Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Which should be done first?

[Bookworm]

Should a person read a book first and then watch the movie, or should a person watch the movie first and then read the book? I checked out the DVD of Pride and Prejudice from the library and watched it yesterday, and now I'd really like to read the book. There were some scenes where I could tell the characters were thinking things, and I figure the book might tell me what they were thinking. On the other hand, I read the book Anne of Green Gables first before checking out the movie, and while I did like the movie, I noticed where entire characters were missing. The same thing happened after I read To Kill a Mockingbird. I checked out the DVD and really noticed when scenes were changed or shortened to fit a two hour time frame. So personally, I like to watch the movie on DVD first and then read the book on which the movie is based.

[Chris Vogel]

Reading the book first gives you the benefit of imagining the characters solely within the author’s limitations.

The only time I actively try to watch the movie first is if I’m discussing books with wild names, e.g., the Dune series, and need a pronunciation guide.

[Red Squirrel]

I find watching the movie first helps you understand the book more.

[manadren]

I say read the book first. Watching the movie tends to spoil the book for me more than reading the book spoils the movie. That and I may watch a movie based on a book I read just to see how they handled certain scenes, and some movies take the source material very lightly, which could really ruin expectations of a book.

[Cisco_Kid]

my opinion is book then movies, you get a much better understanding of the author's intent rather then a quite possibly f**ked rendition that has beem dramatically altered due to budgetary reasons, time constraints, poor quality/inadequate effects, or whatever else.

A prime example is Starship Troopers. The movie is adequate for summer action fodder, but the book is far superior with intelligent bugs that actually talk and think, etc, etc.

The ever popular Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films are good examples as well. They make decent movies but are missing huge chunks that are some of my favourites from the books (I am talking mainly about the LOTR, but HP makes too many cuts for the screenplay as well).

This post has been edited by Cisco_Kid: Jun 17 2008, 10:07 AM

[scherzo]

Should a person read a book first and then watch the movie, or should a person watch the movie first and then read the book? I checked out the DVD of Pride and Prejudice from the library and watched it yesterday, and now I'd really like to read the book. There were some scenes where I could tell the characters were thinking things, and I figure the book might tell me what they were thinking. On the other hand, I read the book Anne of Green Gables first before checking out the movie, and while I did like the movie, I noticed where entire characters were missing. The same thing happened after I read To Kill a Mockingbird. I checked out the DVD and really  noticed when scenes were changed or shortened to fit a two hour time frame. So personally, I like to watch the movie on DVD first and then read the book on which the movie is based.

A and E has a 6 part mini on the movie which is far better than the movie. the movie seems to be a rip off, and doesn't match the tension needed for the love speech

"In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you.

He goes on to tell her that he loves her despite her lack of wealth or connections to important people. He says that he's tried to ignore his feelings for her because it would be beneath him to marry anyone like her

lmao, great speach, and boy does he get it

[flowergirlajg]

Usually I would totally say READ FIRST!! But in the case of Pride and Prejadice i would watch the movie first, to get a general grasp of the plot.