This will be a reasonably short post because I don’t have a vast amount of experience on the subject to write reams and reams of words on the subject and it’s a pretty subjective topic anyway.
You are either one of those people who can watch a film after reading the book or you can read the book after watching the film, or you can refuse to watch a film because you’ve read the book and what could be better than reading the book right?
My first experience of this was seeing the Harry Potter films before reading any of the books. I loved the films. Then, many years later, I thought I’d try the books. I read the first one and – I’m not sure I dare say this – but I didn’t love it. I know. It was aimed at kids though. And not YA, but younger kids. I know the further along the series got, the more adult it became. Anyway, as I read it, all I could see was the film characters in my head and whole scenes playing out visually in my mind’s eye and not from what the author wrote, but because I had actually seen the visual representation. I felt as though I wasn’t getting a single moments enjoyment from the book at all. I tried the second book and it happened again. I just gave up.
Anyway, on Wednesday I went to see The Fault in our Stars (Book by John Green) in the cinema and this time I had read the book first. What would this experience be like? Can a film do such a wonderful and poignant book justice?
If I said I sobbed several times during the film, that might give you your answer. It was a beautiful film. It wasn’t over the top. It stuck closely to the book, simply cutting some scenes out, but not to the detriment of the film or book at all. Other than that, there were whole chunks of dialogue in there that were lifted straight from the book, it was wonderful to watch the book be brought to life.
So, for me, I’m a girl who can watch a movie after reading the book, but I definitely can’t go backwards and read the book after watching the movie. If I do see a movie, I’m afraid the book is then out-of-bounds.
If you do go to see The fault in our Stars, you will love it.
Can you read books and watch the movie, or the other way around, or can you simply only do one or the other? And if you’ve done both, what has been your favourite adaptation?
Cassidy Frazee says
I did a similar post like this a while back, comparing the differences between “The Walking Dead” comic and TV show. It’s interesting the changes made to move from one medium to another.
Margot Kinberg says
Thanks for your thoughts on this, Rebecca. And of course, I’m glad you enjoyed both book and film. I think one factor that also has to be considered is the quality of the film adaptation. Films that are faithful to the book and really do it justice are more enjoyable, I think, than films that are neither faithful to the book nor offer anything much innovative in themselves. That said though, I think that like you, I prefer to read the book first and then see the film.
realthog says
I’ve done the movie/book combination on plenty of occasions, and usually it hasn’t bothered me.
Recently I finally got around to reading Dorothy B. Hughes’s In a Lonely Place, upon which is supposedly based one of my all-time favourite films noirs, Nick Ray’s movie of the same name (with Bogart and Grahame). To my surprise I found that the novel and the movie are two entirely different creations, linked by little more than the coincidence of the two principals’ names and the fact that they live in an apartment complex! This was actually kind of good news for me, because I now have two artefacts to love rather than just one, as it were.
On the other hand, I also recently read Karin Fossum’s Don’t Look Back and then, just days later, watched the Italian movie based on it, The Girl by the Lake. I was pretty disappointed by the movie, which seemed to have discarded much of the book’s emotional richness in the name of necessary simplification, but then to have added a whole new and unnecessary subplot that seemed to echo part of the Wallander setup (cop, in absence of wife, has difficult relationship with daughter). What I still haven’t been able to establish in my own mind is whether, had I not read the book so soon before, I’d have enjoyed the movie far better than I did.
Alex J. Cavanaugh says
I can do either. The best adaptation was the LOTR trilogy. The worst was when I saw The Relic first and then read the book. The movie was awful in comparison, because it left out the main character.
readingwritingandriesling says
So much depends on the adaptation…and the book…I generally prefer just to read the book…but thinking back I think I have watched things like TV series Rebus which have added to my reading pleasure as I have a physical picture and accent and landscape to slot in to my imagination as I read, in fact I sought out the books after watching the show. I just don’t know….sometimes I have a character so clearly in my head after reading that when I see a film adaptation, for example the movies of the book by Stephanie Plumb or Lee Child – where the characters just didn’t meet my expectations – I felt disappointed. But then I caught a little of the Sookie Stackhouse (True Blood) when overseas watching pay tv, that I grabbed the book that was being advertised everywhere, the film tie in, but the book and the tv series just moved so far apart from each other….I continued with the books but not the tv show….this is harder to answer than I first thought….:)
realthog says
Which of the two Rebus series did you see? I thought the first (John Hannah) offered a better representation of the books, with their deep noirish sadness of worldview, while the second (Ken Stott) was more of a just-another-cop-show; on the other hand, it was a very good just-another-cop-show, so I ended up liking it too for its own strengths. But the first was, I thought, a quite impressive TV achievement, and deepened my appreciation of the novels.
readingwritingandriesling says
John Hannah was good, the other as you said a not too bad cop show 🙂
realthog says
I was startled that John Hannah was so good in the part: he’d have been one of the last actors I’d have thought of when casting it. Hm. Must try to find my DVDs . . .
readingwritingandriesling says
I didn’t know anything off him before
Glynis Smy says
I loved,The Time Traveller’s Wife, book but hated the film. I do want to see The Fault in our Stars!
Annalisa Crawford says
I read Fight Club after watching the film, and it wasn’t a bad experience. And I still preferred the book. Although it didn’t have Brad Pitt in it… so maybe, actually…
Prashant C. Trikannad says
Rebecca, like you I read the Harry Potter books after I saw the movie adaptations though I still have to read Book 7. I sort of lost interest after Book 4 when Harry and his friends lose their innocence. It was fun until then. Book-Movie 5 onwards is for adults as it has some serious elements of fantasy and horror. Besides, I can’t get over the fact that Rowling put her eponymous hero through hell all the way through the entire series. The only redeeming feature for the poor boy who lived is his rock solid friendship with Ron and Hermoine, which is what it is all about.
Jacqui Murray says
The problem is movie and book are often so different. If I loved the storyline and characters in one, I don’t want to see changes in the other. The Jack Reacher books are wonderful, but the one the turned into a movie was lackluster (proof, they haven’t made another movie despite the blockbuster status of the character).
I always wonder why Hollywood fiddles with perfection?
Gwen says
I actually recently re-read/re-watched in sequence all of HP and it was very interesting. I prefer the books, they make more sense too, and it was fun to see the movie adapt dialog from them. But at the same time, there were things the movie did better. Especially with showing mood and emotion. Granted I did read the books first. I usually do, the only times I haven’t have been film adaptations of MG books (Rise of the Guardians, How to Train Your Dragon, Epic). And while I’d love to get around reading them some day, I know they differ from the films and since I fell for them hard getting into the books I think would be hard.
As for which order I prefer….I’m gonna say books first, usually because by their nature movies have to cut things out and you’re not getting the full story (unless you turn it into a show – looking at you Game of Thrones!). However, I am a fantasy/sf nut and there might be a genre element to it too. It’s harder to adapt LoTR then Perks of Being A Wallflower I feel like.
Jane Isaac says
Hi Rebecca,
It’s interesting that you felt that way. I’ve been so disappointed with film adaptations of books I’ve loved in the past, that usually I try to avoid watching them now. Strangely, the only difference for me is Harry Potter. I read all of the books before I watched the films and loved each and every one of both. The scenes in the films were unusually similar to the pictures in my head which maybe because of J K Rowling’s huge input. I’m not sure how it would feel the other way around though!
The Fault in Our Stars sounds lovely. I’m glad you enjoyed.
Jane x
Murees Dupé says
If I read the book first I get really upset when the movie is nothing like the book. Sometimes I can’t believe that the book and movie are based on the same thing. So i either just read the book, or watch the movie. I don’t do both anymore. It is too disappointing.
diannegray says
I have never read Harry Potter (and feel like I’m the only one on Earth!). I haven’t watched the films either until hubby got one the other night. I didn’t really like it (yes, I’m a little weird). But I’ve gone off the track here. I always prefer to read the book BEFORE the movie for exactly the reasons you stated. The only book I read after watching the movie was Misery and all I could see was James Caan and Kathy Bates and there was little left for my imagination.
Joanna (Lazuli Portals Trilogy) says
This is something I was pondering recently, Rebecca! I did enjoy the Harry Potter books (I read them all) and found that the films added to what I remembered of the books. But I am, most definitely, a book-before-the-movie gal.
For one thing, the author’s voice is clearer and more intimate. The phrasing and style and imagery work their power over me, connecting me, enveloping me in the writer’s world and in the unique way they link words and ideas.
A movie, although enjoyable / tense / emotional / fun / whatever, doesn’t usually elicit that connection for me. My imagination and personal experience / filters have less input.
Great post! 🙂
Rebecca Bradley says
I think your very last comment says it exactly. With a book we are free to allow our own imagination to work alongside the authors work whereas with a movie we can’t. Thank you! 🙂