Not only am I an avid reader but I love the movies, too. I try hard to read a book as soon as I hear it's being presented as a movie so that I can compare the original manuscript with what's presented on screen.

Currently I'm reading The Bourne Identity and although I've never been into that particular genre I'm finding it hard to put down. Somehow I have a tough time believing Hollywood will really be able to cover a good majority of the book because of the perpetual motion of the character, Bourne, and fill in all the details that are necessary to make the book readable. On the other hand, there are ways an actor can fill in the blanks simply with his expressions and through directing and editing certain scenes.

Anyone else? Doesn't have to be about the Bourne Identity, btw.

I usually read the book after watching the movie, but I've already read Borne Identity. Reading the book after watching the movie is kind of like seeing the full Directors cut and I think its best to know the full story after seeing the cut down film version.

Goofee Girl, you are so word. Anyone who loves books AND movies can't be that bad.

Anyway, I prefer to read the book first if the book was published first. In other words, I won't read a book based on a movie. Most of those "based on the film" books aren't that good anyway.

With that in mind, however, if the book/film is based on actuall events, I usually see the movie first, then read the book if, and only if, I feel I'd enjoy getting more involved or more detailed info.

PoJo

I read the original novel of Dude, Where's My Car? I'm sorry, but this film does not do the Dickens classic justice!

Nope, I usually end up seeing the movie 1st and then reading the book.

It seems that whenever I read the book Before the movie, I am disappointed in the movie.


____________________________________
"This is my happening, and it freaks me out!"

I tend to either read the book OR see the movie. I've seen too many movies that didn't to any justice to the book's story.

My biggest pet peeve is when a book is re-issued in conjunction with a film only to have the original cover replaced with a movie photo cover. I always prefer the original cover to the tie-in photo cover. Try and find a copy of "High Fidelity" with the original cover these days. You'll almost always turn up a copy with John Cusack on the cover. Same with "Fight Club". Go ahead. Try and find a copy without the pink bar of soap on it. And don't even get me started on the latest paperback editions of "Lord of the Rings."

I do the same. But Harry Potter followed the book quite rigorously and as such was enjoyable.

Defenitely read the book before the movies. The movies can ruin the book experience but the book experience usually can only enhance the movie. Or make you see how bad the movie sucked

~Scheherazade

My experiences with the the Lord of the Rings, Pride and Prejudice and Harry Potter, have caused me to reach the conclusion that it's better to read the book first.

Yes, reading the book first can make it difficult to enjoy the movie (this happenned to me with LotRs, and Harry Potter), as you tend to spend a lot of time thinking "hey, that's not how it happenned in the book." But it's easy to watch the movie again and then appreciate it on it's own merits.

This is similar to some people's experience (and mine) with Star Wars: the Phantom Menace. People had such high hopes and all their memories of the original trilogy, that it was hard to appreciate PM for itself. I found it much more enjoyable the second time around.

But I saw Pride & Prejudice (the BBC miniseries) before I read the book, and it kind of ruined the book for me. Not only is it more time consuming to reread a book to try to appreciate it on its own merits, the movie normally gives away all the major plot points, but without the pacing and style that a novel can afford to give them. Thus, you lose the sense of surprise and discovery. I still liked P&P, I just can't help thinking how much more I would have enjoyed it if I hadn't already had such a strong idea of what everything looked like from the (still very excellent) mini series.

So if there's a chance I'll read the book, I'm going to try to do that before I see the movie from now on.

-David

I've decided that for me it's better to read the book after watching the movie. If I read a great book and see the movie and find it to be poorly done, I feel like I've wasted my money. However, I guess it could go the other way too. A movie can be great, but the book it's based off of might not be so good. For instance I thought the movie Jaws was much better than the book. Most of the time I find it's the other way around though.

It depends. If a new book comes out from an author that I love I pick it up and read it whether or not it will be made into a movie or not. However if a movie has been announced that is based on a book I haven't read I will usually see the film first then read the book. I used to pick them up and read them before the film but then would usually be disappointed in the film version. And even if the movie version was good the book would spoil any surprises.

Book first, whenever possible.

The reason being, so I don't simply visualize the actors and movie in my mind's eye.

Occasionally, something really cool happens when the movie looks exactly the way it did in my head. Lord of the Rings being a prime example.

I'm really glad I didn't see Jackie Brown before I read Rum Punch. The actors in that didn't match up with my visualizations of the characters at all. But both worked in their own way.

I saw Dune before reading the book, so I'm sort of stuck with Lynch's visuals whenever I think of the book. Which actually isn't that bad, and from what I've heard, Herbert himself said that the movie had a similar "look" to what he had in mind.

This is so true.

But at least there are LotR books that don't have the movie covers.

After the movies have made their runs, I'd think that any further printings of books could go back to their original artwork. The Beach has certainly done this. Plenty of Leo covers on the remainder section.

Also, I don't think American Psycho ever had a "movie" cover.

But what I really hate is when the change the title of the book to match the movie. Rum Punch became Jackie Brown and The Haunting of Hill House became The Haunting.

I tend to BURN every book I see! It’s sort of a shame though. I always wonder what films my favorite director, François Truffaut, would have been inspired by.

Pity.

I like to read the book first, but leave a bit of time between it and the movie, so I'm not analyzing the differences between the two and can enjoy the movie for what it is.