Have you ever read a book a then watched the movie?

I've done this several times and I've almost always happened to like the book more than the movie as well. Maybe it's because while reading the book, I've already built several images in my head of how certain characters or scenes would look like and when it comes to the movies that are based on them, they're so different from what I imagined or expected them to be. Sometimes it does work, or it makes sense because they can't really go into detail that much due to time constraints or they really have access to certain resources. But when it's done out of laziness or simply to attract a wider group of moviegoers, then it's disappointing. This leads me ot believing that there are some books that should never be turned into movies, and better off left as works of literature.

yes the movie is never as good as the book. I have read Maeve Binchys Circle of Friends and was very disappointed with the movie. I have also read Tara Road but havent seen the movie yet and may not watch it. But with the Da Vinci Code I was glad that I read the book as I dont think that I would have been able to follow the movie without knowing the story. Certainly not as good as the book.

i've also done it a lot of times , ,:-) harry potter , the notebook , the da vinci code , , üüü i really get dismayed when i watch the movie , ,the outcome isn't what i expected , , :-S

i have done a book two times.then i watched the movie.i like watch movie ,because it make me deeply remember it

I prefer reading the book before watching the movie. I also read Appolo 13 and I think that I never watched the movie, just a few scenes when it was on TV. For da vinci code, I read the book first, then watched the movie. I liked the book, but I found the movie boring. There are only 2 exceptions. For Angela's ashes, I first rented the movie then bought the book. The second case is A beautiful mind. Here, I went to see the movie first. I bought the book, and when I reached half of the book, I went back to see the movie. Then, I watched the movie, for the third time, after finishing the book!

I did so for the Harry Potter books, but usually I prefer to watch the movie first, because the book is usually better than the movie, and first reading the book usually spoils the experiencing of the movie.

Yes, I have. I've read the Harry Potter books before I saw the movies. I've also read Carl Sagan's Contact before I saw the Jodie Foster film. I've also read Tom Clancy's The Sum Of All Fears before I saw Ben Affleck's version. In all cases, I found the books more engrossing than the films. Maybe it's just me.

I have done the reverse: I watched The Notebook and A Walk to Remember long before I read the books.

Movie has got time constraint whereas book does not have.Book will contain every single point but movie only the important parts of the book. So we will understand the movie better when we read the book first and then go for the movie. For ex. Da Vinci Code movie was, in my opinion, taken in a hurried way when compared to the book.

Ive also read the book "Da Vinci Code" and watched the movie after reading.. And yes you're right that the book has more details than the movie. Like "Harry Potter", some scene's from the movie was not explained and you will only know the reason in the book. Its always like this..

I've done it several times. Sometimes I do watched the movies first before reading the books, but I always like the story in the books than in the movies. I love Stephen King's novel but it is always adapted poorly in the big screen.

If I read the book first and then watch the movie, the book is always a lot better than the movie. It makes sense though since the book can go into a lot more detail than a less than 2 hr movie can. I've never really done the opposite, watched a movie than read the book. Movie's have made me want to read the book that they are based on, but I hardly ever get around to reading them.

Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier and the film of the same name by Alfred Hitchcock are examples where both mediums work excellently in presenting the same story. Hitchcock captures everything that made that book special for me. I cannot fault the film at all as a retelling of a book I love. I still haven't watched the movie of The Beach because I love the book too much to perhaps spoil it for me. I read Catch22 about 12 times before I saw the movie. I figured the movie would suck because how can you film a book like that? Well, I was pleasantly surprised. It's a good movie because it DOESN'T try to be the book. Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings more accessible for me.

yes, i read Salem's Lot by Stephen King then saw the movie.It was good but still wasn't as good as the book.I also read"The Stand" by Stephen King. Very good.the acting was superb,especially by Rob Lowe,even though he never spoke a word. I did a reversal before .Saw the movie "Black Hawk Down" then read the book.Was surprised how much they did keep to the book

You're right, movies sometimes are not so good as what you've read. i experienced this once and it frustrate me. i read first the novel then watched the movie. it was entitled The General's Daughter. the movie wasn't that great like characters and the plotting. well my classmates told me that its better to read the book version than the film version.