Poll: Read OP. Pick one of each
Poll Options
View poll results: Read OP. Pick one of each
a. I prefer to read the book
50 35%
a. I prefer to watch the film
42 30%
b. I tend to read the book, then watch the film
80 57%
b. I tend to watch the film, then read the book
44 31%
Voters: 141.
Page 1 of 2
And which do you generally do first? I usually read the book, like it, and check out the film, e.g. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (books better, but film is excellent too)

With the exception of The Godfather

I prefer reading the book first, because I find my imagination is better at picturing the words. Watching the film doesn't offer this flexibility

Example - In Cuckoo's Nest again, I imagine McMurphy to be this huge, tattooed lumberjack type character. Mad red hair, with a deck of cards in his checkered shirt

Although I thought Nicholson captured the character well, he just wasn't as physically overwhelming as I pictured him
Last edited by fender_696 at May 26, 2010,
Read the book, then watch the film to see how much they've raped it. Unless it's a film that I didn't know was a book, like V for Vendetta and Fight Club.
No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable

ITT: smart people saying 'book' and stupid people saying 'film'.

I prefer films .
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
Quote by hawk_kst
Films are shorter and much more exciting in terms of visuality and pace but books have so much more space to go in to depth and detail that a film just can't capture.
+ a large number

I definitely agree
The producers almost always mess up the point of the book. I don't mind if they change some things - the "expression" of the plot if you will - but try not to ruin the whole point of the story.

Case in point "I am Legend"

They F'ed up the whole point of the book! The title doesn't even make sense for the movie!

If they had named the movie something else I don't think I would have realized that it was related to the book.
Usually the film never stands up to the book, but book then film
Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everybody I've ever known.

Definitely the book first, then (maybe) the film. Watching the film is passive, you just sit there. whereas reading the book when you already know what happens is pretty difficult imo.
I prefer to read the book first, and then see the film. Most of the time I like to just read the book, and let my mind make a movie(if that makes sense). I think the movie normally leaves out key points in the books.
Quote by L2112Lif
I put a ton of my capital into SW Airlines... The next day, THE NEXT DAY these nutters fly into the WTC. What the hell? Apparently no one wanted to fly anymore, and I was like "What gives? God damnit Osama, let me win a fuggin' game!"
Definitely books only as my imagination allows me to immerse more than any movie period.
I can just disappear into a book and at times when i was in highschool someone would have to shake me cause i would hear the bell ring. I love reading.

side note i really hope they dont ruin Stephen Kings Dark Tower series by trying to vomit out movies and ruin my image of the awesome characthers
Knowledge is power
If I read the book first and then watch the movie I'm very likely to be hugely disappointed with the movie. So instead I watch the movie first, enjoy it, and then read the book so I can enjoy it even more.
The only movie that was actually better than the book for me was The Godfather.
http://groups.ultimat e-guitar.com/aa08s/

If you are looking for a clever and witty signature, you have come to the wrong place.
I like watching movies based on books I've read. It's interesting to see how well they do with it. Most tend to be a little disappointing though.

It's almost better to watch the movies first I think. You don't have any expectations about what will be in it, and I think you can enjoy it more. When you read the book first you are always left a little disappointed.

I think they did a pretty good job with Lord of the Rings considering how much they had to work with. They kept most of the important details, and didn't change too much of the story.

I was disappointed with the lack of Tom Bombadil and the Scourging of the Shire though. But I guess neither was really necessary to the telling of the overall story.
Both, in either order, I don't believe it makes a huge amount of difference. I don't ever think that a book is automatically better than a film, it's just how I saw the book, maybe I could one day make my own films of my favourite books, even if they've been done before. Adapting a novel to a film is a bloody tricky thing to do, I've stopped the silly belief of a film maker 'ruining' a book.

That said, I despised Spielberg's Empire of the Sun, ruined JG Ballard's book.
Quote by DrewsGotTheLife
yea man, who ever doesnt like pantera or think they suck doesnt like metal, end of discussion, they changed the freakin world n made history, so don't be sayin they suck, have respect, same goes for machine head n lamb of god cuz their good too
The Da Vinci Code book rocked my socks. The film, not so much. The advantage of a book is that if it's a particularly complicated storyline then you can refer back whereas with a film, unless you're watching off a DVD, you can't.

When I read the book I usually don't bother with the film because it destroys the mental images I have of the various characters and I can't really get into it as much.
Quote by CFH82
Ejaculate in MY moustache?!

Music is just wiggly air. Accept it or leave it.ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by boycew02 at May 26, 2010,
I like films, but I prefer books because they generally take you much deeper into the inner minds of the characters. Books a better to analyze than films IMO. Most films are just for pure entertainment (not all).

EDIT: And as others said, you can picture a story in a book however you want in your mind. In a movie, its already there for you.
Last edited by EnemyWolf at May 26, 2010,
Book, definitely. Most of the time, the book gets horribly distorted and violated in making the movie, seeing as they have to stuff the whole plot of a novel into around one and a half hours.
Films usually. Unless the book is really short I have troubles reading it. I can do audio books, though.
It depends, I mean if I read the book then watch the film. I get mad because the film skip a lot of things that could be added.
But if I watch the film then read the book, I'll still get mad.

I don't know
They made me do push ups in drag

I'm gonna have a really hard time if we're both cannibals and racists.

Don't dress as a whore, he'll thump you.

I'm a firework, primed to go off
The only movie I have seen that I thought was better than the book was "The 13th Warrior" (Based on "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton)

Michael Crichton is a good storyteller I guess but he's just not that good of a writer. If the writing in a book is poor I get hung up on it.
I usually only read books when ive seen the film, which is strange because films ruin books. its impossible to picture the characters any different from the actors who played them
My Gear

Fender Deluxe Players Stratocaster
Marshall DSL 50 with 1960A
Stupid question.

A lot of books suck ass and their film adaptations have quite easily surpassed them (or if one doesn't exist - could surpass them). Why favour one medium over the other?

In regards to which I see first... I'll stick with trying to see the films first. A bad film doesn't put me off trying the book whereas, irrationally, the reverse the reverse can (The Lovely Bones for example).
Last edited by red157 at May 26, 2010,
Quote by red157
Why favour one medium over the other?

Because the print medium generally allows for greater development in the elements of the story. As for films surpassing the book, like I said before the only one I can think of is "The 13th Warrior".
I like to read the film and then watch the book of course..
I tend to vote all the options just because I can.

~don't finkdinkle when ur supposed to be dimpdickin~
due to a large, well nurtured imagination, and my harsh critisism, i prefer the books. they allow one to create their own images of the characters, not what hollywood airbrushs for sex appeal.

EXAMPLE: my girlfriend told me to watch the Twilight movies. i said "no", it looked stupid (thanks to asshole fan-girls). but months later, in need of reading material, i picked up the Twilight books. those were good.

and lord of the rings kicks ass either way.
Hohner PJ-Bass
Fender P-Bass
Boss Bass Limiter Enhancer
Boss DS1
Beringher BXL3000

With me and my friends, if you can't name the artist or song name in the first 10 seconds, you're a waste of a human being.

Quote by MyoxisBass
but months later, in need of reading material, i picked up the Twilight books. those were good.

~don't finkdinkle when ur supposed to be dimpdickin~
Normally read the book first, not really even bothered about the film to be honest, I don't often read a book then go and see the screenplay.
Looking to buy a Fender Jagstang, u sellin?
I prefer to see the film first. That means if they've murdered the book, I can read it and get the full picture of the story. Whereas if I read the book and watch a crap film with half the plot ripped out, I find it more difficult to erase the shoddy screenplay conversion from my mind.
Definitely the book. I like reading, and you get to imagine and picture things better yourself, which is part of the fun.
Page 1 of 2