Would you rather read the book or watch the movie?

I had rather read the book first. If I ever see the movie first, I'd never read the book. I know that the movie hardly ever displays the entire story of the book. So I had rather read than see the movie.

I prefer movies to books as a medium, but that's just because I'm a movie buff. I've been watching movies since I was about eight years old and ever since then I've been in love with movies. However, when it comes to book adaptations, I try to read the book first. I enjoy using my own imagination first, getting to know the characters better, imagine what they look like. I also tend to try and picture which actors should play the parts, how some parts of the book should be translated to cinema. In a way, I think I make my own version of the movie in my head. Then, when I finally watch the movie version, instead of comparing it to the book, I compare it to my movie version of it. Which is why I tend not to be disappointed when I watch a movie based in a book, since I'm not directly comparing anything to the original source. For me, this helps me enjoy movies better, but then again, I'm a weird guy. Rich

I almost always prefer reading the book.

it really depends if i watched the movie first or i read the book first. it really doesn't bother me if they made changes in the movie. i think these changes make the movie more appealing and makes the story more cinematic. just like in the case of lord of the rings two towers. in the movie is was the riders of rohan that canme to the rescue of aragon, legolas, and the others in helm's deep. in the book, it was the "tree people" (i forgot how they were called in the series) that saved aragon and the others. there are movies from books that i don't bother reading the book. for example the harry potter and the lord of the rings series. i watched the movies but i didn't bother reading the books. however, in the case of the godfather trilogy, i read the book and have watched the movies. the same is true for the movie spawn, i found a book of the movie and i quickly got it and read it. i'm still looking for a video copy of the movie though. currently, i'm reading nick hornby's "high fidelity" and "about a boy" but i only have plans of watching "high fidelity" and not "about a boy". i understand if fans of a book go up in arms when their favorite novels are made into movies and it comes nothing close to the book but common they must realize that something's in the story can't be incorporated in the film for a number of valid reasons. they might as well stop their whining and bury their snotty noses in their books. lol!!! happy mylotting!!! cheers!!!

It would probably all depend on the author. We all know that the movies are usually just sloppily thrown together to try and get some director a little chunk of change without properly portraying what the author had created. I don't know a book takes longer because you should devote more time to a book. If a picture is really worth a thousand words then how come the movies usually aren't better then the book?

I watch the movie first before I read the book. I would want to see if the book is worth reading through the movie. After all, reading books take a lot of time. Movies take one to two hours maximum.