I'll read the book first... HUGE MISTAKE!!!

[PapaBear]

You know the concept. There's a critically acclaimed movie that's been based on a book. The common perception is that you should read the book first.

What books did you read (and led to a really good movie) that had you being disappointed in the movie adaptation? Two of my examples would be "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "The Killing Fields". I read the books before I saw the movies. Though both movies were great, I hated them when I first saw them.

What are your best examples of movies, that should be watched, before you read the book?

Oh, and on the other side... Movies you saw first, then got even more enjoyment when you read the book later.

[nassue]

just recently i read 2001 and watched the film right after i finished the book

two totally different experiences
the movie's fucking awsome(especially when your zooted out of your gourd which, i believe, is the only way to watch that movie)
but the book answered a lot of unaswered questions


instead of one before the i try i simultaneous approach
read half the book, watch the movie (mostly because i'm a slow reader) and ruin the ending for myself

[ChrisTheCop]

Best example of this is The great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

It's my favorite novel EVER...but the movie, starring Robert Redford was quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.

[klaus_kinski_Jr]

pretty much every James Bond book the later movies are just name only.

the closet the films got to the books - From Russia With Love, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Casino Royale (close to the plot just added a whole bunch of action that was never in it)

[moochcassidy]

just recently i read 2001 and watched the film right after i finished the book

two totally different experiences
the movie's fucking awsome(especially when your zooted out of your gourd which, i believe, is the only way to watch that movie)
but the book answered a lot of unaswered questions

i re-read that recently..loved the movie but i gotta say i like the book more. same with one flew over the cuckoos nest. if i really love a movie i tend to dig the book that little bit more.

i will watch the movie first tho..dunno why.

[cupcakelove]

When I was a kid, I read Jurassic Park before the movie came out, because I was so excited about it. They ended up being almost two completely different stories. They had different characters doing different roles, a lot of stuff that happened in the book didn't happen in the movie, and they added a few things to the plot. It was the first time in my life I had read the book before seeing the movie, and was really shocked by the difference in the two stories.

[pennington]

"Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil".

Read the book first, it deserved all the buzz it got. Then saw the movie, flat and tedious.

[Bob Impact]

Fight Club was better as a book than a movie, or at least the plot made a lot more sense and seemed as lot less jumbled in the book.

The film adaptation of The Fountainhead was a disgrace.

[Midkiff]

Mine's a total paradox - the movie is the worst movie in all history, and the book, in my opinion, is an absolute masterpiece.

Battlefield Earth.

[weekapaugjz]

i saw clockwork orange before reading the book and thought it was really good. i then read the book several years later and thought it was one of the best books i have ever read. the movie is a decent adaptation but the book blows it out of the water. i have read it three times since.

[JustJon]

Three that came to mind were "Presumed Innocent," "Rising Sun" and "Jurrassic Park." Mediocre movies that didn't live up to the books.

I never go out of my way to read a book because a movie is coming, but may pick up a book if I enjoyed the movie. The only exception I can think of is picking up Harry Potter a month or two before the movie came out because I needed a book for my commutes and wanted to see what the big deal was.

[JPMNICK]

Fight Club was better as a book than a movie, or at least the plot made a lot more sense and seemed as lot less jumbled in the book.

The film adaptation of The Fountainhead was a disgrace.

I agree with fight club 100%

[EliSnow]

Most of the time, the book is better than the movie. One exception: The Godfather. The movie blew away the book.

[Landblast]

Brett Easton Ellis's Less Than Zero, book was stark, gritty,...movie,...brat pack.

[weekapaugjz]

Brett Easton Ellis's Less Than Zero, book was stark, gritty,...movie,...brat pack.

his book american psycho is 1,000,000 times better than the movie

[MrPink]

I don't think books should be read at all.

[weekapaugjz]

I don't think books should be read at all.

so is this your idea of a good time?

http://purgatorio1.com/wp-content/pics/burningbook.jpg

[MrPink]

so is this your idea of a good time?

http://purgatorio1.com/wp-content/pics/burningbook.jpg

Yeah! Fuck a book, they're better for kindling than reading.

[Doctor Manhattan]

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8982/amazingspidermancover00hg1.jpg
NOTHING LIKE THE MOVIE. There is no black suit, no Venom, no Goblin, no Sandman, no dancing, no goth/emo Peter, It's like they didn't use the book at all when writing the screenplay for Spiderman 3

[Fat_Sunny]

For An Oldie, "The Good Earth" By Pearl Buck Is One Of The Most Wonderful Books Ever Written. It's About The Struggles Of A Chinese Family.

When They Made The Movie, They Used American Movie Stars As The Leads. It Just Destroyed It.


By The Way, For Movies, Fat Would Not Recommend Seeing The Original King Kong Before Jackson's Re-Make.

[klaus_kinski_Jr]

Hereis a case of sometimes the movie improving:

The Taking of the Pelhamn 1-2-3 is a fantastic total seventies movie. THe book is taught and filled with suspense. But the movie has a much better ending.

[ChrisTheCop]

Hereis a case of sometimes the movie improving:

The Taking of the Pelhamn 1-2-3 is a fantastic total seventies movie. THe book is taught and filled with suspense. But the movie has a much better ending.

gezhundheit.

[klaus_kinski_Jr]

gezhundheit.

In the book it has to do with falling down a fire escape

[Thomas Merton]

Some authors, like Vonnegut, haven't been translated to film well. Slaughterhouse Five was noteworthy for the topless old school broad though

Catch-22 is another; book is provocative and hilarious, the movie had Art Garfunkel in it

[Thebazile78]

I had the "I fucking hated the people in Jurassic Park" experience myself after having read the book twice before the movie came out for a couple of reasons. #1 - I read the book as kind of a "Frankenstein" fable and #2 - the movie switched the focus from the science/fable aspect I picked up on in the book to another focus on the people and their interrelated lives. . . incidentally, I wrote a jet-lag induced midterm paper for my Junior year (high school) British Lit class about the first point, so I'm rather attached to it.

As for other things that I was pissed off about: the filmmakers decisions to switch Alex & Tim's ages, and make Dr. Sattler into Dr. Grant's love interest. . .ewwwww (Laura Dern was WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too old to play Ellie Sattler!!! And don't get me started on Sam Neill as Alan Grant. . .not the person I'd pictured, to tell the truth!)

Of course, I was 15 when the JP movie came out and had practically memorized the book after reading it the first time.

At that age, I was a lot less forgiving of the way books are translated into a screenplay.

Having seen some butt-numbing scene-for-scene screenplays since, I am constantly reading novels with an eye towards their eventual film translation. Some of the things I've found interesting are the choices filmmakers are making when they cut, compact or re-arrange events, characters and storylines to make a visual narrative that doesn't numb the average person's bum.

Other times, if the book was positively wretched, it makes it really interesting to see what the film did with it.

On the other hand, I couldn't get past page 6 of any of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books before I saw the first Peter Jackson "fanboy" flick.

Then I tore through all three novels like nobody's business, eagerly anticipated each film in the theaters and now have all 3 "special edition" (single-issue) on DVD.

And I may be willing to re-visit The Hobbit if only for the sense of wonder I got from watching the films of its "sequels" . . . it's been hard for me to get back to it. It was assigned reading during my freshman year of high school, so it's still distasteful on an adolescent level. (So were Great Expectations and The Good Earth . . . I feel illiterate without having more than a passing familiarity with them!)

[feralBoy]

Most of the time, the book is better than the movie. One exception: The Godfather. The movie blew away the book.

The only good part of that book was when luca brasi threw his baby in the furnace.

[patsopinion]

Best example of this is The great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

It's my favorite novel EVER...but the movie, starring Robert Redford was quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.

fuck the great gatsby
both of them
I read that book in school and it was the boring pile of shit ever
there is no ending
it pretentious and awful
i dont read anymore but i read lotr prior to seeing the movie and i thought the movies were better
and i read the Narnia series and i thought the movie was dog shit(very poor special effects)

[drjoek]

http://www.bible.ca/bible.gif




I think The Book was better than most of the movies

[AKA]

"World According to Garp" - I now dig the movie, but it took a long time.

Another I have forgiven, thanks to time -"The Shining" - brought Stephen King to tears, they fucked it up so bad.

Another Stephen King example - this time a movie better than the book - "Carrie"

[PapaBear]

"World According to Garp" - I now dig the movie, but it took a long time.

Another I have forgiven, thanks to time -"The Shining" - brought Stephen King to tears, they fucked it up so bad.

Another Stephen King example - this time a movie better than the book - "Carrie"
The funny thing is, that made for TV mini series followed the book religiously. It just wasn't a good movie, though.

[johnniewalker]

An American Tragedy - maybe i expected too much out of the 1931 adaption, but it was lacking. Either that or I saw A Place in the Sun. I don't remember, but it stunk compared to the book. I mean if your pregnant girlfriend falls off a boat and you choose not to save her, does that make you a bad person? The film completely neglected this scene and did a cut away from what i remember. BS.

[ChimneyFish]

On the other hand, I couldn't get past page 6 of any of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books before I saw the first Peter Jackson "fanboy" flick.

Then I tore through all three novels like nobody's business, eagerly anticipated each film in the theaters and now have all 3 "special edition" (single-issue) on DVD.




About the same here.
I never read any of the books before I saw the movies. I enjoyed the movies, but they got me more curious than anything else.
Now I've read The Hobbit once, The Lord of the Rings twice, The Silmarillion twice, The Book of Lost Tales 1 once, and am now on Lost Tales 2.
I've become a Tolkien nerd!!!!