Puck Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 I always try to read the books first if it's my kind of story (but for things like Twilight I won't bother) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayted Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 Movies for me. I know I lose out a lot with not reading but to be quite honest, I don't have the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
†Emotional Outlet Posted January 8, 2012 Report Share Posted January 8, 2012 I usually try to think of books and movies as two separate things. I try not to judge a movie against a book, or vice versa. Because usually, everything that's in a book does not fit in a movie. Sometimes, however, a movie can blow a book completely out of the water. I think some things work better in movies than they do in books.I may compare the two, but I won't say "That movie was dumb because it didn't match the book."This. Everything she says.Sometimes movies just do it better than the book. Consider:Chuck Palahniuk praised the faithful film adaptation of his novel and applauded how the film's plot was more streamlined than the book's.And sometimes the books are just better than movie. They are two different ways with their own upsides and downsides of conveying a story and can't really be compared fairly. I generally don't compare the two--if a movie isn't faithful to the book, as long as it's still a good movie, I don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanco Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 Movies. I don't care what any one says about how books explain more, movie's don't require as much reading. I'ma lazy fuck. : ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINDOGGZ Posted January 9, 2012 Report Share Posted January 9, 2012 i now read the book after the movie so as to not ruin it i find that this way i feel like its extended version of the movie be hind the scene type thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToxicGod Posted January 10, 2012 Report Share Posted January 10, 2012 I don't read books at all, just watch the movies. The only books I read are educational ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KewaleEEE Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 For me, I don't like to read books, so I usually watch movies and seldom read the books.In sometimes,I either see the movies and read the books such as Naruto the movie-Naruto manga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overkill321 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 for the most part i like books once in a great bit i like to see the movie unless it is something i mite be in to no mater if they dont follow the plot all too good or not at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savitix Posted February 28, 2012 Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 I watch the movie first and see if there is even a reason to give the book a look or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarcasticWench Posted September 29, 2012 Report Share Posted September 29, 2012 Books first. You get so much more out of the books then the movies. But there are very decent movie adaptations of books out there that I also enjoy (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefirststar Posted September 30, 2012 Report Share Posted September 30, 2012 I usually like to read the book first. Unless it's something I didn't know was based on a book. I usually find that out after seeing the movie, so I don't have a chance to read the book first, obviously.All. The. Time.Most, I read the book first, but unless I don't realise there was a book, I see the movie first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AurionEmblem Posted October 26, 2012 Report Share Posted October 26, 2012 When possible, I opt for both (especially if the writer was in any way on-set or involved with the filming of the movie), since the two media offer different ways of looking at what happened. I used to be a book supremacist (though I still enjoyed the movies), until I realized just how different Bourne Identity was from the book. I still generally prefer the books, but I'm a lot more open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
†Emotional Outlet Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Speaking of books versus movies, a recent Cracked article came up that briefly mentioned the argument.I love reading books. And I love movies. And I'd love to live in a world where a discussion about one doesn't have to lead to a discussion about the other.I agree. If I'd read a better version of The Walking Dead, I would probably like it. However, until such time as the Walking Dead show gets so much better that it retroactively makes the first two seasons enjoyable, I'm going to go ahead and continue not to like it.The comments also make a good point that each medium should be able to stand alone, particularly in the case of film/television adaptations. A movie based on a book shouldn't have weird, vague parts that can only be understood if you read the book, especially if they're hugely plot-relevant parts and may possible impede enjoyment of the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Welsh Paddy Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 If there is a lot of hype about either books or their film counterparts, I tend to avoid them until the craze has died down. When The Hunger Games became very widely known about, I didn't want to hear anythng about it. A few weeks ago, I finally read the books, and thoroughly enjoyed all three of them. Then I watched the film, and I thought it was terrible. I might have enjoyed the film more if I hadn't read the books first, but I doubt it because my reasons for disliking the film revoled around the actors and their lack of personality.I usually read the books first, even though I try to hold off reading them until I've seen the film. My curiosity usually gets the better of me. But then, almost all the time, I enjoy the books much more than I do the film adaptions.Having said that, I was once reading a movie magazine, and there was an article for an upcoming (upcoming at the time of reading) Swedish film called The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I hadn't heard anything about it prior to reading that article, but it got me interested and I proceeded to purchase the books. I really liked the books, and when the film came out on DVD (The Swedish release, not the other remake, which I still remain unsure of whether I should watch) I bought that and I can easilly say it is the best film adaption of a book I have ever seen. It was equally as good as the book. Unfortunately the film for the book's sequel wasn't half as good, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pra7ul Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 Books takes lot of time so instead of reading it, i would prefer watching Movie Directly . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
†Emotional Outlet Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 How long a book takes for me to consume depends on how much I'm interested in the story--the density of the material comes second. I inhaled the Hunger Games in a single weekend. I did the same for the Harry Potter books when I was still interested in them. Not long ago I picked up the Infernal Devices series. It's a young adult series, so nothing terribly heady, but it just didn't click for me. It took me a week to read the first book and I never finished the second one.Outside the realm of YA, I have a soft spot for Stephen King because I grew up with his books. Those were the books I stayed up late into the morning reading, books I brought with me into the bathroom. I rarely, if ever, feel that kind of immediacy, the need to know what is happening in a movie. I can take or leave most of them. Television series actually have a greater chance of keeping my attention than movies, even if they're trilogies or otherwise part of a series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fallinrain97 Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 imo, books are always better than the movies, majority of the time. Something about books suck you into more... but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hideyoshi Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 i like both really but some movies can be better than the book,e.g hunger games was better than the book i thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
†Emotional Outlet Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 What about the movie did you like better than the book? Is it because of the shift in narrative voice or do you prefer the pacing better? Legit curious, haha.I know people get really up in arms about that kind of stuff, like it's a sin a movie can be better than the book, but there are cases where even the author thinks the movie conveyed the story better than the book (see: Fight Club). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puchihime Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Some things are better as a movies, some are better as books. For the longest time I have thought Twilight was better as a book but I have to say the last movie was as good as the book. I also think Grisham books are better as movies, it's neat to see what someone else's idea looks like portrayed in color because usually it is nothing like what I imagine while I'm reading a book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.