to ask all you lovely MNers to help me with some coursework.

[MammaTJ]

I am doing an English assignment and need to survey a range of people.

Have you ever watched a film i.e Twilight, PS I love You, that has then made you want to read the book?

If classics like Shakespeare and Dickens were made into modern films would it make you read the book or play? If so, why? If not, why not?

TIA

I saw The Remains of the day, then read it as I was told the book was even better than the film. Also read Pride and Prejudice after seeing the BBC production but most often I'll read the book first as agreed with other posters that your own imagination is better than the film-makers reproduction.

I'm 35.

Good luck

Oh and read Born on the 4th July after seeing the film, the film was far better than the book!

I can't think of any books I've read because of a film. At all. Ever.

I have seen a few films because I've loved the book, like Harry Potter (although I pretended those were for dd1) and LOTR.

I generally avoid films after I've read the book, or books after I've seen the film. I get annoyed by the way other people have imagined things differently to me or changed the books I love to make a different film/tv series. Like I read the Sookie Stackhouse books then watched True Blood and they are poles apart. I was mortified that I had told mil the series would appeal to her (before it started) as the books were fairly innocent but the series was rather raunchy.

Is it just Shakespeare and Dickens your writing about, or can it be other classic writers?

Have you ever watched a film i.e Twilight, PS I love You, that has then made you want to read the book?

I've not watched Twilight or PS I Love You. I have watched other films then wanted to read the book - The English Patient.

If classics like Shakespeare and Dickens were made into modern films would it make you read the book or play? If so, why? If not, why not?

I like a lot of modern films of Shakespeare and will watch almost anything based on Shakespeare. I love seeing how the stories are retold. I don't especially like Dickens so I wouldn't choose to watch a film of a Dickens novel, but might change my mind if it had good reviews!

I think given that Shakespeare's plays are already modernizations of older classics, maybe that is why they suit being remade so well.

Hope that helps - best of luck with your research!

Oh, and my age is 27.

I'm 29. Its very rare that I read the book after seeing the film. I nearly always go out of my way to do it the other way round, even with the classics.

I can think of a few random exceptions: Forrest Gump (had seen the film, came across book in library, thought why not...book was bizarre) and...that's the only one I can think of.

I'm 31.

I usually only see the film first if (a) I have no intention of reading the book or (B) I don't know before I see it that it's based on a book. Although I knew a christmas carol was a book before I saw the Muppet version, which by the way I think is the best film version in terms of original text used, Michael Caine is superb as Scrooge and the representation of the ghosts is spot on (apart from Stanley and Waldorf as Marley and Marley, but I think they get away with it).

I rather like Nick Hornby's films. You can always recognise the original book, but the film is slightly different, but not in an annoying way. It's like he does a cover version but makes it into something different. I rather like re-writngs, Clueless, particularly of Shakespeare's works - 10 things I hate about you and the Lion King.

Sounds like an interesting assignment!

All opinions are gratefully received Kate. I shall expand in the essay to include relevant revelations!

not as far as i recall.

if classics were made into modern films, i might not like them. then i wouldn't want to read the book. modern adaptations are sometimes annoying. i loved 'sherlock' though and look forward to the next three.

i might listen to a radio adaptation of a classic story or book and enjoy it (but not if it had been made into a comedy, as radio 4 recently did with a sherlock holmes story), but i wouldn't then read the book. the book is first, or not at all.

i've read books and then watched the film. but the film is never as good or as real as the book.

i am 54.

I read the book first then maybe see the film. It is very rare that I've watched a film that is better than the book, in fact I can't think of one, there must be one, maybe it'll come to me later. To be honest, I find it very hard to sit through a film without getting bored and fidgety.

There are a few films I've seen where I've wanted to read the book afterwards - Lord of the Rings, The Road, but I haven't got around to reading them yet.

Oh, someone mentioned Sleepers, I saw that first then bought the book (and read it) some years later. That made me cry.

For some reason I've always stayed away from film adaptations of classics. I don't know why, maybe I should watch one.

I'm 40.

Thought of another film that inspired me to read the book: The Pianist. In this case I didn't even know it was based on a book when I saw the film. Great film, great book. I might go so far as to say I preferred the film...

Also Steven King books: I like the books but I think the movie versions of Shawshank Redemption, Carrie and The Shining are so good I prefer them to the books. I can't remember which I read first and which I saw first.

Other great (IMO) film adaptations: The Color Purple, Bridget Jones 1, The Cider House Rules, The Hours, Sense and Sensibility...but none of those are as good as the books, even so ;-)

Have you ever watched a film i.e Twilight, PS I love You, that has then made you want to read the book?

no, i can't read a book after i watched the film - it spoils it - as the characters are not then of my imagination.

If classics like Shakespeare and Dickens were made into modern films would it make you read the book or play? If so, why? If not, why not?

shakespeare was meant to be wwatched imo - not read. dickens is dull. but i think i see what you are getting at. i can see an argument for attracting young people driven by a culture of tv and media in general.

however i think of my kids and the phrase ' why should i read it when i can get the film?'

TIA

40

No but I remember really struggling with Tale of Two Cities - Charles Dickens for GCSE or A level, saw the film, very old but good. Suddenly I was able to appreciate it and get past the it was the best of times it was the worst of times opener. I went on to really love the book.
Was obviously a teenager at the time.

I'm in my 30s. Yes to twilight, I watched the films then read the books. I usually prefer to read the book first so I can build up a picture in my mind of what the characters look like etc, but on the other hand, if there's a film on tv I happen to watch and like, I might read the book afterwords.

I've never read the book because of a film but I have read the book/s because of tv program's. Dalziel and Pascoe and Sharpe to name a couple. I'm 27.

I've been racking my brain trying to think of an occasion where a film has made me want to read the book. Like most other people, I tend to read the books first because I like how things are in my imagination, and the films tend to do your thinking for you. I almost always prefer my version!

So... the only book that I can think of that I read after seeing the film is The Princess Bride. I loved that film so much as a child / teen (and adult!), and was over the moon to find out there was a book. The film was better - but whether that was because I had seen the film first, I don't know!

"Have you ever watched a film i.e Twilight, PS I love You, that has then made you want to read the book?"
Loads of times. That I can think of right now - Gone With the Wind, Minority Report, Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), Dune. I still have 'Never Let Me Go' on my To Read list. And sometimes a TV series - The Dresden Files led me to read the books. Yes, it's predominantly sci-fi.

A lot of posters have said they prefer to read the books first, and broadly I do to - but I can still enjoy reading the books afterwards, and enjoy the further complexity of the story when compared to the stripped-down/sexed-up film interpretation. There's always a lot more to think about from the book, film versions have often concentrated on one aspect of the story (the one easiest to portray visually) and the book is much richer.

"If classics like Shakespeare and Dickens were made into modern films would it make you read the book or play? If so, why? If not, why not?"
"Were made"?" Haven't most of the been done already, many times and in many forms? Not just straight versions but e.g. 10 Things I Hate About You = The Taming of the Shrew, Clueless = Emma by Jane Austen.

Much as I can enjoy filmed versions of Shakespeare, no, it does not lead me to the text. I did it once, for Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, but TBH it takes too much concentration and sidenotes to get through, so I abandoned it. Dickens - I have read a few, but not lately. By and large the film versions don't make me want to read the books, I think because I'm just not that interested in the stories, I don't think there's many nuances in the books that aren't expressed in the film/TV versions. Jane Austen adaptations did make me read her novels though. I enjoy them, they're a speedy read and I admire her keen eye for the comedy of manners dominant in her time. Her books are not bogged down with unweildy language.

"Oh and your rough age group, if you don't mind please."
49.

I generally avoid reading books after watching the film, as I love to imaging my own settings and characters, and don't like the ending spoilt. The exceptions that come to mind are:

The Three Musketeers (good book and alot more detail than the various films), How to Train Your Dragon (good book but the film was really quite different in plot and characters), Les Miserables (loved the book, read it twice years after the musical) & Bridgit Jones (liked both). Didn't get through ten pages of Gone With The Wind either, which I tried years after enjoying the film.

There are quite a few classics I'd avoid watching as I really liked the books, eg 1984, Phanton of The Opera, Grapes of Wrath, 2010 (though watched 2001), The Godfather. Captain Corelli's Mandolin was a disappointment as a film after the book. I'll watch Shakespeare, Tolkein & Dickens as I have always really struggled with the books.

Hungry Hill by Daphne DuMaurier would make a great film, and is one of the few books I have thought that about while I've been reading it.

I can't think of any book that I have read which made me want to watch the movie.

I wasn't going to post but perhaps you need someone like me to balance the stats.

If I have read a book then why watch the movies? And vice versa.

I am 57

And I'm 36. May I add I'd watch Shakespeare so long as Branagh wasn't let near it.

If it's of any interest, I've just asked DS (aged 6) who's just had How To Train Your Dragon read to him in chapters for bedtime (the film is based on the book). He was very excited to know it was also a book (has watched the film countless times), and his opinion is that he enjoyed both equally, and he didn't mind that the stories are slightly different.

When asked if there was, hypothetically, a book of Ice Age (another favourite film), he would like to read it and would prefer the story to be the same. We've yet to read Jungle Book or Robin Hood with him but will do at some point (though I know Jungle Book is a bit different & more grown up). I also loved Wind In The Willows, even though I know the story backwards, and will read that to him/ let him read it one day too.

Quite surprised how my opinion's really different with children's books compared to adult's.