Stephen King Fans discussion
Movies & TV shows
>
Do You Read the Book First, or See the Movie?
I like reading it then watching it I have just written this in my blog, a short open letter to Mr. King basically saying please don't let anyone change the story from your book. Most movie adaptations I like are always the one that stays true to the book like Shawshank, Green Mile and The Stand. Changes of course happened but they didn't change the essence of the story.
I always read the book first, there is much more detail and I like to imagine the characters and the setting, although I will agree that most of the time the movie ends up disappointing.
Novia wrote: "I like reading it then watching it I have just written this in my blog, a short open letter to Mr. King basically saying please don't let anyone change the story from your book. Most movie adaptati..."The part that baffles me a lot of times is the "why"? Why make the change? Sometimes it makes sense. Stop-motion hedge monsters at the end of The Shining might have been tough. But it wasn't like he couldn't have used an axe if he'd wanted to. And why kill Hallorann? Other than the black guy always gets it?
Weirder is Dracula. As many times as that book has been made into a movie no one has ever tried to follow what is really a great book and has a really great structure for a movie. And the farther away we get, the more Dracula himself suffers. In the book, he's a really bad guy, feeding a baby to his mistresses and the baby's mom to the wolves. He's no joke. But now, more and more, he gets softer and more "romantic". Ugh.
Other times the changes aren't quite so profound but they are bizarre. Why switch the names of the Mina and Lucy? Why send Renfield to Transylvania instead of Jonathan Harker? What do you mean Mina is Van Helsing's daughter? Aaaaaarrrgghhh!
Malina wrote: "I always read the book first, there is much more detail and I like to imagine the characters and the setting, although I will agree that most of the time the movie ends up disappointing."@Malina. THAT is why I read the book second. If a book is good, the movie can't touch it. But a book can destroy a movie.
@Bobby EXACTLY!! why change something that's already good? I stopped watching Under The Dome because it's too far away from the book and the changes didn't make it any better. I can accept a bit of change like in The Mist, the ending is sadder in the movie.Making the shorter doesn't mean they can change it as they pleased. Look at Lord of the rings...Jackson changed the story but it must be done because of the duration and changes didnt ruin the story.
I was too excited and didn't realize that my grammar was no longer correct ;) Sorry
Novia wrote: "@Bobby EXACTLY!! why change something that's already good? I stopped watching Under The Dome because it's too far away from the book and the changes didn't make it any better. I can accept a bit of..."You're all good, Novia. ;)
But right. I get it. Movies are a different art form. What a book has days to do a movie has two hours. It's easy to have a million characters in a book. Somebody has to pay those actors with a movie. Right. But I think because movies are a collaborative art form all these other things might get in the way. The screenwriter's ego, which tells him the story would be better if he had written it in the first place, or the studio money men who thought this was a money making project when they first came across it but now feel this need to get as many people into the theatre as they can by making all these concessions to the most common denominator.
King's a funny one. Yeah, The Mist and The Shining for that matter (poor Hallorann), had sadder endings because you know, the book might have scared the pants off whoever read it, that's why they made it into a movie, but now it's just not scary enough. Or, on the other hand, Cujo they make the ending happier because you just can't have the little boy die in the end after all that. Too depressing.
I have a lot of respect for Hollywood but sometimes...grrrr...
To be honest, I watch less and less Hollywood movies nowadays. They are forcing their movies to be TOO marketable. I watch more Europe and Asian movies now, they are still maintaining their originality.Talking about Asian movies, I watched Ringu (which later being remade into The Ring) and loved it and then found that it was from a novel by Koji Suzuki...it was 80 % different!! Fortunately I watched the movie first, I might end up disliking my number one horror movie if I read it first. The book is also great but the only similar thing between the book and the movie are the names of the characters.
Bobby wrote: "I bring this up in Stephen King because well, I think he has more movies made of his books than just about anybody else. (Am I right on that? Who's even close? Agatha Christie?) I learned, with No ..."I always read the novel first; unless i see the movie not knowing a novel was created first. I tend to watch action or horror movies... go figure :D
Novia wrote: "To be honest, I watch less and less Hollywood movies nowadays. They are forcing their movies to be TOO marketable. I watch more Europe and Asian movies now, they are still maintaining their origina..."Interesting. I confess I tend to think of altering the book's story when the movie is made to be an American phenomenon.
Alondra wrote: "Bobby wrote: "I bring this up in Stephen King because well, I think he has more movies made of his books than just about anybody else. (Am I right on that? Who's even close? Agatha Christie?) I lea..."Why do you prefer to read the book first?
I didn't plan it but with King I have read the books first and then have seen the movies. With other authors it seems that I end up seeing the movies first and then I end up reading the book.
Erin wrote: "I didn't plan it but with King I have read the books first and then have seen the movies. With other authors it seems that I end up seeing the movies first and then I end up reading the book."Aha! So, do you have a preference? Is one better than the other? Do you find reading the book first has more of an impact on the movie or vice versa?
Bobby wrote: "Erin wrote: "I didn't plan it but with King I have read the books first and then have seen the movies. With other authors it seems that I end up seeing the movies first and then I end up reading t..."I would prefer to read the book first and then watch the movie. There have been some exceptions but for the most part it seems the movies I have watched that are based on a book either leave out or altar some events versus what originally happened in the book. Like the Hunger Games, I did enjoy the movie but I felt alot was left out so I read the book and sure enough there were some things that were left out.
Then there are situations where there are changes in a movie that are really bad like The Mist. This is just my opinion but I thought what they did in that move, especially the end, was awful and the book is so much better.
I think the books are usually better but I think it all depends on the quality of the movie. There are a ton of King movies that are great (Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, etc.) and some others that aren't that good at all. It's up to the people behind the movies to make a good film and some times it works and other times it just doesn't.
I think reading the book first gives you a better idea or understanding of how the move may go. I think major changes in a movie can be a big drawback. Like me, if I watch a movie adapted from a book that has alot of changes and I have already read the book I almost take myself out of the movie because I am to busy looking at the differences. I guess I am going to change my answer alittle bit and say maybe in some cases it's not a bad idea to just watch the movie first. I'll get a good idea on that because I will be watching the movie World War Z as soon as it comes out for rent, which is this Tuesday, and then I'll get to the book at some point (I do have it but I am just really behind on reading books).
Bobby wrote: "Alondra wrote: "Bobby wrote: "I bring this up in Stephen King because well, I think he has more movies made of his books than just about anybody else. (Am I right on that? Who's even close? Agatha ..."Holly-weird takes too many liberties with the books, and tend to ruin a good thing. the books hold so much great information and really take hold of your imagination. movies take your imagination and stunt it... just my humble opinion..:)
Alondra wrote: "Bobby wrote: "Alondra wrote: "Bobby wrote: "I bring this up in Stephen King because well, I think he has more movies made of his books than just about anybody else. (Am I right on that? Who's even ..."Oh, I agree. Just for me, that's WHY I see the movie first nowadays. If I have a choice. Then I don't have expectations to dash.
I always read the book first. I've been VERY disillusioned with movies lately and have been automatically assuming anything the Hollywood cookie-cutter machine regurgitates will be a butcher job of the source material purely to cater to the ADD generation who only give a hoot about shiny special effects rather than a tightly woven plot.Case in point, look at the abomination that the Carrie remake looks like. The morons clearly didn't read the book or else they would know Carrie did NOT look like some anorexic, fifty cent whore like the bimbo they got to play her. If they had any cojones at all, they would have cast a girl who doesn't fit the glossy, fake standards of beauty.
Prove me wrong Hollywood.....prove me wrong.
I always read the book first, usually way before there is even a movie.
Grammar Goebbels wrote: "I always read the book first. I've been VERY disillusioned with movies lately and have been automatically assuming anything the Hollywood cookie-cutter machine regurgitates will be a butcher job of...""Carrie did NOT look like some anorexic, fifty cent whore like the bimbo they got to play her"
DAYUM! Grammar Goebbel, tell us how you really feel!
A lot of movies today are based on books I've already read. But I don't go out of my way to read a book before watching a movie based on it. Since I can separate a movie from the book as different artisic expressions, I don't feel the need to read the book before the movie.I also have a bad feeling about the Carrie remake....
same here about Carrie. This new Carrie looks more like the one who bullies her. Although I have bad feeling, I am still going to see it and write a review about....hoping I won't be too harsh on it, hoping Hollywood will do good on the remake like the Spacek version (I love that one)
Novia wrote: "same here about Carrie. This new Carrie looks more like the one who bullies her. Although I have bad feeling, I am still going to see it and write a review about....hoping I won't be too harsh on i..."Spacek is wonderful. It's funny, no matter how often it's proven, Hollywood still doesn't get that horror is just as dependent on great writing and great acting as any other genre.
Mod
Like that, I can't do that anymore. Because then the movie is ruined.
I will also cast my vote on "books-before-movies", for the many reasons stated in previous comments.I usually go to great lengths to avoid a movie/series, if I want to read the books first. I managed to avoid any spoilers from the TV series 'Game of thrones' until I read the book this summer. Though I don't feel that specific book offered something more than the series.
A good argument for the value of books over their movie adaptations is 'The Shining'. I saw the movie first and I didn't care for it at all. The book however is an instant classic.
The one case where I liked the movie more than the book was The Lord of the Rings, which I never managed to finish. I felt that the book dragged on in too much detail, whereas the movie was more focused on the main story.
Another example of a book that had great adaptations is 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' (both the Swedish and the American). I think they did a good job in representing both the characters and the story.
I think we should see this argument from the point of view of the people in charge of making a movie adaptation. There are -at least- two great difficulties when making a movie adaptation:
a) books and movies are two very different mediums, and in many cases it's not easy to transition from one to another. Books sometimes use devices like internal monologues and metaphors that can't be transferred to the big screen. A good director/producer must make creative choices that will keep the atmosphere of the book intact, while keeping as close to the story as possible.
b) the movie industry is just that; an industry. As such, their main goal is achieving profit. To that end, they may sacrifice some elements of the books in favor of some crowd-pleasing choice (someone mentioned the choice of the actress who played Carrie; that's a perfect example). Remember that it is not just the book fan who will see the movie, it's the average person, who perhaps doesn't even read books.
That being said, I don't think that it's possible to make a perfect adaptation of a book, for the reasons I stated, nor should we watch a movie expecting it to perfectly portray the image of the book we have in our heads.
Books before movies... and maybe the movie not at all. I never feel the urge to see movie adaptions, they always disappoint. SK books are always rich character tapestries, deep and profound and disturbing and insightful. No movie or drama can ever capture that, even if the director is the best in the biz. Of the SK adaptions, the only ones I thought were somewhat interesting were Misery (character more or less conveyed), Green Mile, The Shining (for all it's unfaithfulness to the book), and the first Carrie. But to me, those are different from the books that inspired them. Very little of the real character/story filters through by the time Hollywood has hacked away at it. (I feel the same way about Lord of the Rings and Tolkien adaptions... the movies can stand alone as entertaining, but they aren't the original stories at all, and they are, at best, light entertainment. The books are vastly more engaging, wondrous and memorable.) I'm probably biased towards books, even though I review both books and movies. Stand alone movies (non book adapted) can be marvellous and wondrous, but book adaptions hardly ever are. (Possible exception of some comic book adaptionsto movie.)
Josephine wrote: "Books before movies... and maybe the movie not at all. I never feel the urge to see movie adaptions, they always disappoint. SK books are always rich character tapestries, deep and profound and dis..."I agree Josephine, with 2 exceptions: Shawshank Redemption! And actually, Stand By Me. These are only movies I saw before I read the books (in the latter case, the novella was called the body). I think Shawshank is a great movie. And when I read the book and then listened to the audio book 3 times, I kept thinking... the movie is almost word for word from the book , isn't it? The fact that they explained the ending a little and substituted Morgan Freeman for a guy named Red, didn't hurt a bit. I thought. I hear Dolores Clayborn was a great movie too, though I didn't see it. In fact I make it a practice not to watch movies based on King's books. Wish I had applied that principle to Under the Dome, which - unfortunately - I decided to watch. Uuuugghhh.
Nick wrote: "Josephine wrote: "Books before movies... and maybe the movie not at all. I never feel the urge to see movie adaptions, they always disappoint. SK books are always rich character tapestries, deep an..."Under the Dome, double uuugghhh. Not the same story at all, just a rehash of other Hollywood monstrosities (canned plotlines and characters), thrown under SK's Dome with some of Steve's character names (but none of their character). What's the point in spending all the money for rights, and then leaving nothing of the original.
Costas wrote: "I will also cast my vote on "books-before-movies", for the many reasons stated in previous comments.I usually go to great lengths to avoid a movie/series, if I want to read the books first. I mana..."
I think you're post is very astute and really, I try and approach adaptations that way all the time -- an entirely different art form. It would be difficult in fact, for movies and books to be more different in the way they communicate.
Like most of you, I agree that the book is usually better than the movie. Depending on the book, however, sometimes -- if I'm planning on seeing the movie and I haven't already read the book -- I'll see the movie first because, as I've said, a book can ruin a movie but a movie can't ruin a good book. Though, that's not always true. Above I used the example Presumed Innocent and that being a whodunit, it would of course have been ruined if I'd seen the movie first and I'm really glad I didn't.
On the other hand, I read No Country for Old Men before I saw the movie and it demolished the movie. The movie turned the book into a series of events, a plot and nothing else. So if you already knew what was going to happen, there was very little left.
A different example of a similar phenomenon would be The Unbearable Lightness of Being. A brilliant book, borne aloft by Kundera's graceful, incisive prose and the workings of his truly original mind. But take all that away and you just have four people lying to and cheating on each other.
There have been other instances though, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's NestOne Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where the movie adapter had enough sense to not try to emulate the book but chose a different tone and a different aesthetic to attain its power and pathos. What happened of course, is that now we have a classic (even though I don't care for it) novel and a classic movie. Had Milos Forman attempted to re-create the book, he undoubtedly would have failed miserably because, as Costas noted, the art forms are so different.
A different example is The Godfather which is a good book, excellent storytelling but the movie is one of the shining examples of 20th century American art. Puzo's book was a page-turner, not say, The Great Gatsby or The Grapes of Wrath. Whereas, that same story found deeper, more profound resonances as a film.
So, thank god I'm only responsibility is only to me because my "general rule" I'm figuring out, is not so general at all. It varies. :P
Bobby wrote: "Costas wrote: "I will also cast my vote on "books-before-movies", for the many reasons stated in previous comments.I usually go to great lengths to avoid a movie/series, if I want to read the book..."
Yep. There's an old saying in Hollywood, "Only bad books make good movies." That's how narcissistic those folks are. I agree more with you, Bobby... two different art forms... two different sets of restrictions... but it is possible for them to compliment each other, so that the film captures the essence of the book, and reading the book adds depth to your understanding of the movie. But for that to happen they both have to tell the same story, don't they? That ain't happening in under the Dome.
Nick wrote: "Bobby wrote: "Costas wrote: "I will also cast my vote on "books-before-movies", for the many reasons stated in previous comments.I usually go to great lengths to avoid a movie/series, if I want to..."
I will say, a lot of times I'm like, "why did you bother?" If the source material was good enough in the first place to buy, then why isn't it good enough to follow through with? And like, Stephen King, for instance, has proven himself one of the great storytellers of American history. I mean, that can't be argued. AND he's insanely popular! There's already an audience! You might have to change things for the greater common denominator with any other author but not with King. He has a guaranteed, HUGE audience! Why change it? I didn't see Under the Dome and now, thanks to you and Josephine, I'll make sure not to.
By the way, I did like the first Carrie. And the adaptation of Misery was great. What did you think about those?
I heh heh, still haven't read "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" or "The Body". But I dug both those movies.
And I remember the very beginning of The Stand was great and then it was all downhill from there.
Bobby wrote: "Nick wrote: "Bobby wrote: "Costas wrote: "I will also cast my vote on "books-before-movies", for the many reasons stated in previous comments.I usually go to great lengths to avoid a movie/series,..."
I honestly didn't see either Carrie or Misery, though I'm sure I should. As for under the dome, I knew they did have to change some things to make it into an ongoing series. But it's kind of a mess. I'm surprised it's as popular as it is.
"Should" is a strong word but it sounds like they're both considerably more successful than Under the Dome.
I prefer to read the book first for one simple reason. It usually takes me about a week to read a book. Watching a film takes a couple of hours. Why waste a whole week reading something when I know what's going to happen? Spending 2 hours viewing a movie when I know the ending seems a lot less tedious!
Bobby wrote: "I heh heh, still haven't read "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" or "The Body". But I dug both those movies. ..."If you haven't read either, then you should. Definitely worth your time. Classics, and they are both short stories... amazing.
Nick wrote: "I honestly didn't see either Carrie or Misery, though I'm sure I should...."
Only if you see the original movie with Sissy Spacek; kind of "campy", but Sissy is who I imagined Carrie to be. She brought her to life.
Misery was some darned good acting. I couldn't watch it again. The sledgehammer scene almost made me hurl!
Misery was an awesome movie... it actually got me into reading SK. I agree about the sledgehammer scene :/
She was the perfect actress to play Annie Wilkes.
Michelle wrote: "Misery was an awesome movie... it actually got me into reading SK. I agree about the sledgehammer scene :/"heheheh... right!?? I am glad you became a fan. :)
Me too Alondra, or I wouldn't have met all you wonderful people! I initially came to GR to join the SK group :)
I always see the movie first, if i can. I remember years ago reading a book called "something of value" then seeing the movie with rock hudson, months later. Compared to the book, the movie was a shallow thing. Thats pretty much followed in the years since.
Movie first. I hate when movies spoil a novel for me before I read it!
Novels first. I hate when movies spoil a novel for me before I read it!
I've been a member of a Movie/Book club at my local library for 4 years now. We've read 51 books so far that have movie adaptations and as a group we leave it up to the individuals to choose which they "do" first. Some of us feel very strongly about watching or reading first. Some don't care and just do whatever fits in their personal schedule. It makes for a great discussion starter.Personally, I try, whenever possible to read first. Mainly because I want to picture my own characters. Even if it's a pop movie and I can't shield myself from casting choices, I am a super visual reader and picture a very detailed person for main characters. Often nothing like the actor hired to play them!
Another reason I feel so strongly about reading first is that I feel I can imagine things so much better than anything a director can put on screen. With King's books especially, some of his ideas come off as "cheesy" visually, but in my imagination they are not.
Once I've experienced both I am very good at keeping them as separate entities in my head. There are even a few times where I feel a movie was more satisfying than the book. (The Cider House Rules, Ella Enchanted, Big Fish and Catching Fire to name a few)I don't feel that ANY movie adaptation of King's books has ever been better than the source material, but some are absolutely 4 star films!
Novia wrote: "To be honest, I watch less and less Hollywood movies nowadays. They are forcing their movies to be TOO marketable. I watch more Europe and Asian movies now, they are still maintaining their origina..."Along these lines, I just watched the orginal Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And it's funny, I totally had a feeling the ending was tacked on and incomplete. Sure enough, I looked it up and they tacked on the frame because they didn't want the movie to end on such a down note. Too bad. Didn't ruin an otherwise wonderful movie though.
Book first with a few exceptions. I watched the first three seasons of Game of Thrones and had to read the books. I can honestly say that they are the finest series I have ever read and I'm not a fantasy genre person. Glad I have an open mind!
generally, I prefer reading the book and then watching the movie... I've always liked my imagination over another's and I don't like when movies force the appearance of characters on me...maybe it's because when I was a little girl I didn't go to the cinema so often XD
Cora wrote: "Book first with a few exceptions. I watched the first three seasons of Game of Thrones and had to read the books. I can honestly say that they are the finest series I have ever read and I'm not a ..."Glad you have an open mind too because it suggests that maybe I should try the series. I've watched it on TV and never thought of reading the books (too many other books to read.) But maybe I'll give it a try as soon as there's a break in the action.
I always read the book first, unless I see a movie which I did not know was based on a book, the I will read the book to get all the details that are usually missing in the movie.I will admit I did the same thing as Cora with GOT, started watching the series then decided to read the books.
Stephen King Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
Three Weeks with My Brother (other topics)The Good Luck of Right Now (other topics)
The Shining (other topics)
The Shining (other topics)
The Gunslinger Born (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Matthew Quick (other topics)Brian McGreevy (other topics)
Piper Kerman (other topics)
Stephen King, though he is a far better writer than sometimes given credit for, is not really of the same philosophical bent as Cormac McCarthy or a Milan Kundera or Yukio Mishima. Having said that, he is still an evocative enough writer, that if I read his books after seeing the movie, I'm not invaded in my head by whatever movie star was in the movie.
But I know some people feel differently. Thoughts?