I didn’t vote, because there’s absolutely no clear pattern in my reading or moviegoing habits.
I saw ***Field of Dreams ***before I read ***Shoeless Joe ***, but read Cormac McCarthy’s ***The Road ***before seeing the movie version.
I saw the movie version of ***The Godfather ***before reading Mario Puzo’s novel, but read Scott Turow’s ***Presumed Innocent ***before seeing the movie.
I saw ***Blade Runner ***before I read Philip Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but read Heinlein’s ***Starship Troopers ***before seeing Verhoeven’s cheesy movie version.
I read Stephen King’s Cujo before seeing the movie, but saw the movie version of ***The Shining ***before reading the book. I read Tom Clancy’s Clear and Present Danger before seeing the movie, but saw the movie version of ***The Hunt for Red October ***before I read the book.
Movie first. If I read the book first, I almost never enjoy the movie because I usually feel like too much is being crammed into way too little, but if I see the movie first, then the book is like a nice, leisurely expansion on something I already enjoy.
Depends. If I’ve heard of the book before, then generally I’ll read it, but if I see the movie/miniseries and then find out that it’s based on books, then I read them afterwards.
For example, I’d read “Hunt for Red October” before the movie even came out, but I didn’t read “A Game of Thrones” or any of the subsequent books until after having seen the first season of the TV show.
I make one exception- I don’t generally bother reading kid stuff like Harry Potter or Hunger Games and just skip to the movies.
Most movies are not nearly as good as the book. I remember back when ‘Field of Dreams’ came out, baseball lover daughter told me it was a great movie. I later rented it and said, hmmm I’ve read this. Sure enough it was ‘Shoeless Joe’ made into a movie. Still the book was better.
I’m usually happier with the result if I see the movie before reading the book, or it I read the book long enough ago to have forgotten most of the details. Movies generally have to cut a lot of information to fit a book into a reasonable screening time. So if I read the book second, I’ll be getting additional scenes and information, without having missed the added material while watching the movie.
If I read the book first, there’s a good chance that I’ll keep noticing changes and omissions, rather than just following along. Not necessarily a killer, but usually less enjoyable.
Put me down for “it depends” as well, mostly just on what medium I happen to stumble across it in first. If there’s a movie of a book that I happen to read, I may watch it or not; I used to do it a lot more than I do now.
No hard and fast answers. If the movie is based on a classic, or a well-known book, I’ll often have read it. But there are plenty of films that I’ve seen without reading the book. Recently, for instance Cloud Atlas. I haven’t read The Life of Pi, but I’ll probably end up seeing the movie first.
But there are plenty of films that I read the book of first.
I read the book first. Sometimes a good, or even great, book is turned into a crappy movie. I’ve made the mistake of seeing the crappy movie and not reading the great book it was based on.
I’ve rarely read a crappy book turned into a good movie. The only exception I can think of right now is Kiss of the Spider Woman.
Thomas Harris’s Hannibal was a dreadful book turned into a decent movie.
I think I have to change my answer from the pre-zombie days of this thread, by the way. In the past year or so I’ve found that I have less and less patience when it comes to movies and TV shows. If the movie is based a book, I’ll read the book to see if the movie is going to waste my time and money.
Most movies are based on books, but not on books that I read, so I voted “Movie first” due to the lack of overlap. In an uncommon instance where they overlapped, I did read the LOTR trilogy many years before the movie. I don’t delay seeing a movie to read the book first just because there’s a book out there that it’s based on.
I’m usually not very entertained by reading books aimed at 13 year olds. The stories may be great, but the writing, word choice and perspective is usually not what I like to read.
(for a thought experiment, imagine how interesting grown-up novels set in the Harry Potter or Hunger Games universes might have been)
Another reason to read the book first is you get to envision the story in your own way. If a million people read a book, there will be a million different “movies,” one for each person.
If you see the movie first, you’ll envision the movie as you read the book.
A good example is Stephen King’s “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.” When I first read the tale, I picture the narrator Red as looking like a red haired Irish coworker.
If I’d see the movie, he would be Morgan Friedman, despite the story’s description.
