Do you prefer to read the book before watching the film?

[DontOpenDeadInside]

I have recently read all the Harry Potter books, having only watched the 1st film when it 1st came out. Planning on watching the movies when I've got a bit spare money to buy them. Also read Divergent, which I'd seen the film of but couldn't really remember much of it so just rewatched it and realised the book was a lot better.
My dilemma is Insurgent is not on Kindle unlimited but the film is on prime, I'm not wanting to pay money for the book so will wait for it to come on unlimited, but should I watch the film?

Also, if anyone's got Kindle unlimited and gave any recommendations in the same genre that'd be great. :)

Only on the free trial until 14th March so need to decide if it's worth keeping on, didn't realise I'd read all the HP books in just over a week lol

Yes! I find the films miss a lot out. Harry Potter is a great example of this. The films are fab though :)

Definitely read the books first. .

I have just read the divergent trilogy and enjoyed it. I really want to see the films now.

Books first although I did struggle with cloud atlas so watched the film first with that one as the book was just a bit confusing.

Always read the books first but I read more than I watch films

I prefer to read the book first, but will avoid the film if I love the book.

I saw a picture once of an iceberg with the bit abobe sealevel labelled "the film" and the massive underwater portion labelled "the book" and it is soooo true.

Bit dont bother with Insurgent - what a pile!

Life of Pi was an amazi g book and I was concerned that the movie would be awful but it really was the best book to movie adaptation ive seen.

The Hunger Games miss very little out of the movies (certainly the first two anyways).

Harry Potter, I read all of them pre movies and was so so glad I did!

may I side track slightly... I have a fiction and a non fiction book on the same subject, which do I read first

I like Penny's iceberg analogy - that's a really interesting way of putting it.

I prefer to read the book first, however I sometimes have sought a book because I enjoyed the film or tv programme.

The book is almost always better (the author has more time to build character, motivation and set the scene).

On the other hand there are a few films where the director has done something great with a fairly average book.

I just binge watched the Twilight Saga and I'm glad I read the books first (few years ago - aversion to Kristen Stewet prevented me watching the films in past).
I loved the Divergent series but haven't seen films yet and not sure if I will..
And Hunger Games... I loved the books and I'm hopeful I will enjoy the films.... But I'm waiting until I can do all at the same time!
My apologies I can't offer anything other than personal choice.
Books first!

No apologies needed! Thats what I wanted - others' opinions.
I don't think I would like Twilight (neither read the books or watched films) But then I thought that about Harry Potter too. Are they very soppy?
I've got a pretty bad memory when it comes to films, but I tend to remember books a lot more.

I just watched Brooklyn and loved it, but the book was sooooo much better.

Films can't seem to resist a happy ending, and it ends up making the whole story seem watered down.

Book first, always.

I like to read the book first if I can.

I always don't mind so much when films change things from the book - I enjoy seeing how the story can be told in a different way.

But it depends on personal preference - some people find that watching the film first can help them to "get into " a book that they would otherwise not get along with.

If at all possible, I watch the film first because then I have no pre-conceived ideas and the book fills in the gaps of the film, IYSWIM.

If I've read the book first, I usually hate the film or tv version, because they leave parts and/or characters out or change the plot completely. An extreme example of this is World War Z which is nothing at all like the book and was subsequently rubbish. The only film I can think of that improved on the novel is The Shining.

Watch the film as they look wrong if I've imagined the characters when reading. Also I spend the whole time in the film thinking they've missed that bit or that didn't happen.

The only thing similar to the WWZ book and film is the title. I try to think of the film as a whole new film (I liked it) I couldn't enjoy the book very much, I didn't like the way it was written. I prefer a storyline.

When I was reading Harry Potter I knew what the main characters looked like but enjoyed imagining the rest. Then I'd google images to see if I was close.

I've not read The Shining, though Ive seen the film. Love Stephen King though. Mostly his older works. Tried to read Under The Dome, but couldn't get into it. Unfortunately none of his books are on kindle unlimited.

The book, every time. Actually the only films that I think have been as good as the book are Stephen King ones - The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Shining - were all excellent. But most other books have failed to really translate as well to the screen and so if I've really enjoyed a book I tend to avoid the film. Recently watched The Martian and I loved the film but lots of the book were totally left out of the screen version. I loved Room and am not sure if the film could be as good so avoiding going to see it. Just read The Light Between Oceans which I loved and today heard a film has been made of it and again I'm thinking I might avoid it.
So my conclusion is if you can read the book, do

The book. Always.

I'm struggling to think of a movie that's better than the book it's based on...

Blade runner is maybe one.

How do you know which books are going to be best sellers/movie adaptations? Or is it a case of trial and error?

The book.

I do get annoyed if the films aren't up to scratch compared to the book, but mostly when they change too much (yes, I'm looking at you, whoever made The Dark is Rising into a shite film!)

The only time I've prefered the film to the book was Stardust as the book is not a long one, or substantial enough to have made a feature film and I saw the film first and loved it.

The book. The only film I have ever seen that is better than the book is the Shawshank Redemption, taken from Stephen King's short story. I love audio books as I drive a huge amount for work. I was transfixed by Room-sat in my driveway listening to that badboy when I'd been at work all day-and the book almost came close. Almost.

I very rarely watch films that I've read the book of, if the book was good the film won't live up to it, if the book wasn't great there doesn't seem much point. I do sometimes read books if I've enjoyed a film though, they often enrich the overall experience. I'm reading Annie at the moment (love the original film and recent stage production) and thoroughly enjoying it.

Almost always book first. The film is often a disappointment but not always.
Have you read / seen Girl with the Dragon tatoo? Brilliant books and films (trilogy).
Also The Help. Really good book and film was too.

Usually I would always say book first, and I try not to let my kids watch films of books until they've read the book first (luckily they love reading). I would also agree most films are not as good as the book, or just don't match up with how you imagined it. I loved About a Boy and hated the film.

But, recently I watched Room and loved it, and then proceeded to look up the book and love that too.

Always always the book first. I get really irritated when there is a brilliant book that the author has spent so much time and effort getting the plot perfect and then the film changes it. I feel the same when they write terrible books based on brilliant films - just no.