I have made a discovery. If there is a movie out that you want to see, based on a great book that you have not read, do NOT read the book before watching the movie.

Allow me to explain.

I saw The Lord of The Rings movies, before reading the respective books. This past weekend, I rented and watched Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy, again not having read the books. I enjoyed each of these movies, greatly. I can see where having read LoTR would have made the movies a bit more understandable, but I can see where some would be disappointed in the movies. Also, since BI and BS are vastly different from the books, as many have stated on this board, not having read the books allowed me to be more entertained by the movies. Especially since that was the desire of the directors and the fact that BI was published in 1980, a completely different time than now.

Thoughts?

What I don't like about watching a movie after having read the book is that later, more often than not, I recall the movie storyline instead of the book.

You know what I like about movies? No reading.

thats the same thing i liked about high school

The Tom Clancy novels have been largely disappointing movies, entertaining as movies but disappointing because the novels were so much better.

The Hunt for Red October was the best of the movies but still it left something to be desired.

Patriot Games was garbage as a movie, plus the fact that they cast too-old Harrison Ford for the Jack Ryan role.

Clear and Present Danger was entertaining but really didn't do justice to the book.

The Sum of All Fears - I enjoyed the movie but oh no, we can't offend the Arabs that were the novel's bad guys, let's make the bad guys white guys who happen to be Nazis, yeah, that works!

Sum of All Fears was quite possibly the worst excuse for a book adaptation I have ever seen, followed closely by The Lost World. In Sum of All Fears, they left out the bad guys, and swapped the mentor/newguy roles of Ryan and Cabot. In Lost World, they left out Levine (arguably the main character in the book) and invented new bad guys, shipping the action back to the mainland for no apparent reason.

LoTR were good as movies, but the theatrical releases left off a lot of good parts. From what I've heard, the extended editions did the books justice. I think LoTR is probably the best adaptation I've seen in recent memory.

The Firm was a pretty bad adaptation. Went right along with the book for about half way, then took a huge wrong turn.

The absolute WORST adaptation I have witnessed has to be Less Than Zero. Only the setting (1980's LA) and a few of the characters names were the same. Rest of the movie seemed to have no relation to the book.

i prefer to read the books first, because on the whole i enjoy the average book more than the average movie. if i watch the movie first, it ruins the book.

if you arent going to read the book anyways, what is the point of this thread?

quote:

---

if you arent going to read the book anyways, what is the point of this thread?

---

And exactly what are you talking about? At what point in time did I say I wasn't going to read the book? I merely suggested not reading the book before watching the movie. I fully intend on reading both BI and BS. BI is next on my list.

Always read the book first, imo.

(coming from someone who would much rather read than movie-go)

I think it's classic irony that the books that were forever thought of as "impossible to ever adapt to the big screen" have come off as perhaps the best book to movie adaptation possibly ever.

[This message has been edited by rjhtamu (edited 7/26/2005 2:14p).]

I go out of my way to read the book first if I know about it in advance.

I don't think I have ever read the book after seeing the movie.

Lonesome Dove was by far the best book to screen adaptation I know of.

The only time I was happy that I saw the movie before reading the book was One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest.

quote:

---

And exactly what are you talking about? At what point in time did I say I wasn't going to read the book? I merely suggested not reading the book before watching the movie. I fully intend on reading both BI and BS. BI is next on my list.

---

that wasnt clear to me in your initial post.

Brokeback Mountain (Annie Proulx) is an example of something people should read before the movie. If you read any articles about the movie, the twist in the story is given away. When I read it within a compilation of generic Western short stories, I had no idea what I was getting into and was shocked by the story. It was great and now I cant wait to see how they adapt that to the big screen, but sadly, moviegoers will already know most of what is going to happen so the surprise is gone.

if any of you are into westerns and stuff and havent heard about the movie, I strongly recommend picking up the book and reading it. great stuff.

[This message has been edited by Oveta (edited 7/26/2005 6:24p).]

There are a few cases where the movie is better than the book. Forest Gump is a good example. Shawshank Redemption is better than the story it came from. Can't think of any others off the top of my head Generally I'm the nerd saying that I've read the book and haven't seen the movie.

Logain,

Did you download the prologue to Knife of Dreams?

Books are generally much better (despite what Jim gaffigan has to say). The only movie I thought was better than the book was Shawshank Redemption.

Sorry, O. For some reason I got a little e-defensive, for no good reason.

Micah97,
No. Not yet. I'll have to check that out.

Personally, if I am going to read the book and see the movie, I read the book first. Otherwise, I just picture what I saw in the movie when I read the book. If I had done it the other way around, it would have killed Pet Sematary for me. The movie was lame, but the book was fantastic. The movie in my mind was WAY better.

I forgot about Shawshank Redemption.

The Four Seasons was one of the first Stephen King books I read. Salem's Lot was first. Hard to remember 20+ years ago

Logain,

It was only $2.80 from the Simon and Schuster website. Man, it was full of action and great plot development.

quote:

---

Shawshank Redemption is better than the story it came from

---

i disagree with this, i think the book is just as good as the movie.

I dont recall lonesome dove being turned into a 3 hour movie.

The Notebook - while the movie was good and all... No matter how many times I read the book I get caught up in it. The book is 10x's better than the movie.