Do you read the book first, then see the film, see the film then read the book or is it an either or situation?

[Demented]

The title says it all, just nosey really. I recently read The Beach which I really enjoyed and last night watched the film which I enjoyed as well but spent most of it thinking things like "that never happened in the book", "I didn't imagine him looking quite like that" etc, etc.

Just wondered what the rest of you do, read first then watch, watch first then read or only read or only watch?

I always see the film first then read the book - that way I don't have any predefined ideas of what the characters look like and behave... I can then appreciate both for two completely different media.

Every time I've read the book first I've been bitterly disappointed with the film.

message withdrawn

If I have read the book I usually can't bear to watch the film because I get too upset at the changes that they make and complain loud and long afterwards to anyone who will listen!

I don't have a set approach, but I admit that I'm usually very disappointed by films if I've read the book first.

I almost always prefer the book to the film, I think it's inevitable as it's more evocative to have feelings and emotions described in a book. Also, unless it's a very short book, the film will have to have some parts cut out or have the film in several parts. So I usually try and avoid the film if I've read the book or else (like lilibet) I tend to complain long and hard about the adaptation, if it's on TV I even shout at the screen.

There are some exceptions though, I thought the film of High Fidelity was better than the book.

Not set pattern here either However, I do usually prefer a book to a film, and get quite stressed out when the film isn't what it ought to be or actors are portrayed/cast 'wrongly' for my interpretation.

oh casting - don't get me started on casting!
Who for the love of God thought that Frodo Baggins looked like Elijah Wood? Or that Captain Corelli was Nicholas Cage. Mrs Bennett was never Alison Steadman in the last tv translation of Pride and Prejuidice.

I always prefer to read the book first - otherwise my imagination is stifled by the director/producer's interpretation of the characters - especially if the film is good.

The Beach is an interesting example, as the book and the film appear almost unrelated. I too enjoyed both, but the film seemed to completely ignore the main themes, issues and characters of the book ... in a similar way to Chocolat.

read the book
see the film
slag it off

Lilibet - totally agree about Alison Steadman! The actress in the '80s version (with Elizabeth Garvie as Lizzie) was perfect in the part. I also thought E Garvey was much better as Lizzie too...can't stand the woman who played her in the '90s version. Having said that, I lurrved Colin Firth as Darcy...mmmmmmm.

Back on topic, I prefer to see the film first, otherwise I get really cross when the story is changed. If it is a favourite of mine (like 'Sense & Sensibilty', I am horrified when a travesty is produced! If I have seem the film, it also heps me get into the book, especially if it is a bit hardgoing. I saw 'Our Mutual Friend' on BBC first, and then really enjoyed the book. The same with 'Vanity Fair'.

always read the book first and although the film never ever lives up to my imagination and pictures of aspects of the book ... I prefer it that way rather than seeing the film and reading the book - then I get stuck with someone else's interpretation and ideas.....

hate it also when the film totally changes the book or leaves out important aspects to the story... generally disappointed with most of John Grisham's books that have been adapted to films... eg The Firm - totally different ending....A Pelican Brief...character in the film with very little information about him and you would have not realised the significance unless you had read the book.... made parts of the film pointless then.....

The Beach is a terrible film IMO Demented and not terribly faithful to the book either IIRC. I suppose I'd usually read the book first but it depends really. I'd happily see a film adapted from a book if I didn't intend reading the book. But if I wanted to read the book then I'd definitely do that first. Ooh bran, I thought the book High Fidelity was better than the film but that it was a fairly faithful adaptation. Apart from being set in America rather than North London. Hmm, maybe it's just that I can forgive John Cusack almost anything

The Beach was a particularly foolish adaptation.

Does anyone have any thoughts about Girl with Pearl Earring. Apparently it's a fairly faithful adaptation, so would the point of going to see it, if you have read the book, be purely to enjoy it on a visual dimension, given that it a book about vision

(Blimey that was a struggle to get out, been at home with kids all day)

I had heard that the ending was changed in Girl with a Pearl Earring?

Really?

I always prefer to read the book first, for the reasons roisin and eidsvold give.

With most of you there, read the book then sometimes see the film. Generally disappointed with film adaptations. But have to say I loved Bridget Jones, the book and the film.
I prefer to picture the scene, characters etc myself and invariably film stars don't look like they should.

Agree with you WWW that John Cusack can improve almost any film just by being in it, even America's Sweethearts. I think in High Fidelity though I understood the lead character better by seeing him, I just found his indecisiveness irritating in the book.

I've heard good things about the stage version of Philip Pullman's Dark Materials. I am thinking of taking DH as he really enjoyed the books. Perhaps in the same way as you should never see the film of a book you really, really love, I might like the theater version of Dark Materials better because I couldn't stand the books.

Bran, I think the Pullman stage adaptation is sold out, returns only...
I've usually read the book and then spat tacks at the casting and plot liberties in the film/TV adaptation.
Chinchilla, I LOVED the 80s adaptation of P & P too. Only that block of wood David Rintoul was wrong for Darcy, everyone else was great. For me Elizabeth Garvie will always be Lizzie, and Natalie Ogle was perfect as Lydia (unlike the ubiquitous Julia Sawalha). I wonder what happened to her career...

The BBC adaptation of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds was perfect too IMO

I generally hate film adaptions of books. They always leave so much out or are completely different. If I happen to see a film first then I never read the book as I find if I know the plot it spoils it for me.

There are only 2 films I can think of that are as good as the book and that is Carrie and Bridget Jones.

Totally agree Spacemonkey, I love Persuasion too. The film (shown recently on BB1/2) of Mansfield Park was a total cop out though. I liked it, because it had been years since I read the book. I then read book again, and kept saying, 'Well THAT didn't happen'!!

Marina - I thought Lydua in P & P was fab too. In fact, all the casting in the '90s version was wrong, except Darcy and Mr Benet. I hated the guy who played the vicar cousin (temporarily forgotten character's name - shame on me) too. He was much better in the original.

Oops - 'BenNet'

And in the 1980's p&p they didn't miss out one of my favourite bits which they did in teh Colin Firth one. When Darcy and Lizzie are together towards the end she asks him when he fell in love with her and he says ' I was in the middle of it before I scarce knew I had begun' aahhhh! I was so cross when that was missed out, and was miffed at the wedding at the end - they didn't wear white to be married in in Regency times! grrrrr

sorry - I need a life

Not a bit of it, Lilibet, that wedding scene was gross. And the adaptation of Persuasion was just perfect, of a perfect novel.
Anyone fancy discussing the merits or otherwise of the extraordinary Regency House Party?