-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Film or book?
- Thread starter denny
- Start date
pink shadow
New Member
Well, it depends on the subject, I suppose. For example, I'm not enough into Johnny Cash to read his autobiography, but I would love to see Walk the Line. However, if it was a book on a subject that really interests me or by an author I like I would definitely read the book first.
denny
New Member
That's a fair comment, and I think I would have to agree with you on the example that you gave. I'm not a big JC fan either, but wouldn't mind seeing the film.
On the whole though, especially with fiction, I'd choose the book every time. I always feel that with films, too much of the work is done for you, i.e. you're shown what the characters look like, what they sound like, whereas with a book, there's a certain element of personal interpretation required.
On the whole though, especially with fiction, I'd choose the book every time. I always feel that with films, too much of the work is done for you, i.e. you're shown what the characters look like, what they sound like, whereas with a book, there's a certain element of personal interpretation required.
pink shadow
New Member
I agree with you completely. If you've seen the film first you tend to think of the characters the way they were interpreted in the film, and we all know that filmmakers use a lot of artistic licence. If you have read the book first, you always tend to get a bit disappointed with their choice of characters and the way they chose to tell the story.
MonkeyCatcher
New Member
I try to read the book first, as books are far more thorough (you can read what the character is thinking, which is very hard to pull off convincingly on the big screen), and as Denny said, it enables you to use your imagination more. I love reading the book and then going to the movies to see how they have interpreted different scenes and characters compared to how I did.
Plus, I tend to get bored about 1 1/2 hours through a movie, no matter if I'm enjoying it or not. I just can't sit there for 2 - 2 1/2 hours and not fidget and wish the movie was over. Funnily enough, the only movies I saw over the summer holidays where I only started to fidget in the last 1/2 hr - 15 mins were The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and King Kong - probably the two longest that I saw
Plus, I tend to get bored about 1 1/2 hours through a movie, no matter if I'm enjoying it or not. I just can't sit there for 2 - 2 1/2 hours and not fidget and wish the movie was over. Funnily enough, the only movies I saw over the summer holidays where I only started to fidget in the last 1/2 hr - 15 mins were The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and King Kong - probably the two longest that I saw
Poppy1
Active Member
If a book is quite complicated, I like to see the film first and then I seem to get a basic understanding of what is going on, which a book then pads out a lot more. Particularly in the case of biographical films of relatively unknown people, it makes you want to find out more about them. The Aviator was a movie that made me want to find out more about Howard Hughes (a very strange man). You just have to be prepared for the fact that a lot of films use a great deal of poetic licence in their interpretation of books.
beer good
Well-Known Member
I disagree with the Johnny Cash example - actually, it was pretty much reading his autobiography, one of the best of its kind and a great read for anyone even remotely interested in music, that turned me into a fan, not the other way around. Don't think I'll ever watch "Walk The Line" though, for the same reason I don't go to Elvis impersonations.
On the second point, though, I'll agree with Daryl? except that I have never and never plan to read a "book of the film". I have on more than one occasion seen a movie before I read the book, and it almost always made reading the book a bit less rewarding. Given the choice, I'll usually tackle the original first. Depends on the writer and director, though.
On the second point, though, I'll agree with Daryl? except that I have never and never plan to read a "book of the film". I have on more than one occasion seen a movie before I read the book, and it almost always made reading the book a bit less rewarding. Given the choice, I'll usually tackle the original first. Depends on the writer and director, though.
beer good said:
A fair point. Though I have read a few 'book's of the film', I can't think of a single instance where it was an improvement on the film. I think once or twice there may have been added scenes that have perhaps clarified the film in question, but offhand I don't remember any examples.
beer good
Well-Known Member
I was permanently scared off "books of the film" when I went shopping for "Dracula" many years ago, and only as I handed the book over to the cashier did I realize that what I almost bought wasn't Bram Stoker's "Dracula" but "Bram Stoker's Dracula" - a novel based on the 1992 film based on the book, and written by two people I'd never heard of before or since.
mrkgnao
New Member
I saw Brokeback Mountain yesterday (it was great), and now I do want to read the story "after the fact", though I usually agree with the book-first attitude.
There are two reasons, even though there are things the movie could portray in ways (misunderstand me properly: not better, differently) the story couldn't - e.g. the scenery, the kissing scenes, the wind at Ennis' and Alma's first house, Lureen's half-smile when Jack told off his father-in-law, Jack's boyhood room.
First of course, a written story usually adds layers and depth in a way a film can't. Second, I seem to be able better to remember, and take to heart, stories when I read them than when I see them. I'm just a words person I guess
*mrkgnao*
There are two reasons, even though there are things the movie could portray in ways (misunderstand me properly: not better, differently) the story couldn't - e.g. the scenery, the kissing scenes, the wind at Ennis' and Alma's first house, Lureen's half-smile when Jack told off his father-in-law, Jack's boyhood room.
First of course, a written story usually adds layers and depth in a way a film can't. Second, I seem to be able better to remember, and take to heart, stories when I read them than when I see them. I'm just a words person I guess
*mrkgnao*
Almost always - the book
Unfortunately, adding visual imagery (such as in movies) limits the imagination. That being said, I absolutely love movies. They always seem to disappoint after you read the book, however. Case in point...Along Came a Spider by James Patterson...good book, awful movie.
http://www.jonathanzemsky.com
Unfortunately, adding visual imagery (such as in movies) limits the imagination. That being said, I absolutely love movies. They always seem to disappoint after you read the book, however. Case in point...Along Came a Spider by James Patterson...good book, awful movie.
http://www.jonathanzemsky.com
Fantasy Moon
kickbox
It would depend on the subject for me as well. If it was fiction that I was generally interested in, I'd probably read the book first. However, films with limited releases in theaters will sometimes get the book read before the film is viewed (i.e. The Virgin Suicides & Breakfast On Pluto).
