Should you read the book before you see the movie?

[Avi Perry]

YES! It has been my experience. 90% of the time the book provided a better experience than the movie. For the other 10%, reading the book beforehand, enhanced the movie experience.

[Marce]

Absoutely. My examples My Sisters Keeper was a great book the movie did the book no justice, was a fair movie. If I saw the movie first I would never pick up the book.

The Notebook - both were amazing to me, I can see how it enhanced the reading.

[haley mathiot]

my sister says to watch the movie first, because it'll get you interested in the book and you'll enjoy the book more. I say read it first so it won't be spoiled. the thing is the book is always better, so the movie is a let down. hence my sister's argument. of course, I don't watch movies, so there's my solution ;)

[June Goodwin]

I believe in seeing the movie first based on my experience with Twilight .When I went to see the movie, I had no idea Twilight was a book. It was only when I began to talk to people in the theatre that I learned of the novels. I really enjoyed the film. I had no prior expectations to compare it to. The book are obviously more detailed and I found reading it was an extension of my enjoyment of the movie.

I heard many people who read the book first, were disappointed in the film because they were disappointed in the changes made and many parts of the book that were missing. I only read the Twilight books after seeing the film and it works well for me. I'm reading New Moon now. I have to hurry, because Eclipse the film will be out in June and then I have to read that book!

[Mary (BookHounds)]

I am disappointed when the movie doesn't live up to the book. The Other Boleyn Girl was an example of that happening. They did a decent job with the Harry Potter books though. I prefer the book to the movie in most cases.

[Baba]

Always read the book first. The books always have more detail that there just isn't enough time or money to add to the film. When you see the movie then you can tell if the director and actors did their job.

[Greg Zimmerman]

Yes, the book will always be "better" than the movie, but it's an unfair comparison. I say read the book first, but enjoy each for what it is. Case in point: The Road. Brilliant book. Brilliant movie (but different than book)....

Greg
http://thenewdorkreviewofbooks.blogspot.com

[Nicole Hammerstad]

I would say that you should read the books first. I will say that New Moon was better I think as a movie and it was right on with the book.

[Rhiana]

I definitely think book first. I feel sorry for people who watched the movie of The Time Travelers Wife first, for example, as the book made such an impact on me, knowing the plot and how things end would spoil the reading. I thought the movie was decent enough, but so much less than the book.

[Emidy Shadmand]

Of course! The book begs to be read before the movie. Often, the movie doesn't include certain elements from the story, adds extra things, or rearranges them. If you haven't read the book before, you might be totally turned off from reading it after seeing a poorly made movie.

Emidy
Une Parole

[WonderBunny]

I think it depends. I think sometimes the movie can be more visually appealing then reading the book can be. Plus, sometimes I have no intention of reading the book. For example, I don't enjoy Tolkien's writing style and so have never read Lord of the Rings - but I love the movies and own them. I've read books that are movies now but still don't plan on seeing the movie too.

There are some movies that should be read first though. Watchmen is an example. The graphic novel with significantly increase your appreciation for the movie and all the little details that went into some of the cinematography.

[Bibliotropic]

Personally, I think that if you have the chance to read the book before seeing the movie then you should. The time constraints on movies mean that so much of the story has to be left out, and viewers miss a heck of a lot. The Harry Potter movies are the best mainstream examples of this that I can think of. The movies themselves are pretty good, quite enjoyable, but sometimes it feels like they exist solely to give better visuals to the people who already know the story off by heart, because they had to leave out so very much, sometimes essential plot points.

Take the movie version of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, for example. The title alone implies that the half-blood Prince is important in some way, but the concept alone gets less than half the attention it did in the book. Then at the end, Snape shows up and says, "I am the half-blood Prince." Watch the movie alone, and it all seems so random. Motivations and explanations get left by the wayside, leaving some people terribly confused. I can't count the number of times I've had to explain half the book to my mother because she watched the movie and didn't actually get enough of the story out of it.

So if you're a big movie-watcher, I definitely recommend reading the book first. If nothing else, it will enhance your movie experience. At a movie's worst, reading the book will tell you what the movie couldn't.

[Kerry Serini]

I ALWAYS read the book first. I find that I can imagine the book and enjoy it so much more when the actors cast aren't taking over my mental picture. Plus, reading first gives me more of a stance from which to critique the movie version, and to see what the director/writer has included/left out/modified from the original story.

I appreciate that movie adaptations make people interested in the original book and get many movie-goers reading, but I'd much prefer it the other way around for myself. If the book is good and the movie looks good. If the movie looks bad, I'll skip it so as not to ruin the enjoyment of the original book - i.e. Time Traveler's Wife, which was a fantastic book but didn't look like a great movie (nor was it met with good reviews).

Kerry, Entomology of a Bookworm