How do you approach adaptations?

I always find that watching the movie first is better if you have any intention of both reading a novel/short story and seeing any adaptation - every time I read the book first, the movie never lives up to what I've built up in my imagination - and predictability is often a death blow to any movie, no matter how well it's made. Hearing dialogue I've already read always feels like an actor reading their lines. It's always a let-down after I've read the book, while the reverse is just the opposite. I'll watch a movie that I think is grand, and then when I grab the book and read it then it turns out the source material is even better than what I'd seen up on that big (or little) screen. So for me, reading the book first always wrecks the movie, but watching the movie first never wrecks the book. Obviously there's no hard-and-fast rule for everyone though.

__________________

Specifically in regards to Count of Monte Cristo, I saw a film version (the early 2000s one) before reading the book.

The film was entertaining, but I really enjoyed reading the book years later. As with any adaptation---and especially turning such a sprawling book into a sub-2-hour film, there were changes and omissions made to the original text. (The book is good and a real page-turner, but frankly there were some parts that I didn't mind losing---*cough* the teenage girlfriend *cough*).

I would just go ahead and watch the adaptation that you're interested in. And if you like it, check out the book or listen to an audiobook of it. What is compelling about Count of Monte Cristo is not just the pure mechanics of the story, but the way the story is told. And you're only going to get that in the book, so there is still plenty there on offer even after you know the story.

As to the broader question about approaching adaptations, it kind of breaks down into the following scenarios:

1. A film is an adaptation of a book I've never heard of and/or I'm not all that interested in. Obviously here I just watch the movie.

2. A film is an adaptation of a book I am interested in reading. In this case, I ask myself if I'm interested enough in the book to read it soon. And if the answer is yes, great. If the answer is no, I just go ahead and watch the movie.

3. The film is an adaptation of a book I've read and enjoyed. I am REALLY cautious about watching adaptations of books I like. In my mind, things get very strongly connected and blended into each other. So I definitely skipped the film adaptation of one of my favorite young adult books, The Dark is Rising because one look at the trailer told me they'd absolutely butchered it and I had no interest.

There are plenty of adaptations of good books where I think both are really good works of art. The adaptation of A Monster Calls, for example, is fantastic. And films don't even have to always be faithful to be good. One of my favorite adaptations of a certain Agatha Christie novel takes the bold liberty of totally changing the ending!

I have begun to question the need to adapt a book into a film when there about sixteen thousand things that'll be missed in the translation, and since I almost always end up preferring the book no matter which order I experience them, I'd rather read a book and watch an original movie.

Whereas this new Count of Monte Cristo is concerned, if the book is so long, I'd watch the movie first, and then read the book. Get the easier one done first and you can enjoy the book.

This is totally unrelated but I thought I'd share anyway; I checked because I was reminded of Django Unchained; "Dumas was black," and Alexandre Dumas was one quarter black, and rather darker skinned, so Schultz/Tarantino were accurate. I wondered about that and always forgot to check. Sorry to distract from the original purpose. That just piqued my curiosity.

__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!

I hate insomnia. Oh yeah. Last year I had four cases of it, and each time it lasted three months.

With caution. These wild animals are easily spooked, and rather dangerous if you walk upon them and startle them. One must be careful so as to not appear aggressive or threatening n any way.
Sometimes it helps to approach them with food in your hand as an offering.
If they don’t accept the offering and look like they’re about to charge you, make sure you have someone with you that you can out run. Maybe don’t hesitate to push them down to distract it.

I'm a books are books, movies are movies type of person. If you make a change in an adaptation, and it works, then I'm fine with it.

An example? I know there are Jane Austen fans (Janeites) who HATE any change, and yes, filmmakers do overly romanticize the novels (Sense and Sensibility is not really all that romantic, the women and their relationships and struggles are the interesting part, money's more the thing than romance - I find the relationships rather sad, by the end Marriane is stripped of her fire and marries on older guy whose into her because she reminds him of another, and Elinor's going to wind up more a mother than a wife to that drip she married - Funny, the guy who did one of the miniseries adaptations of S&S said that she made a mistake with Edward... but did she? Maybe the first thing we should ask is, why did she want Edward to be the way he was, was there a point to it. Then ask, if he doesn't work as a character, then why?)

I still like the Ang Lee S&S film, both picture and novel have their merits. For another, I do think the 1995 Possession adaptation improves upon the novel in many ways.

For me, either way is fine. I've done both, first with a movie, or first with a book - if each are well made, written, whatever, then it's a non-issue. (Another example - Eastwood's Bloodwork screwed up the good in the novel, but getting away from that, judging it as its own thing, as a movie, it's one of his weakest efforts. I'd have disliked it whether there was a novel attached to it or not).

In short - If the movie is getting good reviews, it interests you and you don't feel in the mood to plow through a lengthy novel, just go ahead and watch the film.

Sure, I get that, but for impacts sake I would want to consume the best of the two first. It's been years since I've come across any fiction that I've actually considered reading, and so if the book is supposed to be extraordinary and if I really think there's a chance there's some actual truth to that, then I'd like to read the book first.

Well said. While there are exceptions this tends to be my experience as well and if this was a two options only poll I'd go with watching the movie first because of this.

Whichever order I happen to stumble upon the materials. For STALKER it was Game > Movie > Book. For Ancient Aliens it was Show > Book. For James Bond it was Game > Movie > Book. I never put much thought into what order I viewed/read/played it in.

__________________
Sent via Blackberry

An interesting sidebar (maybe); I've always hated Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films since they came out when I was curious to see them. I did not read Hobbit until 2022 and the meaty Lord of the Rings itself until 2023 and 2024 (I read the trilogy over the two years). I always knew they changed too much and that the junk they stuck in there served no purpose. Once I read the books, which are amazing by the way, and I can see why they're popular, and thusly why they were adapted, albeit poorly, I digress, I can never watch the movies again, and now adaptations are so shaky for me I'd rather leave them separate. I'd almost rather either watch or read and not watch and read. Reading ruins watching.

And I despise the Harry Potter movies whilst enjoying the books still. I went sour on them after being subjected to the movies once every two months. It wore me out of them and now I don't want to do anything but say how terrible they are.

I'm 13 chapters into Cristo and I gotta say I feel like I made the best decision even though all my hair will be white by the time its over. what a Goddarn masterpiece...

__________________
HEI guys.