BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Film vs. Book

**Posted by Kittyhawk** May 23, 2018 9:36 am

I have a friend who still hasn't watched Lord of the Rings, because she wants to read the book first so as to be able to pictures everything herself. But when I've loved a book I've generally been disappointed by the movie, because they can hardly ever be as rich as a well-written book (even some tie-in novels are better than the film they are based on...) So nowadays I watch the movie and then if I want to delve deeper into the story, I get the book.

Which way round do you do it?

**Posted by SusiGo** May 23, 2018 11:02 am

It depends. For example, I read Matt Haig's "How to Stop Time" straightaway (and I am glad I did because so far there have been no news about the film). I read "Parade's End" and then watched the show and was impressed by how well they managed to adapt this unadaptable series of novels for the screen. I read "Call me by your name" and will probably not watch the film because, frankly, I did not like the book at all. Now I will have to think of a case where I watched the film and then read the book. I am sure I have done this but I cannot think of an example at the moment. I seem to be the "first read, then watch" type.

P.S. I think I did "Frankenstein" the other way round. I must have watched an old Boris Karloff film long before I even knew the story was based on a (rightfully) famous novel.

Last edited by SusiGo (May 23, 2018 11:05 am)

**Posted by Vhanja** May 23, 2018 11:47 am

I would prefer reading the book first. Because if I watch the movie first, I will picture the characters/places/landscapes from the movie while reading, instead of using my own imagination.

**Posted by tonnaree** May 23, 2018 6:04 pm

With me it varies.
Usually I will read the book first.
Often, a movie will be made of something I've already read so no problem there.
Sometimes it just depends on how I feel.

**Posted by besleybean** May 23, 2018 6:09 pm

Generally I would always prefer to read the book first...but I usually don't manage it.
I believe I had seen Sherlock Holmes(probably Rathbone), long before I read any.

**Posted by Liberty** May 23, 2018 6:50 pm

I don't have any rules. More often than I'd like to admit, a book on my "to read" list has ended up being released as a film before I've got round to reading it! In that case, I'll quite happily watch the film first, and possibly not even bother reading the book afterwards.

**Posted by besleybean** May 23, 2018 6:54 pm

See unfortunately that's what happens to me...I've bought books of films Benedict is gonna be in(and in some cases he then isn't!)...but once I've seen the film, I just don't then bother with the book.
Possibly the only exception to that is Twelve Years a Slave, when once I'd seen the film I just thought: that will be far too harrowing to read.

**Posted by Kittyhawk** May 25, 2018 8:48 am

I had a short look at Twelve Years a Slave - it's online at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45631 - and found it unreadable. But that might be the only case where I preferred a book-based film over the book, ever. Though I still haven't gotten round to reading Fannie Flagg's Fried Green Tomatoes...

But what generally happens is that I watch a movie and enjoy it, and then I read the book and realize how "wrong" the movie was, how many things were changed or left out to compress several hundred pages into the standard movie format. Or how wrong the actor was for the role and how bad the characterization (I'll be forever grateful that I read Lee Child after watching Jack Reacher. The other way round I would have hated it.)

The only movie on my "watch when it comes to the library"-list of which I've read the book already is the one about the 100-year old man who runs away from the retirement home. I deliberately did not watch it when it was in cinemas because I had just read the book and loved it so much that I figured the movie had to be disappointing.

**Posted by Vhanja** May 25, 2018 9:19 am

Yeah, that is my problem too, Kittyhawk. I struggled a lot with that with Harry Potter, the changes they made from the book. I've come to terms with it a bit more now, though, it is what it is. It's a different medium playing by different rules.

The best experience I've had when it comes to enjoying both the book and the movie was Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep/Blade Runner. The book and the movie were so different, even though the story and the setting was the same, that I got quite different things out of the two. I could honestly enjoy both because they gave me different things.

**Posted by besleybean** May 25, 2018 3:38 pm

I was 'fortunate'(?) in that I never read any Harry Potter...so the films were nice and new and nothing was spoiled for me!

**Posted by Kittyhawk** May 25, 2018 5:31 pm

With Harry Potter I was lucky too, because I never understood what all the hype was about. I read the first book and found it nice enough, but not extraordinary, and forgot it almost immediately. That said, I don't exactly love the movies either - and forget them immediately as well. Have I even watched all of them?

As for Blade Runner and the book it was based on - I never finished the book, because I wanted to delve deeper into the film and it was so different. Maybe I should have another look at it...

Btw, I've thought of one exception to the "film is a compressed version of the book" generalization: The Hobbit. My peeve with those films is that I feel it's an insult to Lord of the Rings to give a a 120 page children's book the same film treatment as the 1000 (?) page epic. But I understand that Peter Jackson and Weta wanted to repeat the Tolkien experience.

And another book where I actually preferred the movie is The Devil Wears Prada (I watched it first). Not only because of Meryl Streep, but also because the first person narrator in the book gets rather on my nerves. Though the end makes a lot more sense in the book...

Last edited by Kittyhawk (May 25, 2018 5:34 pm)

**Posted by besleybean** May 25, 2018 5:33 pm

That's being very generous to Peter!

**Posted by Kittyhawk** May 25, 2018 5:35 pm

Why? Did you hate the Hobbit movies?

**Posted by besleybean** May 25, 2018 5:37 pm

No I actually prefererd The Hobbit films to LOTR...
But I just thought the idea was to make as much money as possible!

**Posted by Kittyhawk** May 25, 2018 5:42 pm

That was certainly part of it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with making (lots of) money doing something you love. And from the very little bonus material that's on the standard edition DVDs (which are all the library has, and I feel no need to buy The Hobbit) it looks like Peter Jackson & Co. enjoyed The Hobbit as much as LOTR (of which I have the SEE, and I watch the bonus material regularly because I find them really motivating) - maybe more so, because the schedule was not as insane as for LOTR, especially The Return of the King.

**Posted by Yitzock** May 27, 2018 9:30 pm

I agree that Blade Runner and DADOES are different and each have their own merits. I saw the film first and enjoyed the novel for different reasons and enjoyed comparing them as I went along.

I don't really have rules about whether I read or watch first. I think it usually depends on how easily accessible the film is vs. the book for me at the time and how good a review the film got (which can affect how badly I want to see a film or wait until it's available for home viewing).
I always enjoyed the Harry Potter books as much as the films. I have seen the first film countless times, but it's the only one of the books that I have never read (I've tried a few times and never got far, I don't know why). I love the films and the books.
The other day I thought of a film I saw before reading the book and liked it just as much (other than Blade Runner), but I've forgotten now.
It really depends on how good of a film it is overall. I enjoy seeing the interpretation of the filmmakers on a film, since films can work a bit differently from books and there's not single way to adapt a book into a film. There are certainly attempts that did not work out as well as others, but there are also a lot of classic and critically acclaimed films that are based on books. Film adaptations are pretty much as old as film itself.

Last edited by Yitzock (May 27, 2018 9:32 pm)

**Posted by tonnaree** May 28, 2018 4:07 pm

Just had a case of seeing the movie and now needing to read the book even more. Watched Annihilation the other day. I the trilogy of books that this was adapted from but had not read it. Decided to see the movie anyway. And it's not that I didn't understand the movie, but I'm certain they had to cut a lot of detail for the film and that it would be worth it to read and then read the other two books before they make any more movies.

**Posted by Kittyhawk** June 12, 2018 9:22 am

I've just discovered that I don't always need the book - or other documentation. And that there's cases where I just don't care about the inaccuracies in the movie. I'm sure there's lots of things that are wrong in "Florence Foster Jenkins" (wonderfully played by Meryl Streep) - but I just don't care. While it's a nice enough film, the lady is hardly even a footnote in music history, and the way the protagonists are portrayed, nobody needs to feel insulted...