DoYou Read The Books That Are Made Into Films?

[Temporal Renegade]

Since it seems that a lot of books are being used as source material for films, I'm just wondering if anyone makes it a point to read a book, before they see the film it's made into?
How about after you've seen the movie?

Mainly I'm asking, because I've known people who've read Lord of the Rings before they went to see the movies, just to compare.

Plus, if it weren't for the movie, would you have read the book at all in the first place?

 

[madurobob]

Not me. I read a lot and I'm always happy to hear a favorite book will be made into a movie - though I'm not always happy with the end result. Like you, I have friends who will read the book once they hear it is being made into a movie... and I don't understand that. Knowing that movies often change key aspects of the book, why intentionally set yourself up for disappointment?

I suppose occasionally there may be something to be said for gaining a better understanding of character depth and motivation by reading the book. But, I doubt that is very often the case.

However, seeing a movie might make me want to read the book afterwords. If I enjoy the movie, I'll enjoy the book that much more.

 

[Bikewer]

Since I read a lot, I will have occasionally read the book first...However, since I tend to read science fiction and not "popular" novels I miss a lot of those.

Often the differences are striking. I recall seeing an odd little movie called "Morituri" (from the Latin) with Marlon Brando as an ex-pat Austrian during the war seconded by British Intelligence to help capture a shipload of rubber.
Very dark film....

Some years after I watched it, I chanced on a copy of the book and found that the ending was entirely different...Much more upbeat.

Couldn't decide which was "better".

 

[Piscivore]

Knowing that movies often change key aspects of the book, why intentionally set yourself up for disappointment?

I don't understand this sentence. One presumes that the disappointment stems from an expectation the movie would follow the book closely, but if one knows going in that movies often change key aspects of the book, why would there be disappointment?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

The only movie that spurred me to read the book, or story in this case, was "I Am Legend".

The story was better.

 

[madurobob]

I don't understand this sentence. One presumes that the disappointment stems from an expectation the movie would follow the book closely, but if one knows going in that movies often change key aspects of the book, why would there be disappointment?

Because of the parts that get changed. Sure, you expect it to be different, but you don't (I don't) anticipate the specifics. "I know it will be different, but they won't change X because the story only makes sense when X... WTF, they changed X!"

 

[Piscivore]

Because of the parts that get changed. Sure, you expect it to be different, but you don't (I don't) anticipate the specifics. "I know it will be different, but they won't change X because the story only makes sense when X... WTF, they changed X!"

Ah, okay. I guess I'm pretty easy-going in that respect.

 

[I Ratant]

I read a lot, much more than I go to films.
If I see a book-based movie, I may pick up the book later.
I've observed that most films made from books are poor, relative to the book used.
The film may stand on its own, but compares badly to the book.
"Master & Commander" the film was very good. It introduced me to the series of books, which are also very good.
From what I've seen of "I, Robot" on the tube, it sucks badly all by itself, and has little but the original title by Asimov left of Isaac's craft in it.
"The Name of the Rose" was good as a film, and as a book.
A couple of the Hornblower movies were as good as the books.
Some movies which glorify bad men such as Jesse James or Billy the Kid, the books really show what monsters these losers were.

 

[CJW]

I had already read LOTR a few times, long before the moives came out, but when the movies were announced, I did re-read them, to refresh myself with the material. It didn't really enhance or detract from my movie going experience, though.

The only other book I picked up in advance of a movie of was the Watchmen graphic novel.

I have read a few books as a reuslt of watching a movie or seeing a play, including:

Les Miserables
Wicked
The Godfather
Jaws

and probably many others, I can't recall off the top of my head.

Chris

eta Like The Harry Potter series! I picked them up after I watched Prisoner of Azkaban and heard that the book was much better.

 

[rsaavedra]

I finished reading Lord of The Rings precisely before the first movie installement was out. Same happened for Godfather, and Watchmen (btw I preferred the movie to the comic book). I'm sure there are some others that I can't remember right now. The Hobbit I've already read (even before LOTR btw).

On the other hand, some movies I've purposely seen before reading the book. Oedipus Rex is one example, and Macbeth is another. Those are plays, and plays were created to be performed and seen and heard rather than just read. So I try to see those (either live or in movies) before reading them.

Books I read after seeing the movies: Dune, 2001 Space Odyssey, Akira, Ghost in the Shell.

Books I want to read (but haven´t read yet) after seeing their corresponding movies: I am Legend; No Country for Old Men.

 

[TieDyedGuy]

If a movie looks interesting I will read it before it comes out or if I see a movie and like it, I will read the book.

Currently reading Shutter Island for that same reason

 

[†= Crap!]

Reading a book after seeing the film spoils the reading experience for me, but not the other way around. So if there is a book that I really want to read that is, or has been made into, a film I will try to read the book first.

To me the reading experience is much more crucial than the film experience. That's because the reading experience last dozens or more hours, whereas a film only last a couple of hours.

 

[Symbol]

I've observed that most films made from books are poor, relative to the book used.

Books demand 40 hours (or whatever) to read and an active engagement of the reader's focus and imagination.

Films take 2 hours to watch, with the visuals, voices, music and concise story-line requiring almost no active mental participation.

There is no comparison, and the movie-going-AND-book-reading public will mostly say "The film was such a disappointment"; it is to be expected.

I'll inevitably expect the book to be better than the film.

The only time I recall a movie making me think, "Ah, good that this was filmed, it really adds to the novel" was White Oleander, the Janet Fitch novel, popularised by Oprah and made into a 2002 film starring Michelle Pfeiffer.

The use of the colour white was an addition that went beyond the novel, and one that gave the film added value for someone who had read the book.

Even so, loads of the subtleties of the novel never made it into the script. Understandably.

A (semi-autobiographical) novel that I look forward to see the movie of is the upcoming Shantaram, an awesome story by Gregory David Roberts (eventually, one day) to be released as a Johnny Depp vehicle.

If Shantaram the film can portray the colours and sounds and smells and energy of, and passion for, India in the same way that the astonishing book does, I will forgive the 38 hours of absorbing plot and characterisation that the film will be forced to leave out.

 

[Piscivore]

Books demand 40 hours (or whatever) to read...

Films take 2 hours to watch...

That's a specious comparison, as the input rates are not the same.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Read LOTR first time in 1970 (with a lovely tropical background and explosions to make the battle scenes more realistic.)

My wife, a children's librarian, herded me to see the first Harry Potter, then made me read the books so she could argue about them with me.

I read The Congressional Investigation into the Attack on Pearl Harbor before seeing "Tora, Tora, Tora."

One thing I always consider. The movie is about the world created in the book, it is not the book transfered to the silver screen. The difference is important.

 

[Ranb]

What I Ratant said.

I sometimes pick up a book after seeing that it was made into a movie, it does not matter if I saw the movie or not. Watching the movie frequently does not spoil the book at all. Blade Runner, Bicentennial Man and I, Robot are perfect examples. It would be interesting to see a movie based on I am Legend, I, Robot, Starship Troopers or Bicentennial Man instead of the ones they titled as such.

Over the years I have learned to greatly lower my expectations whenever I buy a ticket. But at the same time I have decided to walk out on movies instead of waiting till the end for them to get better or tell myself that the price of the ticket means I need to stay in my seat. Alien 4 was the movie that made me decide to walk out in the future, and I did so when watching Mission to Mars and Bandits.

Ranb

 

[I Ratant]

Books demand 40 hours (or whatever) to read and an active engagement of the reader's focus and imagination.
[/quote}
.
I can polish off most of the books I mentioned in a couple hours.
.

Films take 2 hours to watch, with the visuals, voices, music and concise story-line requiring almost no active mental participation.

.
The film "Master and Commander" -demanded- audience participation from the very first scene!
What where those strangely shaped objects swaying gently?
The hammocks the sailors slept in, back then.
Paying attention to the rest of the plot was enjoyable following that first teaser.

 

[Morrigan]

Books demand 40 hours (or whatever) to read

You're doing it wrong.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Plus, if it weren't for the movie, would you have read the book at all in the first place?

I would never have read any Elmore Leonard stories had I not first seen the movie "Valdez is Coming" as a teenager. Leonard is a good short story writer.

I read LOTR decades before the film came out, and had read all of the Harry Potter books well in advance of the films. As a film, Da Vinci Code was not quite there: the book was a very enjoyable read.

DR

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I read Starship Troopers in high school (1964 to be exact). When the first wave of "bugs" came storming across the screen during the first preview I nudged my wife and said, "That a Heinlein book!" I was wrong. The title is the same, and some of the characters have the same names, but it's not the book Heinlein wrote. He didn't write on used toilet paper.