Poll

I'm more likely to enjoy both if I read the book second. If I read it first, the movie is more likely to let me down.

My thoughts are the same as Gwen. Unless I read the book before I even know about the book, I probably won't read it until after the film unless I REALLY want to read it.

I never enjoy the movie if I read the book first. It's always a HUGE let down.

Gwen wrote: "I'm more likely to enjoy both if I read the book second. If I read it first, the movie is more likely to let me down."

THIS! I completely agree.

I'm so glad that other people feel this way too! I always feel like an oddball when everyone else is rushing to read a book before the movie comes out and I'm not.

I have a weird strategy, since I usually like both the movie and the book. I read up to the last 25-50 pages of a book, watch the movie, then finish the book! :-P

I'm so glad other people think that way too! I used to read the book first, but then I always nitpick the movie and end up hating it. Now I enjoy the movie, then read the book, which is still always better.

antes, sem duvida!

Usually the book is a lot better than the film. So I get a bigger satisfaction by watching the movie first and the book later. If I do it the other way around, I might get upset that the movie did not portrayed such and such character "right." One of the only movies that didn't dissapoint me even though I saw it waaay after I read the book is LOTR.

I prefer to read the source before watching any adaptation. Sometimes it just doesn't happen in that order though.

It seems better to get the originally intended storyline/plot/character descriptions than a director or actor's interpretation, which may be different than your own.

Too often the movie is a disappointment.

I've had too much heartbreak over movies that change the book too much :(. I think I just have this weird irrational idea that the movie will be completely true to the book so I expect to see every scene, or at least one I'm particularly looking forward to. The weird thing is, if the movie IS completely true to the book I get bored because I know exactly what's going to happen. Now I just read the book after the movie if I want to so I'm expecting less and getting more.

I'm not a big fan of movie's that start out as books. I've only every enjoyed the Harry Potter movie's after reading the books. If its done well (like the HP series) then I'd be willing to watch. But if it does't live up to the book then its a no no for me. Slightly worried about The Hunger Games movie becoming a no no. Though I do get the impression that Suzanne Collins had a lot of input into the making of the film. Which is always a good sign.

I like to form my own visions from the book. Then I like to compare what I had in mind to what the movies shows.

Gertie wrote: "I have a weird strategy, since I usually like both the movie and the book. I read up to the last 25-50 pages of a book, watch the movie, then finish the book! :-P"

I like that!

Sometimes I don't like watching the movie at all because my brain has a way of picturing each character and scene that it just all gets ruined when I see the movie.

When the movie is already published when I think about reading a book I always watch the trailer before so I know how the actors look like so I can already imagine them when reading the book. Otherwise I always create people in my mind and then, when I watch the movie, I'm disappointed because all the people look completely different than described in the book(like it is the case sometimes).

With me it depends. Sometimes I like reading the book first and then going to the movie to see how the images in my imagination stack up with what Hollywood has depicted things as. Like with I Am Number Four, I read the book first and saw the movie second. With the help I did the same thing (though still have to see the movie). With other series, I am watching and then reading the books...however, Hunger Games, I've read the book, now just waiting for the movie.

It's best to read after the movie so you don't spend the whole time comparing them and usually feeling slighted.

I feel like I can't see the movie until I have read the book but then more times than not I am extremely disappointed in the movie. The movie in my mind is always better.

I always read the book first. Frankly, I don't care whether or not I'll like the movie. I'm only worried about my opinion of the book. If I like the book I'll see the movie. If not, I'm not gonna spend money on overpriced tickets to be disappointed.

Gwen wrote: "I'm more likely to enjoy both if I read the book second. If I read it first, the movie is more likely to let me down."

Exactly! So many people don't get that!

A movie can be a great movie while still being a bad interpretation of the book, which if you've already read the book that's all your looking for. A reinterpretation of the story you read. If you watch the movie first with no preconceived notions you can still enjoy the movie for what it is, and THEN enjoy the book for what it is. Rather than enjoying the book and hating the movie.

after the film because the book is always better (with a few exceptions) and then at least i enjoy the film and the book!

I like to read the book before seeing the movie. Unless the movie is absolutely amazing (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) I usually won't read the book after seeing the movie :)

I can't enjoy the book the same way after I've seen the movie. I mean, I HAVE read books after seeing the movie, but it's just not the same.
I love giving my characters their own faces and characteristics and not concentrating on an actor.
I also love comparing the book and movie and I can't seem to do that if I watch the movie before reading the book.

I tend to read the book first, as if I the film first, I can't help but use the actors from the film in my imagination. I like to be able to imagine the characters for myself.
I admit in most cases I find that I much prefer the book to the film, going this way, but I find I enjoy READING the book more, before I see the film. Once I've seen the film the book doesn't really have the appeal to me anymore.

I have to watch the movie first. I've tried reading the books first for a while and I always end up disappointing in the movie because they change some much of it or don't include my favorite scenes. So now if I read the book after the movie it's like watching the movie again but with all the deleted scenes included or like watching the director's cut. So much new stuff I didn't know was part of the story.

I picked read after, because if I read it first I can't concentrate on the movie, I just get confused/weirded out by all the changes/additions/subtractions to what I "saw" while I was reading. I like AFTER better because it is like watching the very very very extended director's cut!

I like to read before the film, so I can compare the original with the film, and see what they took out, changed, etc.

I typically prefer reading a book before I see the movie. However, I will say that it is much easier for me to actually enjoy the movie if I see the film first and then read the book as so much gets altered in the script.

Only a few films really stay true to the book (which is one of the reasons that I really love the Colin Firth Pride & Prejudice as it's basically the whole book brought to life). However, there are a couple of instances where I saw a film and loved it so much and then read the book and it didn't nearly engage me as much as the movie.

I almost always like reading the book before the movie. Sometimes I'm disappointed but I realize that directors have their own vision. If the book is based on a movie, I often don't read the book.

I like reading the book first. It gives me background so that I can better understand the film. I never expect the movie to be like the book. There is just not enough time in 2 hours to fully develop the story or characters. That is why I find having the background of the book beneficial.

It depends-- I've been happy both ways. Some movies are so far from the book they're almost unrelated. If I've read the book first, even if the movie is bad, at least I get to enjoy the suspense of wondering how Hollywood will screw up the ending. It's very unusual for me to be disappointed in a book after watching the movie; the book would have to be pretty shallow.

Before movie, always before movie. Only exceptions are if I don't realize that it was a book first. I won't even see a movie if I haven't read the book first.

If I've already read the book, then that's fine -- but if I haven't, I won't run out and read the book before I watch the movie. The details are always way too fresh, and I sit there in the theater thinking about all the differences, even if I don't mind them.

However, one big bonus to reading the book first is that I don't get stuck with the movie actor's face in my head when trying to read it later. When I read Lord of the Rings, I don't picture Elijah Wood as Frodo because I read the book in 1995; if I'd seen the movie first, I'm not sure I'd have that luxury.

Lora's comment:

However, one big bonus to reading the book first is that I don't get stuck with the movie actor's face in my head when trying to read it later. When I read Lord of the Rings, I don't picture Elijah Wood as Frodo because I read the book in 1995; if I'd seen the movie first, I'm not sure I'd have that luxury.

I agree. I read our library's paperback movie tie-in edition of The Descendants last October. It was very distracting to read with George Clooney's face appearing as Matthew King.

I'm the other way around. I like seeing the movies first just so I have a visual reference of the characters and the scenery. That way when I read the book I can use bits and pieces of the movie to sharpen the images from the book.

Gwen wrote: "I'm more likely to enjoy both if I read the book second. If I read it first, the movie is more likely to let me down."

But if you watch the movie first, the book is more likely to let you down. The question is: Which is more important?

How about, I like reading the book and never seeing the damn movie.

I think it ruins a book-experience more if I've seen the film first. My film-experience is not as ruined if I've already read the book. It's just important to remember that a movie will never follow the book completely, so if you expect that, the movie will probably seem bad.

Felicia wrote: "I think it ruins a book-experience more if I've seen the film first. My film-experience is not as ruined if I've already read the book. It's just important to remember that a movie will never follo..."
I agree. I learnt this young, when I read Mary Poppins in advance of the new film. Although the film was a disappointment at first, I came to like it later and I knew that it would have been much worse if I'd had soppy Julie Andrews in my head messing up the image of 'my' Mary!

i dont mind either. yet i tend to enjoy the book more if i've seen the more before.

If I watch a movie before the book, I'm more likely to not read the book at all because I already know the ending. It takes me at least 6 hours (over the course of a few days) to read a book because I tend to read every word/absorb/never skim, whereas a movie is usually at most 2 hours. I'm not likely to spend the time reading a book if I already know everything that happens.

So ultimately, I always read the book first. I'm not usually too disappointed with film adaptations, so that's not a concern for me.

always the book-sometimes I see the movie too but would rather read!

By reading the book before seeing the movie, I get to see the characters how I imagine them.

With few exceptions, I'm a stickler to the read it before you see the movie rule. Some movies like The Wizard of Oz more people nowadays have seen the movie before they read the book. And that's OK because in the case of The Wizard of Oz the movie is a classic.

My favorite book to movie adaption is The Night of the Hunter. That has been one of my favorite movies for years and I didn't even know until recently it was originally a book. A suspense classic with Robert Mitchum at his evil best... well worth it, I think.

Most of the time, if I see the movie I am no longer interested in reading the book...

I read the book. Really can't be bothered to spend a couple of nights reading something when I already know the ending. If I do see a movie first, I usually don't bother with the book.

Like many who have posted here, I am often disappointed with a movie after having read the book, but one book-to-movie adaptation is an exception. I stumbled across A Love Song for Bobby Long one afternoon in the video store, and then proceeded to watch it twice in the same afternoon, purchase it the next day, and tout it to all who would listen thereafter. It is among my top ten favorite movies of all time. When I learned it had been adapted from the novel Off Magazine Street by Ronald Everett Capps, I had to read it. Never has the page-to-screen process baffled me more. This is one instance where the screenplay version far outshines the original. Mucho kudos to the screenwriter, Shainee Gabel.