General Discussion

There has been a smattering of book-to-movie (or TV show) adaptations in the past few years. I'm always curious when I run into people that rush to read the books before seeing a movie. These are the same people that almost always seem to be disappointed when they later walk out of a movie that was "nothing like the book" or that "left out major plot points". Because of this, I decided to always wait for a movie or TV show to come out first, before diving into the book series they are based on.

So far, with the Harry Potter series, it has allowed me to first enjoy the movie (for the most part), and then enjoy the book even more when I read what "really" happened in more detail. I feel like the same is going to happen when I dive into The Hunger Games after my roommate finishes the first book. I've heard that The Hunger Games was written completely from a first person perspective, meaning we are going to get a lot perspective on what the main character was thinking throughout the entire story, something the movie completely misses due to it lacking constant narrative dialogue (thank god).

Anyone else out there with me? Are there good arguments for reading the books before watching? I enjoy reading, but I've always enjoyed film more, and other than the LoTR trilogy, I've generally found that movies based on books disappoint after you've read the book first.

More often than not, I just read the book. Movie adaptations have a habit of turning out to be shitty, so I wait to hear if it's any good or not.

I typically just watch the movie, or just read the book, but when I know something is going to become a movie often will just wait for that to happen instead of reading the book, since it's more effective from a time standpoint. I mean, there are a lot of books out there, and the 1% that become movies? That's 1% I don't have to read. Sometimes I do anyway, for curiosity's sake or because I particularly like the movie or because I want to have context to discuss the adaptation, but otherwise I consider it an inefficient use of time.

@litrock said:

I typically just watch the movie, or just read the book, but when I know something is going to become a movie often will just wait for that to happen instead of reading the book, since it's more effective from a time standpoint. I mean, there are a lot of books out there, and the 1% that become movies? That's 1% I don't have to read. Sometimes I do anyway, for curiosity's sake or because I particularly like the movie or because I want to have context to discuss the adaptation, but otherwise I consider it an inefficient use of time.

That's an interesting, and very pertinent argument for not reading the books. Personally, I will only read a book after watching a movie if I feel it will add something to the movie experience. That, or when I'm informed about what a terrible depiction of the book the movie was. I will probably not read the book series for Game of Thrones because from what I've seen/been told, the show is an excellent depiction of the books. I mean, they have the author with them on set, for pete's sake!

I usually end up watching the movie first despite having an affinity for books. Movies tend to be cheaper and quicker and I can gauge my interest in the book by the movie most times. Sometimes I don't even realize there is a novel or book until afterward so sometimes it's a nice surprise.

For me it's a damned of you do, damned if you don't sort of situation. If you read the book before you see the flick, you'll inevitably be distracted/disappointed by what was left out. Even if the adaptation is a longer format miniseries/TV show, there's bound to be a part that you loved that was just totally changed/omitted. But if you see the flick before you read the book, if you ever plan on going back to the text, you'll have the film's interpretation of everything stuck in your head.

For example, I'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter books and read them all before seeing their respective films, but because it was such a long series in the making and I had inevitably seen the first movies, I really would have rather been able to read without Harry sounding like Daniel Radcliffe in my mind.

So I basically just judge every situation by which version I think I'll enjoy more, on a case by case basis.

@smi1ey said:

I will probably not read the book series for Game of Thrones because from what I've seen/been told, the show is an excellent depiction of the books. I mean, they have the author with them on set, for pete's sake!

Yes, the show is excellent, but if you like it you should by all means read the books. Just because an adaptation is good, doesn't mean that you can neglect the source material! Specifically in this case, where the show (Game of Thrones) is by necessity structurally quite different from the books. They are amazing and add depth that you'll never be able to appreciate without reading, as is the case with most film adaptations, no matter how good they are. The idea that it's somehow a "waste of time" makes no sense at all. If both versions are good, and you like one, experience the whole thing and it'll be better!

@gangly said:

Yes, the show is excellent, but if you like it you should by all means read the books. Just because an adaptation is good, doesn't mean that you can neglect the source material! Specifically in this case, where the show (Game of Thrones) is by necessity structurally quite different from the books. They are amazing and add depth that you'll never be able to appreciate without reading, as is the case with most film adaptations, no matter how good they are. The idea that it's somehow a "waste of time" makes no sense at all. If both versions are good, and you like one, experience the whole thing and it'll be better!

Thanks for the recommendation. It all comes down to whether I want to spend my time alone reading, or watching other shows and movies with my fiancee (who enjoys pretty much all the same things that i do). Now I'll throw one more bone into this thread:

audio books!

If Game of Thrones had an audio book series, I would absolutely buy it, as my commute is around 45 minutes round trip each day. That way I can spend my alone time enjoying a book, and spend my home time with my woman, without compromising either! :)

I find it too hard to get into a book these days so I just generally skip reading the book and watch the movie version instead.

@smi1ey said:

If Game of Thrones had an audio book series, I would absolutely buy it, as my commute is around 45 minutes round trip each day.

SO GLAD YOU MENTIONED THIS! I'm actually "reading" the audio books, and they're fantastic. The narrator Roy Dotrice does a wonderful job, and he was actually a friend of George R. R. Martin from the old Beauty and the Beast TV show in which Dotrice acted and Martin wrote. He uses a seemingly endless number of different voices for the characters (500 different characters his wikipedia page says), and they're all immensely compelling while never being too cartoony. He's actually also playing a role in the second season of the show too!

So yes, by all means, watch the show and listen to the books. Amazing works of fiction, both.

@gangly said:

@smi1ey said:

If Game of Thrones had an audio book series, I would absolutely buy it, as my commute is around 45 minutes round trip each day.

SO GLAD YOU MENTIONED THIS! I'm actually "reading" the audio books, and they're fantastic. The narrator Roy Dotrice does a wonderful job, and he was actually a friend of George R. R. Martin from the old Beauty and the Beast TV show in which Dotrice acted and Martin wrote. He uses a seemingly endless number of different voices for the characters (500 different characters his wikipedia page says), and they're all immensely compelling while never being too cartoony. He's actually also playing a role in the second season of the show too!

So yes, by all means, watch the show and listen to the books. Amazing works of fiction, both.

Wow that's awesome! So are the seasons based on books? As in, is Season 1 just the first book? I don't want to accidentally over-"read" and spoil the TV show. :P

@smi1ey: The first season is primarily based on the first book. There are maybe 2 things I can think of in the first season that were in the 2nd book, but it's nothing vital at all.

I watched the show (twice through actually) before I read the books, and I loved it. I have good friends though who watched it after they read the books and they enjoyed it just as much, so you don't have to be too concerned about "spoiling" anything. Also, the books are pretty massive and the 2nd season starts next week, so no real chance of over-reading just yet! ;)

@Vichyssoise: You make a great point. A film can be used as sort of a cliffs notes to a novel because you can get emotion and story from performances far easier than text you might be having trouble with. I'm now a huge Shakespeare fan, but I never really connected with his stuff until I saw The Hidden Fortress (Kurisawa's interpretation of MacBeth) and Much Ado About Nothing. Reading those plays after experiencing the films was an entirely new, much more enriching experience. (this is a big part of why I think it's crucial to play movies in children's English classes. It works!!!)

@gangly said:

@smi1ey: The first season is primarily based on the first book. There are maybe 2 things I can think of in the first season that were in the 2nd book, but it's nothing vital at all.

I watched the show (twice through actually) before I read the books, and I loved it. I have good friends though who watched it after they read the books and they enjoyed it just as much, so you don't have to be too concerned about "spoiling" anything. Also, the books are pretty massive and the 2nd season starts next week, so no real chance of over-reading just yet! ;)

Thanks! I don't have cable so I'll be relying on good ol' HD torrents to watch the series each week. Yes, I torrented the first season. Yes I bought the Blu-Ray as well. ;) I'm still definitely going to wait to read the books till after their respective related seasons, but I'm glad to know they enhance the experience (as expected). :)