The movie John Carter, based on Edgar Rice Burroughs's novel A Princess of Mars, just came out in theaters. My uncle, a huge ERB fan, has been encouraging me to see it. And because of that, I've been thinking about movies based on books, and I've had an epiphany:

Watch the movie first.

If there's a movie made from a book, and it catches your eye, don't feel the need to read the book first. You might even delay reading the book if the movie's coming out soon and you want to see it.

Here's my reasoning: Fans of a book always say the book is better, and they're usually right. If you go into the movie having read the book, you will be disappointed, unless you're one of a select very few who can purge all book-based expectations from their minds before going into the movie. On the other hand, if you see the movie first, and then read the book, you will be pleasantly surprised by how much better it is. Hence to maximize your enjoyment, if you intend both to read the book and see the movie, do the latter first.

YES YES YES! I whole-heartedly agree! Sometimes the movie can even help you visualize the book better, too. Except for me and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea... that book I can dispense and enjoy both the movies and book equally.

Now, sometimes you do have to use discretion, because if the movie is close enough to the book, you may find the book more dull after watching the movie (which is hardly ever the case).

Thank you for sharing this! Finally I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I know some people are like, "You should read the book first!" and I appreciate that, but really the only way to get full enjoyment out of it all is to watch the movie first.

Except for the Lorax... I haven't seen the movie yet, but that probably will be better having read the book.

I really disliked the book, so I might love the movie in this case.

I do think though, that often you do often compare movies to books, and say 'that was nothing like the book at all'.

I've thought this again and again (and again), but I still read the book first. But I have reasons!

That first read of a book is sparky and adventuresome. The mark of a truly good book is that you can read it again and again, but the first read is still special. You don't know what is going to happen next. I love that feeling while reading a book. If I watch the movie first... I've lost that. I know a few or most of all of the main plot points.

Visualization is ruined. If I can have the visualizations from the book and enjoy and love the movie's visualizations, but the opposite isn't true: the movie's visuals are already there, and the original words can't compete with the flesh-and-blood pictures already in my head. I want to have the book's pictures-from-words. The book and the movie from the book are two different pieces of art, not because the plot will most likely need adjusting for the big screen, but because of the images created.

You don't like the Lorax book?!?!

I agree, Sam. In fact, several movies that I loved made me go search out the book.

I also agree with Katty, though. So I am torn...

(At the risk of derailing the thread... I thought The Lorax had in-your-conservative-face liberal agenda?)

*places link of her review in thread *

Feel free to pm me, after reading the review, and we can talk about it without derailing the thread anymore.

I completely disagree.

The re-reader is looking not for actual surprises (which can come only once) but for a certain surprisingness…In the only sense that matters the surprise works as well the twentieth time as the first. It is the quality of unexpectedness, not the fact that delights us. It is even better the second time. Knowing that the "surprise" is coming we can now fully relish the fact that this path through the shrubbery doesn’t look as if it were suddenly going to bring us out on the edge of the cliff. So in literature. We do not enjoy a story fully at the first reading. Not till the curiosity, the sheer narrative lust, has been given its sop and laid asleep, are we at leisure to savour the real beauties. Till then, it is like wasting great wine on a ravenous natural thirst which merely wants cold wetness. The children understand this well when they ask for the same story over and over again, and in the same words. They want to have again the "surprise" of discovering that what seemed Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother is really the wolf. If is better when you know it is coming: free from the shock of actual surprise you can attend better to the intrinsic surprisingness of the peripeteia. --C.S. Lewis

For example, I knew how The Lord Of The Rings was going to end long before finishing it; but my enjoyment was not diminished on that account. To be honest, I think knowing the ending takes more away from the movie than the book.



Hmmm. I'll have to think about this one, but I think I'll disagree with you here too; I suspect I'll find that in my case, having seen the movie allows me to envision the book's events more clearly, where before it would have been hard work to visualize everything, but I can still override a particular element if it's different from movie to book.