Book and movie... before or after?

[Svartalf]

As a general question, do you think it's preferable to read the book before watching the movie, or the other way around?

This comes to me because the Hobbit movie is coming, and I'm thinking of going and watching it (then again, I might just wait for the DVD of the complete thing to come out with the enhanced version... if I'd watched only the theatre version of LotR, I think I'd have gone and murdered peter jackson over that miserable shit, so I fear the Hobbit will be much the same)... and I'm trying to decide whether to crack the book open again, which I haven't done for a decade or two and a half, now, or to wait until after I've seen the movie. Of course, I haven't read the LotR for about as long, even though I initially wanted to read it again when the movie came out, but I'm counting on the Hobbit being an easier read to overcome my concentrational disability.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bok first, always.

[Svartalf]

My general attitude also, except it usually leads me to want and impale a lot of movie makers, their script writers and their producers (well, the producers bear the nastiest responsibility, since they are often the ones responsible for the rest of the crew doing horrors to the material)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My general attitude also, except it usually leads me to want and impale a lot of movie makers, their script writers and their producers (well, the producers bear the nastiest responsibility, since they are often the ones responsible for the rest of the crew doing horrors to the material)

Wrong. You're talking two different media, incompatible, and so unable to translate successfully back and forth. You couldn't put LOTR on the screen word-for-word, people would leave before they got to Buckleberry Ferry.

Movies are stories about the world created in the books. That's what they do. Books are movies with all the time in the world to paint a picture.

[Svartalf]

My general attitude also, except it usually leads me to want and impale a lot of movie makers, their script writers and their producers (well, the producers bear the nastiest responsibility, since they are often the ones responsible for the rest of the crew doing horrors to the material)

Wrong. You're talking two different media, incompatible, and so unable to translate successfully back and forth. You couldn't put LOTR on the screen word-for-word, people would leave before they got to Buckleberry Ferry.

Movies are stories about the world created in the books. That's what they do. Books are movies with all the time in the world to paint a picture.

I'm talking dragging authors' good names into movies that are not actually related to the work they purport to carry, or making useless, pointless changes to the script from the original... possibly even ones that don't make sense and stretch suspension of disbelief beyond breaking.

Give a man credit for being able to appreciate when a change is actually necessary to accomodate the new medium and its necessities. (like forgetting all about the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil and killing Saruman early)

[Jason]

As a general rule, book first.

ETA: Example: you may want to save yourself time by watching The DaVinci Code before buying the book to read.

[klr]

My general attitude also, except it usually leads me to want and impale a lot of movie makers, their script writers and their producers (well, the producers bear the nastiest responsibility, since they are often the ones responsible for the rest of the crew doing horrors to the material)

Wrong. You're talking two different media, incompatible, and so unable to translate successfully back and forth. You couldn't put LOTR on the screen word-for-word, people would leave before they got to Buckleberry Ferry.

Movies are stories about the world created in the books. That's what they do. Books are movies with all the time in the world to paint a picture.

And the really patient ones would hold out until the first appearance of Tom Bombadil, and go ... WTF is this shit?

So it's almost always the book first for me as well.

[orpheus]

What are "movies"?

[Svartalf]

Merkin films

[Jason]

Movie = Moving picture

Since a 'film' real consists of a series of pictures, or 'frames', which are rapidly projected to give the illusion of movement it is accurate. Film is the material used. As many theatres are now digital and do not actually use film reels, 'movie' is more accurate.

[Animavore]

Either. Don't care. With exceptions.
I saw Game of Thrones on TV before I even knew it was a book and can't bring myself to go ahead and read book three without seeing the third series first. Only only read the first one this year and just started the second. It seems wrong to shoot ahead of the series.

[odysseus]

Book first!

And screw Tom Bombadil. "A Fol de rol and a merry-dol dildo!" Fuck off, Tom...

[SteveB]

Movies first for me.

[Bella Fortuna]

What are "movies"?

Y'know, the flickers.

[Animavore]

Book first!

And screw Tom Bombadil. "A Fol de rol and a merry-dol dildo!" Fuck off, Tom...

I hate that la-di-da, fairy crap.

Hence my dislike of The Beatles