So, driving around town a week or so ago, I saw this sign:
And my first reaction was “ARGH!! REALLY??” But then I got to thinking about it… we, for the most part, like our kids (and I hold this to myself, generally speaking) to read the book before they see the movie. That’s how we got C to actually read the Harry Potter series; she saw Goblet of Fire and said (honestly), “Why do I need to read the book now?” So we made her read Order of the Phoenix first before she could see the movie. (She’s now determined to make it through the next two before November so she can see Deathly Hallows in the Theater.) But, I’ve been wondering: is that rule worth it? Is is really that important that one read the book before they see the movie? (Or — brace yourself — even read the book at all?)
See, books and movies are different beasts, and I’m wondering if it’s silly to get so attached to the book and then disappointed in the movie. Sometimes — not always, but sometimes — the movie can do things better than the book. But, either way, is it really important that we experience the book first?
What do you think? Book, movie, both: and which should come first?
The Book Nut 
I don't know about other people, but for me, when I'm reading, I'm totally drawn in and my imagination takes over. It's like I'm not even reading anymore, I'm “experiencing” the story, if that makes sense. It's different with movies, I'm not as engaged, and it more happens to me, instead of me being a part of it.
I also find that movies tent to leave out the little things that make books so great to read – sometimes they don't translate well to the screen, or there's just not enough time.
For example, in the last HP movie, Dumbledore's funeral was left out. I thought Hagrid carrying Dumbledore's body down to his tomb was one of the most heartbreaking scenes of all seven books, and it revealed so much about Hagrid.
LikeLike
Most of the time, I want to read the book first, but that's not to say that it's always the best. Sometimes i see movies and don't realize they are based on books, and every once in awhile, the movie is far better than the book. If I'd read The Hours before seeing the movie, I never would have watched the movie because I hated the book. The movie, on the other hand, is my alltime favorite.
LikeLike
As a general rule, I try to read the books before seeing the movies. I was soooo glad that I took the time to read “The Lord of the Rings” before I watched the movies. The Middle Earth that I read about was the one of my imagination, not Peter Jackson's. Plus characters that I loved in the book (namely Faramir) kind of got short-changed in the movie, and I don't know that I would have felt the same way about them if that had been my first exposure to them.
This isn't to say that you won't like the books if you see the movies first. I grew up watching “Anne of Green Gables” and “Anne of Avonlea” but I still loved the books once I read them. I think that a great adaptation is one that keeps the spirit of the author's original alive and inspires those who wouldn't normally do so to read the book.
LikeLike
See, I actually like to see the movie first! BECAUSE usually if I've read the book (especially if it's a book I really like), I end up disappointed in the movie – they left too much out, they didn't include my favorite part, this role was miscast, etc. But if I see the movie first, I can enjoy the movie… and then go back and enjoy the book, too, since the book's most probably going to be better than the movie.
LikeLike
Abby — that's an interesting way to think about it! Except when I do that, I find that I can't let my imagination rule the book (I'm forever stuck imagining HP as Dan Radcliff now…). But that's just me.
Amanda — I agree! It's not often, but sometimes, it's better to see the movie first. (And sometimes — shock! — skip the book altogether.)
bookwormans — Wasn't it horrid what they did to Faramir?? (Hubby was most annoyed at the Ents, though.) And you're more than right: a great adaptation is one that keeps the spirit of the book, not necessarily every little detail.
Though I do have to say, geekyreads, that you're right, also: depending on the screenwriter (I have major issues with the screenwriter of the HP movies), a lot of the little things that make a book wonderful can end up on the cutting floor. Which is sad.
LikeLike
I'll be a raging hypocrite here because I hardly ever read the book before the movie, but I'm going to encourage that regardless. Especially for young children and teenagers. Mainly because I think if a child doesn't read the book first they likely never will. I can totally hear my niece saying “what's the point?” already. LOL
I say that if compelling a child to read the book before they are allowed to see the movie is the way to get them to read more I'm all for it!
LikeLike
Someone asked me the other day what kind of movies I like to watch. I said I don't. I would always rather read. It is a fun thing to do with the kids but I would always rather read. I am afraid that in todays world kids aren't using their imagination. For me, reading a book is like having a moving playing in my head.
LikeLike
I don't think this sign is such a big deal when it comes to book bloggers/avid readers/librarians/good parents/etc. However, I think this sign is damaging for kids who don't have readers as role models in their life. I am always shocked at the number of adults I talk to who actually believe the sentiment of this sign and are passing it on to future generations.
LikeLike
Tricia — that's a good distinction. (I'm always amazed when I meet people who say that they don't read. Shocking!)
Lorinda — again, good point. I do like my movies, but books are a different animal, and they use your imagination in ways that movies (or TV or computer games) don't. There's an interesting post in that comment…
Michelle — And, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I agree: C has no desire EVER to read GoF, even though it's SO different from the book. As an adult I can recognize that, but as a kid, she's lazy, it's a big book… and she will probably miss out on that experience. 😦 Thanks for the support, too!
LikeLike
Tricky one. Here's the true answer: Good books must be read first. Lame books can be skipped because the movie is almost always better. Ah, but how does one know if it is good or lame, eh?
LikeLike
I'm figuring if they read the book at all, that will be a good thing. I don't think it matters much if it's before or after the movie. What made me laugh was that I made my husband read the HP books before he could buy the DVDs – he's become addicted to the books now too!
LikeLike
Definitely books first. Sometimes I'm able to separate the book from the movie and realize that they are different entities, but that usually is a function of how recently I've read it, how many times I've read it, and how much I liked the book.
LikeLike