Is it just me?

[Wabbit]

Something Nosferatu Man said has gotten me thinking. Yes, that is the creaking and straining noise you hear!

Normally I don't like to see a movie if I have read a book. Although, sometimes I have broken this rule. I went to see Lord of the Rings but then I did so because I didn't actually like the books but thought it would make a wonderful movie.

I just normally don't like to see the movie if I have read, or am going to read in the future, a book because the world of the book is in my head and in my heart. It's real to me. It's mine! If I see the movie it will pollute my world and vision with it's own images and I don't like that.

Anybody feel similar?

 

[Freya]

I'm sure there's another thread on this

I've got to the point where if I see the films coming out and there's a book, I just read the book and refuse to see the film. The book's always better. Apart from Honey I Shrunk the Kids. That was a crap book.

 

[Wabbit]

I think it has been mentioned before but I don't think there was a whole thread dedicated to the question. So many things get discussed here that it's hard to remember! I have trouble keeping track of what pants I am wearing. Sometimes I wear the wrong day pants and I get all confused. Anyway, I don't think there is but I am not gonna say there is not coz some smary pants will find it and prove me wrong lol

 

[Ashlea]

I always try to read the book first before seeing the movie, but I don't mind seeing someone else's vision of it. The English Patient, for example. Incredibly moving book, visually stunning movie. I enjoyed both LOTR versions, as well.

 

[hay82]

Depends on how I liked the book. If I really liked the book I'm more hesitant to watch the movie.
I find it interesting to see someone else's thoughts about a book, and it can probably make you see things you haven't thought of.. But the books are almost always better than the movie.

 

[Catalyst]

The books are usually better than the film! I was really disappointed with the Series of Unfortunate Events film. The acting and sets were fabulous but they just messed up the story. It could have been so much better....makes me sad.
I only like to watch the films of books i read because it brings them to life, even if it isnt as you thought it would be. Its still very cool to see a Harry Potter walking and talking or a Legolas riding and shooting his arrows. At the end of the day if you didnt like the film you still have the books and can still make up your own pictures in your head. The film is just another take on it.

 

[Jenem]

I always try to read the book before I watch any movie - but I always want to see the movie regardless of what I thought of the book. I especially itch to watch movies based on classics (I hunt them out after I read the book.) Sometimes the movie gives me an insight into the book, or brings up an element that I missed (prompting me to re-read the book.) If the movie stinks, I don't mind - it doesn't change my view of the book.

I guess it's because I love movies. But not as much as I love books!

Good thread, Sillywabbit!!

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I don't feel it's horrible now, but i always go see a movie to find out how much the forsaken people who think the movie is better then the book will be dissapointed! lol But seriously, if you think you'll get the same out of a movie then in a book, your sadly mistaken.

 

[Ice]

Depends on how I liked the book. If I really liked the book I'm more hesitant to watch the movie.

Same here - I rarely find the film adaptation to live up to my expectations, though LOTR is one of th exceptions

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I thought LOTR had so much stuff missing. There was one exception where I liked the movie better then the book, and that was with "Holes"

 

[Halo]

I don't really mind, to be honest. If I have read the book then I am always interested in seeing the film to see if they "got it right" in my opinion! I have also seen films based on books, enjoyed them and then read the book it was based on (as with LOTR ). As someone said, the books are nearly always better than the films though, because films have to miss so much out.

 

[direstraits]

I thought LOTR and the Harry Potter films were quite faithful to their origins. Of course not everything could ever be fitted into the movie, but I thought there were done very well. I enjoyed both books and movies in these instances.

I would go and see a film of a book I've read, but only if the movie is watchable. If everyone says it sucks, I save my money.

Other examples I can think of
The Firm - Writer: Grisham, Movie: Cruise
The book was way better, some moments of the movie irritated me because I knew it was so blatantly changed, but it was an okay movie.

Jurassic Park - Writer: Crichton, Movie: Spielberg
There were differences for both, but I loved both equally.

And who would say that The Shawshank Redemption wasn't a good movie?

ds

 

[cajunmama]

If I see that a movie is coming out that looks really good, I'll try to read the book first. Then I might watch the movie to see how the filmmakers interpreted things differently than I did. Sometimes they bring something more to it, but other times it is just a pitiful disappointment. Sometimes I just skip the movie altogether

 

[cajunmama]

And who would say that The Shawshank Redemption wasn't a good movie?

ds

My favorite movie of all time (Singing in the Rain is a close second)!! I just checked out from the library King's collection, Different Seasons and I am eager to read the novella that the movie is based on.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I thought LOTR and the Harry Potter films were quite faithful to their origins. Of course not everything could ever be fitted into the movie, but I thought there were done very well. I enjoyed both books and movies in these instances.

I would go and see a film of a book I've read, but only if the movie is watchable. If everyone says it sucks, I save my money.

Other examples I can think of
The Firm - Writer: Grisham, Movie: Cruise
The book was way better, some moments of the movie irritated me because I knew it was so blatantly changed, but it was an okay movie.

Jurassic Park - Writer: Crichton, Movie: Spielberg
There were differences for both, but I loved both equally.

And who would say that The Shawshank Redemption wasn't a good movie?

ds

I'm sort of a Harry Potter obsesser, and I thought the movies were horrible. I mean they're good to watch, but I'd definetly say the books was 200 x better. Like in Prisoner of Azkaban (teh Movie) every scene seemed like 3 minute clips, never really got into detail at all. Unless they make The Goblet of Fire 3 1/2 hours long, I doubt it will very in-depth because of the things the Triwizard Tournament involves (I have to say no matter what I'm going to see it because I wanna see how they make Voldemort look)

 

[Scratchy]

I just normally don't like to see the movie if I have read, or am going to read in the future, a book because the world of the book is in my head and in my heart. It's real to me. It's mine! If I see the movie it will pollute my world and vision with it's own images and I don't like that.

Anybody feel similar?

I feel exactly the same! That's exactly why I refused to watch any of the Lord of the Rings movies (a difficult task cosidering I'm in Wellington). But people don't seem to understand this reasoning and think that I am being melodramatic with my refusal.

I believe that watching a book based movie limits my imagination by dictating how details should look / be when I do read the book; worst still is how my mental images of a book are annihilated and replaced with images from the film if I had read the book first. Already much of my imaged LOTR world is destroyed with all the posters and trailers of the movie.

Like someone said before, I don't mind watching as long as I wasn't really interested in reading the book in the first place.

 

[direstraits]

My favorite movie of all time (Singing in the Rain is a close second)!! I just checked out from the library King's collection, Different Seasons and I am eager to read the novella that the movie is based on.

There's also another short in that book called The Body, i think, from which _Stand By Me_ is based on (River Phoenix movie). I've read neither the short nor seen the movie, but I heard both are excellent.

ds

 

[direstraits]

Like in Prisoner of Azkaban (teh Movie) every scene seemed like 3 minute clips, never really got into detail at all. Unless they make The Goblet of Fire 3 1/2 hours long, I doubt it will very in-depth because of the things the Triwizard Tournament involves (I have to say no matter what I'm going to see it because I wanna see how they make Voldemort look)

Of all the Potter books, I loved PoA the best. Having seen and loved the first 2 movies, I looked forward to seeing how they would film the third one, especially the time travelling bit. When it came out, I was totally blown away - it was brilliant.

For example, having read the book, I knew who threw the stone at Hermione from behind the bushes while they were hiding behind Hagrid's house. The film was able to make the scene, and subsequently resolving the mystery in a different point of view. I thought it was way cool.

About the only bad thing I can complain for all Potter films is Daniel Radcliffe. He *cannot* act to save his life, and I was surprised with the budget they had for the Potter films they couldn't spend it to find someone who looks like Harry *and* can act!

ds

 

[Ice]

I actually thought Radcliffe's acting had improved for POA (he still wasn't good but it was an improvement on the other two films) - I personally didn't enjoy the third film (though that was partially due to the casting) but i'll watch it again at some point and it may grow on me.