How to dislodge the movie from the book?

[Steve]

My wife once told me of a book in which various literary characters gathered to discuss such and such. At one point, Harry Potter expresses his dismay about the prospect of now being forced to look like Daniel Radcliff for all of eternity. (If anyone knows the book, let me know, as my wife just looked at me like I was crazy when I asked her the book's title to reference here).

I am running into similar issues when trying to re-read The Fellowship of the RIng. I haven't read it in roughly 10 years, but I have seen the movies countless times before and since. I love the movies, and wouldn't wish to un-see them (aside from being able to see them afresh), but I feel like they are ruining my experience of the book. I am constantly fighting my brain to say "who cares that that line was slightly different in the movie", and "Frodo is not a baby-faced Elijah Wood!", but to no avail. It is especially frustrating when some scenes are so similar to the movie that I just start playing the movie in my head, then am jarred when something is different.

I find the opposite to be true as well. I have never been able to enjoy the HBO version of 'Game of Thrones' because I am constantly subconsciously comparing what is happening on the screen to the books, and anticipating what happens next, then being slightly disappointed when it doesn't turn out as I had imagined it. And on some level, watching the show has made my experience of the books that much less enjoyable. While Peter Dinklage is an awesome actor, he very much is not the same look/feel as Tyrion in the books, so going back to the books is a battle between the Tyrion that was once in my head and the gruffly handsome Dinklage.

Does anyone else struggle with this? Any tips on de-coupling the movies from books in your mind? Or should I resign myself to experiencing stories in one medium only, as to at least have one untainted version of the story?

[terpkristin]

I don't "struggle" with this per se, but I do get confused when watching movies when the actor/portrayal of the character doesn't match what I expected.

To use the Harry Potter reference (the series starts with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the US/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone in the UK), the character who played Ron was actually pretty spot-on for what I imagined Ron looked like. Harry, though, wasn't. I envisioned someone...nerdier. Smaller. Weaker...at least, at first. It's not that I mind the Daniel Radcliffe portrayal, but he wasn't what I envisioned for Harry. Hagrid is similar. I think the way they did him for the movie was fantastic, but it wasn't what I had in my head (I envisioned someone even bigger, more like Andre the Giant with more hair).

But as far as de-coupling, I don't bother to try. That said, I do try to read books before seeing movies. At least that way, I'm not trying to go both ways with my imagination.

[Aaron]

It's all in the quality of the adaption. I normally don't care if it was different from the book in fact that can be interesting at times see The Walking Dead, where it's different but about equally good. Edge of Tommorow was another interesting adaption case. Basically from book>movie the lead character was a good bit more interesting in the movie and the writing itself tended to be better. However they ruined the female lead by making her way less awesome, and for some reason got rid of the awesome giant halberd thing and just had this lame machette. The aliens were also completely different but it didn't really matter because I assume that was to save budget so they didn't have to redesign new aliens and could just use already done assets. So while I was thinking well this is different from the book I don't think it hindered my appeciation for the movie. They were both good in different ways and I understand the decisions the studio made in the adaption.

The biggest thing to realize is that books normally don't translate straight into movies well and even if they do, normally parts of the plot have to be changed for better general appeal because while a popular book might sell 50000 copies and that's a good success a movie must massively outdo this. A good example is Scott Pilgram which was a fantastic movie but sold terribly because while it was great it had too niche of an audience for it's budget.

Normally the way I think of it if the characters are seemingly different between book and movie, is just consider them to be in seperate universes, think comic books. This also helps with keeping the different plots seperated and prevent all of those problems as well.

[Lariela]

I try not to see movie adaptations until I've read the book, if possible. Otherwise, I'll find and read the book a couple times afterward. I went back to reading A Song of Ice and Fire after seeing the Game of Thrones TV series. For the Lord of the Rings, I re-read the books yearly. I still watch the movies a lot as well, mainly because they were so well cast.

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

I tend to try to let a book or film 'go dark' in my mind, before I read/watch it in another medium. By this, I mean I like to give it time to fade to allow the new in. It wont block completely, particularly not when something is a favourite, but its better than watching something fresh from reading (or vice versa) when the version you already know is far too fresh in your mind.

I generally don't mind if an actor dominates my mental image, since the character usually comes through if the performance/ writing is good enough. I watched a BBC adaptation of Crime and Punishment long before I read the book, but it had faded so much from memory that when reading, the only real trace of the tv programme was the way Raskolnikov looked a little like John Simm, which wasn't really a problem for me.

I do agree that it can be difficult not to be bored waiting for things you already know will happen, and I think Aaron is right that it is all down to the quality of the adaptation. I was on the edge of my seat for the 3rd Hunger Games instalment, even though I have read the books and knew what was going to happen, and I think those films are a great example good adaptation. The Hobbit on the other hand... throughout the whole dragon chase bit, I was utterly bored and willing Smaug to fly off toward the village already. This isn't over-familiarity with the book, though, since I've only read it once, or maybe twice, a long time ago. This is down to poor pacing and a bloated plot that gave me time to think about what I already knew would happen.

Generally, I try to read the book first, and the feel of that version will usually stay with me when I return to read it again, even if the faces start to resemble actors. I choose book first (as a rule) because I think whatever you see first usually harms, even just a little (and there are exceptions), whatever you see second. Since books take a whole lot longer and require greater concentration, I'd rather have them be the most enjoyable.

[Brendan]

It helps if the movie was bad or unmemorable, like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie, for example. Or the Hobbit.

[David H.]

terpkristin wrote: ". . . the character who played Ron was actually pretty spot-on for what I imagined Ron looked like . . ."

It's funny you mentioned Ron, since I thought he ended up cast wrongly in the end, since he's supposed to be tall, thin, and gangly, and I think Radcliffe ends up getting taller than Grint by the final movie (plus, the Weasley boys are all "tall/thin" redheads whereas in the books, only some are tall/thin (Bill/Percy/Ron) and some are shorter/stockier (Fred/George/Charlie)). C'est la vie...

[Aaron]

The height of the characters barely matters people. What really matters is how well they nail the character.

Ruth wrote: "read the book first"

I would amend that with enjoy the original medium first; be that book, movie, tv-series, play, or radio-drama.

[Tommy]

Sadly, I can't help because it's never been an issue for me. I just look at it as two different people telling me the tale and their versions varying, as stories do from one teller to another.

[Ken]

I don't really have this issue either. I generally consider movie adaptations as book-'lite' for people who either don't have time or the attention span to read the book. I hope they like the film enough to read the book, so my concern is more that the adaptation is, while not necessarily accurate, at least a good enough hook.

[Brendan]

For Game of Thrones I enjoyed a few seasons, and since I liked it well enough I thought I'd try reading the books. After the first novel though I decided that the tv show was a better tv show than the books were books, so I'll just wait a few years and absorb the story in that format instead.

[Margit]

I generally don't suffer from this problem. It doesn't matter whether I read a book before I see the film or the other way round. I'm perfectly happy to allow my vision of a character to be supplanted by the face of the actor playing him in a film.

[Joanna Chaplin]

I visualize characters so very vaguely. They tend to be humanlike blobs with hair on top, or whatever feature is most commonly remarked on by other characters. So unless something really big changes for the movie, like gender or race, I don't usually care.

[Pat]

I generally don't have a problem - sometimes if I see the movie before reading he book I 'see' the characters as they were in the movie but it's not a problem.

The only problem I had with the LOTR movies is that the hobbits didn't have Welsh accents - I always read them that way for some reason.

[Nicole]

Joanna wrote: "I visualize characters so very vaguely. They tend to be humanlike blobs with hair on top, or whatever feature is most commonly remarked on by other characters. So something really big changes for..."


This is exacty how I visualize (or don't?) when I read. Friends don't get it, but I'm happy to find someone else who doesn't have fully formed images in their head as they read. I do find the actors getting stuck in my head after I see the movie or other adaptation, but I can't think of an instance off the top of my head where it bothered me enough that I remember it now.

[Joanna Chaplin]

Nicole wrote: "This is exacty how I visualize (or don't?) when I read."

I think it has to do with the fact that what they say, how they think, and their essential nature is usually more important to me than what they look like, unless what they look like matters for the plot and/or how other people react to them. That a character is unusually good looking might matter, but the actual details of how that breaks down doesn't. Miles Vorkosigan is actually one of the characters I have the best mental image for, because his physical features matter, are mulled over by him, and are remarked on by others.

That said, once I see a movie with live actors, that usually "locks down" the visualization for me.

Sometimes I think that it might be easier to go live in a world of pure mind, like in a computer. But then I remember physical pleasures and think that there would be too much to give up.

[Eric]

The way I deal with this is academically. A few years ago I came to the realization that movie/TV versions are ADAPTATIONS (with few exceptions like Watchmen) that play into what works best for that medium. It's essentially a parallel universe where ALMOST the same stuff happened. I'm almost done with Mockingjay so I started watching the movies with my wife (who wants to watch the third one with me - she saw the first two already). In this particular example, rather than being annoyed (as I used to be) and say "the book is better", I just notice where it's different and how that affects things. For example, movies can't be as long as TV shows so they cut out Madge giving Katniss the Mockingjay pin. Instead it's from Prim. That changes quite a few dynamics around the pin and its symbolism - which are important in the second and third books when you find out who it came from. Similarly there are a bunch of extra scenes with President Snow to explain stuff that otherwise comes to us from Katniss' narration. And, as I figured, Katniss comes across as more heroic since we can't see all the doubt in her head in the books. So she's a different character with different apparent motivations.

[Tara]

I usually read the book before watching the movies. But just recently I have started reading the Harry Potter books for the first time (although I have watched the movies) so whenever a new character is introduced I already have a visual representation of what that character looks like and also an image of the surroundings. I prefer reading the books first then watch the movies but I don't mind it as much as it gives a more clearer vision to the book.

[John (Taloni)]

It generally doesn't bother me. When I was younger the film adaptations of SF/F books were generally terrible. These days they're better done and closer to the original - I'm thinking of Ender's Game and the Tolkien works as I write this.

Even so, I picked out differences in The Hobbit that I found annoying, most notably the big fight sequences in the movie that were only alluded to in the book, and the love triangle. I can forgive the fight sequences - it is a movie - but the love triangle is just plain pap. It's the studio that insisted on the love triangle, but Jackson went along with it. It's like having a gourmet meal prepared by a master chef, but the restaurant insists on a side of cold, half cooked oatmeal and the chef shrugs his shoulders and says "okay."

So even the best adaptations will have compromises. We'll just have to live with it. For me a bad or even good movie doesn't change the book. It's an inevitable compromise for the visual medium and the different audiences of both.

[Dharmakirti]

When I read Lord of the Rings, I now "hear" Eligah Woods when reading Frodo's parts. Same with Peter Dinklage and Tyrion. When reading comics, Hugh Jackman's voice is what I imagine Wolverine sounding like, Ian McKellan is what I imagine Magneto sounding like. However, I don't picture these actors, I only "hear" the voice.


When I have a voice to go along with the character, it can deepen my reading experience.

[Ben]

I don't have a real problem with this, but to echo an earlier answer, a bit of time works for me. Lots of details tend to fade from my memory--only broad strokes remain (and especially favorite bits).

[John (Taloni)]

Now I remember! I couldn't recall the name of the book before...

Zelazny's "Damnation Alley" was the first movie I saw where I'd read the book before. The movie was so bad and so far from the book that I stopped expecting anything of movie adaptations. It was a good long time before filmmakers got it right. Probably Jackson was the first.

[Trike]

Joanna wrote: "I visualize characters so very vaguely. They tend to be humanlike blobs with hair on top, or whatever feature is most commonly remarked on by other characters. So unless something really big changes for the movie, like gender or race, I don't usually care."

I mostly do this, too, with a few exceptions. I recall so clearly when Katherine Kurtz's description of the character Alaric kept surprising me. For some reason I pictured someone of his qualities as a brunette, but she would say every once in a while that he was blonde. Other than his hair color, though, he was just an amorphous blob.

John wrote: "Zelazny's "Damnation Alley" was the first movie I saw where I'd read the book before. The movie was so bad and so far from the book that I stopped expecting anything of movie adaptations. It was a good long time before filmmakers got it right. Probably Jackson was the first."

I had the same reaction to Damnation Alley. It was so wrong when it came to Hell Tanner that it bugged me constantly. On the other hand, the movie's Landmaster completely replaced Tanner's "car" in my mind's eye, even when I re-read the book.

Visuals tend to be "sticky" in the way words aren't, but less so for dedicated readers. One of the reasons propaganda works so well is because visuals bypass our rational brain and lodge in the emotional centers. That's probably one of the reasons why the Ray Rice wife-beating scandal didn't draw much fire until the video of him punching her into unconsciousness was leaked.

[Aaron]

I have always been a "the book is canon, the subsequent show is wrong" person. A few years ago, I realized that if I watched the movie/tv first, then read the book, I had little difficulty treating them as independent, possibly related, stories. Armed with that knowledge, I have begun to learn to separate the media even when I read the book first. It's still a work in progress, but it's becoming easier to appreciate the differences.

Alternatively, you could just avoid all other versions of a story after your first (watch or read, never both).

[Darren]

Steve wrote: "I am running into similar issues when trying to re-read The Fellowship of the RIng. I haven't read it in roughly 10 years, but I have seen the movies countless times before and since. I love the movies, and wouldn't wish to un-see them (aside from being able to see them afresh), but I feel like they are ruining my experience of the book. I am constantly fighting my brain to say "who cares that that line was slightly different in the movie", and "Frodo is not a baby-faced Elijah Wood!", but to no avail. It is especially frustrating when some scenes are so similar to the movie that I just start playing the movie in my head, then am jarred when something is different."

Reading it through again myself recently. I don't have a problem with image, especially for Tolkien, where I have seen enough different different takes on the characters, but I do have an issue with how they sound, after the movies. For instance Aragorn will always sound like John Hurt, to me. Gandalf always sounded like William Squire, before, but Ian McKellen's voice is starting to take over on this read-through.