just 'meh.'

The movie adaptation of The Golden Compass was so bad it made me angry!

[happy_terd]

Watching a movie or reading a book has often made me want to enjoy the work through a different medium. I find it unfair though when people give the movie or stage performance a bad review (even if everything about it was wonderful) when it does not stay close to the original book.

As a lover of film and an avid reader I say "apples, oranges."

[Lady Blue]

In general (not a hard and fast rule), I usually either read the book OR watch the movie. I rarely do both.

I already see the motion picture version in my head while I'm reading a book, so I see no point in watching a commercial version of it, since the movie adaptation seldom lives up to the book IMO, and sometimes has no semblance of the original story line anyway.

Whereas if I watch a book-based movie (without having read the book), I'm ignorant of the character development and storyline details of the book, and am more likely to enjoy the movie for what it is, nothing more, nothing less. I likewise see no point in then reading the book upon which the movie was based.

I prefer to keep it simple.

There's a multitude of original work out there to be read and watched without complicating things by doubling up on a story.

For me, the result is often . . . anticipointment.

[dsvick]

Whenever possible I'll read the book first.

In most cases I don't get too disappointed when the movie doesn't follow too closely, I can understand cuts for time and having to explain things differently or through a different medium in a movie. But there have been a few that I thought were absolutely terrible, all of the Bourne Identity movies for one yes great action but it was all action for the sake of action and didn't do the books justice at all.

On the other hand, the few books that I've read that were based on a movie were pretty bad as well. And came across, quite accurately, as someone trying to make a quick buck on the current hot movie.

[poohbear_nc]

The worst mismatch between movie adaption & book that I can recall is "The Color Purple."

Wait - the Disney cartoon version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" versus the book - too.

[Sparrow]

I try to read the book first.

I've never seen 'Gone with the Wind', but I'm looking forward to watching it when I've finished reading it.

I think there's a surprising number of movies that are better than the book - often because the book contains passages of tedium that made it difficult to get through; e.g. 'Moby Dick', '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea', the Harry Potters etc.

[Solitaire1]

Often, if the book and movie are both out I prefer to see the movie before reading the book. This is based on my experience with the movie "Star Trek II - The Wrath Of Kahn." I read the novelization of the movie before seeing it. As good as the movie was, the novel was even better.

When I saw the movie, I was left a bit wanting due to how great the novel was. One thing that made the novel better was the additional story depth the writer provided. As an example, Saavik was a much deeper character in the novel than she was in the movie (for example, in the novel you find out that she is half-vulcan, half-romulan).

I had the same experience with the unabridged audiobook version of "Star Wars - Episode I - The Phantom Menace." The audiobook was much better than the movie and contained much more depth than the movie did. For example, it explains why there are only two Sith at any one time.

However, I won't wait for the movie if I want to read the book. Also, I don't expect the movie to be a clone of the book. Film and the printed page are different media and have different advantages and different limitations.

This brings to mind "Buffy The Vampire Slayer." Even though the TV series is over, it's being continued as a comic book (the current series is considered the next season). If I remember correctly, Whedlon made a comment that indicated that as a comic book the story can continue without the constraints imposed by a budget limitations and broadcast considerations.

When it comes to a movie/TV series based on a book/manga, I don't expect a clone of it. Rather, I expect it to be true to the original source while taking advantage of the different media. As an example, although there were changes from the original books in the movie version of "Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events" felt very true to the original books.

To use a more recent example: Today I purchased "Justice League - Crisis On Two Earths." Although it's not a clone of any specific comic book (although it does contain elements of the "Earth 2" one-shot), it is an outstanding movie that is true to what makes Justice League work. For me, the movie was so good that I had to watch it to the very end without interruption. It is rare that a movie is that good ("The Godfather" is one of the few other movies that falls into this catagory).

Sorry to go on a bit, thanks for reading.