Water for Elephants
discussion
Book or movie first?
message 1:
by
Tonia
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Sep 17, 2011 09:31PM
I started reading the book and am finding that I am atypically anxious to know the whole story right away. Without spoiling the story, which would you recommend for me to pursue?
reply
|
flag
The book for sure. The book has so much more detail than the movie. While I liked the movie, I hated that there was so much left out. Please, please, please read the book first! :)
Book for sure!!!! It was a great book and it helps to know whats going on in the movie because like Rachele said there's a lot less detail in the movie. I feel like you miss out if you don't read the book first. I also can't read books after I've watched the movie but I can always watch the movie after I've read the book. I know I'm weird lol.
Always the book first!!!
Totally agree, always the book first, it's usually better. Actually I can't think of one where it hasn't been
I agree, always the book first. The book ususally is better but typically goes into greater detail where much of the smaller details are assumed in the movie or just left out. Often I struggle with the movie after the book because many details are left out.
I refuse to see the movie until I read the book.The book is usually better.
But it is soooooo tempting! :)
Book, also its much better than the movie
Without a doubt, book first!
the book first! the movie is no where near as good as the book!!
C.j wrote: "the book first! the movie is no where near as good as the book!!"couldn't agree more
I would do the book first, altho this movie did a great job of telling the story without changing it. Sure details were left out, but it was still the same. I just loved the book, they way it led you to the end.
I read the book first before the movie. I try to do that with other adaptions too because you can imagine it the way you want before it's been brought to life.
Always the book first.I suppose they can't put as much detail into the film or else the film would be 5 hours long!! I always find it useful to watch the film adaptation of a book I can't read so it makes it easier to read afterwards!
book first. I enjoyed both but I find I don't enjoy the book as well if I watch the movie first.
See the movie first and then wait a few months to read the book. It will make the book richer to have the visual context from the movie.
Always Always and only all books first
Movie... That way when you read the book the movie wont have been ruined for you because everyone knows that the book is ALWAYS better than the movie.
Yes, the book is always better. So you want to start from book because you want to be stay interested and intrigues till the end. Movie is just short version of book and it already doesn't matter what you know that is about from book. You just watching movie from curiosity to compare you images of book to how it was seen and introduce by movie makers. So, still book first!
Always the book first. In most cases "Hollywood" changes things and often omits the best parts. One exception: SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS. The movie got the ending right!
The book... I don't like watching a movie without reading the book first! I didn't like the Water for Elephants movie... they turned it into a love story, but that wasn't the focus! Grr...
Yes, agree with previous post - movie lost book point
Karl wrote: "See the movie first and then wait a few months to read the book. It will make the book richer to have the visual context from the movie."I'm the opposite. Once I see the Hollywood characters and scenes, even if it's only in the preview I can't get them out of my head and I think they bias who that character could be.
Book always first.
Tonia wrote: "I started reading the book and am finding that I am atypically anxious to know the whole story right away. Without spoiling the story, which would you recommend for me to pursue?"So what did you decide? Have you finished the book yet?
For anyone even considering watching the movie - DON'T. After reading this enchanting book, the movie was a total let-down. Love Reese, but in no way was she the correct actress to play the role. Some of the details of the book, I think, had to be changed due to her "older woman" role in the film. Read the book 100% all the way.
I read the book first and have just watched the film. I don't think the film is in any way as good as the book.. but without comparing them it's nice to see it in front of you. Certain aspects of the film really went hand-in-hand with the book, but other aspects didn't. I would definitely finish the book before seeing the film though!
I always try to read the book first if I can and I just finished this one and I loved it - still waiting to see the movie.
I just finished this book about a month ago and it was great! I haven't seen the movie yet, but I def wnat to see it sometime.
If I have a choice between reading the book or seeing the movie, I always go with the book. Seeing the movie is so often disappointing. The plot changes, characters are added, stuff is left out. I'm more of a purist. If the author took the trouble and thought to write a story a certain way, don't mess with it for the sake of the box office reciepts. Most times I don't even go to see the movie, especially if I liked the book. Don't want to spoil it.
The book is always better then the movie! Read it in two days and loved it! I have not seen the movie, but I plan too.
Always the book first is my philosophy. I don't like to consider the Directors view of the book while reading the book. I prefer reading what the author had intended for me get from the book. Having said that, I have only read the book so far. Waiting to watch movie on DVD
I think that the book is most of the time better than the film so i would say first book and then film
Book first... always!
Always the book first! Now I am very excited to see the movie though.
Book first there is no way any movie could compare to how good that book was!
The Book for sure!!! Often I won't watch the movie, because I have been so disappointed in the past.......missing characters, change of storyline. I've walked out of movie theatres, wondering what the heck happened to my wonderful book!
I have to agree, the book was better. To be honest, the only reason I watched the movie was that Robert Pattinson was in it. I my opinion, there were way too many significant parts of the book that were left out of the movie. So it goes...............
I would have to say BOOK first! :D
Always book first.
The book first! There is much more detail and it will help you understand the significance of certain scenes in the movie. But if you do opt for the movie I think the movie did a really great job and stayed very true to the book!
Usually book first!
The movie of Graham Greene's The Third Man is ranked on many critics' lists of top movies of all time. It certainly contains Joseph Cotton's finest performance, and the ending scene is cinematic genius. The book is good, but the movie should be seen whether or not one reads the book. So don't miss the movie version of The Third Man because of a "book first" bias.
Sharron wrote: "Totally agree, always the book first, it's usually better. Actually I can't think of one where it hasn't been"I've only found 2 films that have been better than the book:
The Notebook (the book was awful compared to the film)
The Lord of the Rings (The books are far to long winded)
I find that if I really enjoyed a film the book can enrich the experience, however there are some books that I may not have touched had I watched the film first (The kite Runner and Memoirs of Geisha for example) i haven't seen the film for Water for Elephants yet, I'm a bit anxious as I loved the book.
I liked movie Sense and Sensibility better then book Sense and SensibilitybyJane Austen. The same about Austen other book - Emma. I hardly push myself throw book, but movie was made very well. I'm not a fun of Harry Potter books (just was listening them in car with my 8y old), so for me Harry Potter movies would be more then enough. But mostly I like books better and always read book and watch the movie after
Michelle wrote: "Sharron wrote: "Totally agree, always the book first, it's usually better. Actually I can't think of one where it hasn't been"I've only found 2 films that have been better than the book:
Th..."
I'd add to that the movie version of Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana. Greene classified this as one of his "entertainments". Alec Guiness gives a wonderful performance as the bumbling agent, which elevates the book, and if you've got access to the movie, there's little need to read the book.
ALWAYS the book! They are always better PLUS don't the authors deserve that much?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Water for Elephants (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Sense and Sensibility (other topics)Water for Elephants (other topics)
