Do you read the book ? Then see the Movie ? Read the book, disapprove of the adaption ? See the Movie ? See the Movie & get into the Book ?
Basically, Books or movies.
Feel free to post any specific examples of this occurance.
I feel movies are almost as good as Books, but Books slightly more important,
because in many cases, Books pave the way for great movies.
I'm fine with both though I like to read the books before seeing the movie … on the other hand there are movies based on a book and I wasn't aware of that so after seeing the movie I read the book ...
I do both.
I'm not gonna deprive myself of a good movie just cause I haven't read the book.
Most of the times I don't check if a movie is an adaption, but if I do, I'll read the book first.
If done correctly then movies can be just as good as the books. Some examples:
Apocalypse Now - Based on the book Heart of Darkness, they took the basic plot of the book and set it in Vietnam.
Die Hard - Based on the Book Nothing Lasts Forever, the book was excellent but the movie was extremely awesome as well.
The Shining - While there were a lot of changes and cuts from the book the movie is still really good.
1984 - Based on the book of the same title it totally captured the feel of the book.
I usually skip book adaptations so I can't think of any poor ones off the top of my head but there are quite a few.
I'm more inclined to watch movies these days.
Books are (usually) the brainchild of a single person, whereas movies, despite the popular notion of where creative control lies (either the producer, director, whatever) are a product of teams with obligation to those who foot the budget. So, the quality of a movie should theoretically be what one expects going in based on the production team, whereas books can be all over the place.
While I would like books to be better than expected, I want to avoid books worse than expected, and most of the books I've chosen to browse recently have been far below expectation. Consistently, in fact.
Movies at least I can sort ahead of time, so I know not to waste $7 - $10 on a ticket/DVD and 2-4 hours of my time. If there's an actor I hated/didn't like in a previous movie, chances are I won't like that actor in a new one. That gives me more info when making a decision. With single-author books, I have no idea.
Books will always be better than the movie adaptions.
Movies are the equivilant of sequels. They're never good as the original
Originally Posted by Drake_Cloud
He didn't come back because he thought he could win, he came back because he's a goddamn hero and that's what heroes do.
Books will always be better than the movie adaptions.
Movies are the equivilant of sequels. They're never good as the original
Quoted for truth.
Anyway, I mainly read the book, but I do see the movie as well sometimes.
If I've read the book already (and I liked it) and the movie looks good, I'll see it. If a movie looks interesting and I haven't read the book, I'm not going to read the book. Unless the movie just wows me to all hell.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I know there's a lot of complaints about the Harry Potter films not being as good as the books. The film 'Yes Man' was more or less COMPLETELY different from the books yet both were great.
Twilight series is pretty faithful to the books too since both are complete shit.
The movie first. Perhaps the book later. Unless I have accidentally read the book first.
Acting in books is usually aweful. Very wooden.
I'm incredibly lazy when it comes to reading, unless the story of the book has really, really intrigued me. It's sad, I know, but it's hard to find a book that I may possibly like. Though I'm working hard on finding what kind of genre entertains me the most and keeps me focused. So far it's just comics and manga, lol.
So I'll just wait for the movie.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I know there's a lot of complaints about the Harry Potter films not being as good as the books.
Indeed. The Firts two films by Chris Columbous, Philosopher & Secrets,
were awesomely faithful, they included almost everything really.
But then Alfonso Cuaron took over & we had the challenges of the books getting longer & longer, and also different directors on each, Until David Heyman finally settled in.
I liked the look of Alfonso's Prisoner of Azkaban, his view on Hogwarts is very good. And I think i like it best, over Columbus pretty oil pastel of Hogwarts Castle. And as much as I miss Richard Harris - Gambon's "THROWS HARRY UP AGAINTS WALL" Dumbledore is really growing on me.
But yeah, the most faithful of the adaptions has to be Philosphers & Secrets,
almost all the stuff from the books happened in the films.
I will always prefer the books over movies. There is just too much plot in most books to contain in a 2.5 hour film. A great example is Harry Potter.
Or with Classics, say Gone With the Wind. I read the book first. Scarlett is a very strong female character who goes against all the social norms. I love Book Scarlett. Movie Scarlett just comes across as a whiney bitch, I hate her.
