Book before movie? Or movie before book?

[maddiie]

Just had the ultimate disagreement with DH. We've watched the first episode of The Cry, I want to read the book first but he says that's the total wrong way round! I always read the book first, with every movie and series. Who's right, who's wrong?!

Book book book always the book first.
If I know it exists anyway.

I can’t believe how many people are wrong choosing book first. Do you hate yourselves and enjoy the punishment of knowingly going into a movie knowing it will most likely never live up to the movie?
I remember reading World War Z and thought it was one of the best books I read. Was dead happy they made it into a movie... wanted to kill myself in the cinema. It was so utterly shit and literally not even the book it was so different. I couldn’t put myself through that again tbh.

@Stephisaur yes, I agree, if it's an accident it doesn't count

Book first, always. Films always fuck it up, so I like to have the pleasure of the book first and anger later. I don’t want the anger while reading the book after having watched the fuck up.

Book first.

But I have subsequently bought the book of a movie I've enjoyed and probably not realised that there was a book that came first, IYSWIM?!

Definitely book before movie.

Always book first. Not the same for a TV series though.

Definitely book first - it is an actual rule in our house. Part of the joy of books is using your imagination to immerse yourself in the book not relying on someone else’s interpretation. Plus they last longer.

I would say film first, because so often the screenplay of the film misses out or changes part of the book, which is really irritating.

Book first but how you imagine the characters isn't what they look like in the movie.

Movie first and you can clearly see what the characters in the book look like.

I've done both but prefer movie first as the book then goes in much more depth, eg Twelve Years A Slave.

Book first.

Yes the film will generally be a disappointment afterwards but you have had chance to really get to know the characters in your head by doing it that way.

The ONLY exception to this was Harry Potter (the first one, and even then they missed the Dragon at the end).

Sometimes it's best to just read the book because the film can ruin things.
Captain Corelli played by Nicholas Cage was so wrong . He wasn't anything like what I'd imagined when reading the book. Now whenever I think about the book I see his face rather than my real (imagined) Captain Corelli.

Book before film always.

Book first. I don't want a casting director to tell me how a character looks, nor a director to tell me how a character acts. I'll make my own head pictures thank you and then spend the entire movie saying "he doesn't behave like that" "She doesn't look like that"

That said, if not for Colin Firth I may never have picked up a Jane Austin novel.

Hmm seems the general consensus is book first, will proudly tell DH that I am right! smug face

But I do understand some of you movie-firsters points. It is beyond irritating when the characters don't look ANYTHING like you imagined. Don't think I would of minded Girl on The Train movie if I saw it first, but because I'd already read the book and imagined it all a certain way I was so disappointed because Emily Blunt looked nothing like the girl in my head (and I'm still bitter they Americanised it all rather than keeping it set in London)

Book first

Can't decide; done both. Atonement, Before I go to sleep, The girl on the train, Gone girl - read the book first for all of these and was glad I had or I wouldn't have followed the film. 'On Chesil Beach', 'The Sense of an Ending' - saw these films first and then immediately wanted to read the books. Have read The Cry and am watching the series, mainly because I can't remember what happened! Thing is, DD has bought me The Guernsey Potato Peel thingy book, and I have seen the film already and really feel I don't need to read the book. Sorry DD!