Reading the book after the movie?

[kristen jones]

^ pretty much exactly what i was saying

 

[The Wolf]

I prefer watching the movie and then reading the book. That way I have an idea who the characters are so I can follow who they are in the book better. Also the book always gas more to it, either in scenes or depth.
I don't get stuck with the movie visuals when I read. For instance when I read "The Maltese Falcon" I don't see Bogart, I see in my mind a blond satan.

Wolf

 

[AJK001]

There's a film by John Carpenter called Vampires starring James Woods. The movie is (much) less than amazing - it is based on John Steakley's Vampire$, which I guess few have heard of or read. I'm not too sure if the book has stood the test of time, but I remember enjoying it immensely, it was a great (and quick) read.

I just recently re-read the book, first time in over 12 years, and as far as I'm concerned it stood the test of time. I remember when I first read it that it had a note on the back saying "Soon to be a major motion picture", which didn't happen for years. I liked the movie but the book was so much better.

I like reading books that are based on movies, because as someone already said they are usually based on earlier versions of the script and also things that might be cut out of the final edit are usually in the book too.

 

[joeranger]

no spoilers
Just finished reading Enders Game after seeing the movie first. I loved both.
The book provided the "inside look" at what people were feeling and their motivations.
It is the equivalent of holding an object in the dark after seeing a picture of it.

 

[Solo4114]

I really didn't find the movie Hunger Games to be vastly different than the book. There were a few minor changes and some small things left out, but other than that it matched up VERY well. In fact once I had it at home I went back and read a chapter-viewed a chapter-read a chapter, etc... and it matched up quite nicely.

I do see what cpltony is saying about letting yourself envision vs. letting the movie do it for you. And when I have read first in the past that has been the root of the problem in terms of my disappointment and nitpicking, because the film didn't look like *I* envisioned.

But what should be remembered is that just because *I* envisioned it a certain way doesn't make that way right or the way the film does it wrong. This is why I've been saying that from my experience it's been better to watch first and read second because you avoid that whole problem and are able to just take the director's vision as is. Then when you go back and read you *may* be stuck with that vision as you read.... but if you've got a healthy imagination (as I do) that can be replaced with your own vision as you read.

This.

Also, I prefer to read the book after the film because I almost always end up frustrated at how the film took such short-cuts, and end up liking it less. By contrast, if I watch the film and read the book, my enjoyment of the film usually isn't diminished by the book being better.

However, in some instances, the film IS better than the book. Case in point: L.A. Confidential. The book is way longer, way more byzantine (not in a good way), and ultimately way less satisfying a read than the film.