Film or book?

  Jak_1 12:09 14 Jan 2007

Some people think it's better to see a film before reading the book the film is based on and others prefer reading the book before the film. Which way do you think is best? Out of preference I think seeing the fim first is better as a film rarely lives up to, nor completely follows the books storyline accurately due to cost and feasability restraints.

  Kate B 12:17 14 Jan 2007

Book every time - it's the original work! I treat the two as separate because filmmakers often have different priorities about how they present something.

  Jak_1 12:27 14 Jan 2007

Kate, you are right about the book being the orriginal, but I have found many times that if I have enjoyed a film then I have enjoyed reading the book even more as it is presented the way in which the author intended. Any subtle plots and twists usually missing from the film are very apparent in the book. Having read a book first I am usually dissapointed with the film but not the other way round.

  Watchful 12:33 14 Jan 2007

every time for me.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 12:37 14 Jan 2007 Lord of the Rings first and then see the film. a book, if well written, allows your imagination to add substance to the characters - a film leaves little to the imagination and tells you what the characters look and behave like. Tolkien had probably the best command of the English language for all time. The film is not even in the same league as the book.


  Jak_1 12:43 14 Jan 2007

The written word is a more powerfull medium when it comes to fiction, but sometimes having enjoyed a good film I have then gone out and bought the book and usually enjoyed it more than the film. However I do read many more books than I see films.

  @[email protected]!c 12:46 14 Jan 2007

i have read many books that have been turned into film.and all the time the book was better..fims are limited, imagination is not :)

  @[email protected]!c 12:47 14 Jan 2007


  DrScott 12:50 14 Jan 2007

I'm nearly always disappointed by the film later. Except perhaps for Harry Potter, the books and films being about as dull as each other.

So for me, it's film first and if it's even slightly interesting then the book.

Having said that, the Constant Gardner made a very good film even having just read the book so it's not always the case I guess.

  Simsy 13:00 14 Jan 2007

on this, and treat them as seperate things.

Having said that, if I've read the book I can watch the film. If I've seen the film however, I can't read the book. Even when lots of "artistic licence" has change a film significantly, the basic plot is usually the same. When I'm reading a book I don't want to do so knowing what happens. When seeing a film, even if I know what happens I haven't "seen" it before.



  @[email protected]!c 13:00 14 Jan 2007

DrScott same as me if i watch a film i'm dissapointed by the book and vice versa . there is a big devide between film and books they both take you in different directions but the same story..i suppose once you get images in your head (from film)it spoils the book and in reading a book you make the images yourself so its unique to every reader

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

iMac Pro review

25 book design and illustration tips

iMac Pro review

Idées cadeaux pour geeks et tech addicts