How do you approach adaptations?

I really want to check out the new Alexandre Dumas adaptation, since it has received very positive reviews, but I also know the billion-pages long source book is one of the most beloved that has ever been written, and I don't know if I want to spoil experiencing the story of such a monument with an "inferior" one that is a 3-hrs cinematic take...

What would you do if you were in my boots?

__________________
HEI guys.

Then don't..
If you read it first you eliminate the chance of spoiling right?
Why take risks into unknown, just follow the correct order...
Also if you're behind on your reading, catch up..

__________________
Letterboxd
Entertainment log

I haven't started the book yet. I know I'd like to read it sometime in the (unkown) future, when I have hopefully more free time for such a massive work. right now, it's the thirst for the film that's on my mind... perhaps I'll watch it, hopefully forget enough of the story by the time I get my hands on the novel?...

Unlikely..

If you haven’t read the book and want to see the movie, watch the movie first. I read the 1,245= page version of the book in a few days. It’s not because I’m a fast reader (a 1,215-page version of War & Peace took me several weeks to get through), it’s because the book is a real page-turner. One of my all-time favorite novels. Also enjoyed the 2002 film adaptation by Kevin Reynolds.

Mark

I think it's more fun to watch the film first, and then discover how the story was meant to be.
And since the novels are often considered to be superior to the films, then it'll help to make that second experience a better one (because we always want things to get better, not worse).

The bare bones of this story are quite well known. I’m an old person and seen several adaptations. I liked the Gerard Depardieu one best. I haven’t read the book, but it’s a classic and probably unruinable. I’m sure it includes all kinds of interesting stuff that movie won’t have the time or inclination to include. Enjoy your movie. The book will keep.

Always watch the movie first, it won't spoil the book for you. However if you read the book first it almost always will spoil the movie for you.

It depends. Sometimes the movie is actually better. I saw Trainspotting before I read the book, and while I liked the book, I thought the movie was fantastic, so I'm really glad I saw the movie first. Another example would be The Cider House Rules where I read the book first and liked it, yet still thought the movie was better, although I suspect some might disagree on that one.

Then there's what I've always thought of as the more typical scenario where I saw the movie first(Fight Club), which, although I liked, I found to have some major flaws. Found out later that the book supposedly is fantastic, which was a bummer as I couldn't imagine the experience to be nearly the same going in knowing the plot beforehand so I never read it and kinda felt like I missed out on something special by starting in the wrong end.

This is one of those issues that has a corollary in the question of whether you read about a movie before you see it. Literary people almost always seem to say that the book is better, but a lot of that is in the question of how much time you have to tell the story. A book can keep you in a chair for many hours, but most movies have you out of the building in two or so.

The literary people will bemoan the loss of depth and detail, the movie people (like me) enjoy picture, motion, music and sound much more than lots and lots of print.

In that respect, I never go into the movie expecting it to be like the book. Adaptation is the key word there,....a different medium with different assets. No movie could keep my butt in a seat long enough for a faithful movie version of Crime and Punishment and if you break it up, that's risky too.

The OP asked about whether to read a book before seeing a movie, not about whether they should expect them to be the same.

It depends on your attitude and experience with adaptations. Mine is almost always that I prefer the movie because of my short attention span. I don't expect them to be the same, just have some parallels. I've never seen a movie version that was the same as the book and gave up on that expectation. My guess is that it would have to be a short book and a long movie.

Okay, so I replied the first time because it seemed like you didn't read the first post in the thread. Now you've replied directly to me, and it seems like you didn't read my post, either.

The thread is about whether to read a book before seeing its film adaptation. Your post above is not about that at all. It's just talking about the differences between adaptations, again. This might be an understandable mistake the first time (if you're skimming, which I assume was the case), but it's inexplicable to do the exact same thing again, while directly replying to me explaining the distinction.

I think you're probably right, but I am not sure why.

Do you say this because the book is usually better?

It depends on many different factors. I usually watch the movie first, and if I really like the movie and the movie is based on original story of the book, I might read the book. I try to stay away from books that follow the movie slavishly.

Alan Dean Foster's books are sometimes interesting to read if the movie deviates from the movie script. This is because Foster often writes the books based on the movie script. For example, I recommend reading Alan Dean Foster's Alien and The Thing books, because in both cases the movie script deviates from the final movie.

I wouldn't know myself if the book is usually better as I don't read. But I've heard it said so at MoFo like a zillion times, so it seems to be the thing.

It's kinda like the chicken and egg and Catch 22 at the same time.

Whether it's a movie or a book, I like to go in blind. Or as close to blind as possible after determining that it's something I'd like to check out. Meaning I avoid reading reviews and such until perhaps after. Now the only way I can think of to get a feel for whether I want to start with the book or the movie is to investigate the matter beforehand, which seems pretty much impossible without ruining the going in blind part.

I'd say, as a weak rule of thumb, chances for the book being better usually increases if the movie is heavily based on story or ideas as opposed to mood, acting performances and visuals(can't stand reading descriptive fiction), but it's not something I think really works as any kind of general guideline at all.

For instance with Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) there's IMO not much of interest going on(I imagine for a book either) except for the plot twist itself, which I happened to find quite fascinating, but more as a concept or an idea than in the way it was presented in the movie specifically. Which got me interested in the book. But who knows whether I would have liked the book better or not if I hadn't seen the movie first. Maybe I would have thought nothing of it and ended up avoiding a movie that, despite my criticism, I quite liked?

I am for seeing a film blind, but you cannot do this if there is BOTH a book and a film in a discussion that assumes we're consuming BOTH. You MUST consume one of them first. And if I am in a position to consume both (or potentially consume both) I am going to go with the film first. The film is a much less intensive investment. A typical film is done in 90 minutes. Most books (of several hundred pages) will require an average reader to commit several days. If the film is good or intriguing, or provides evidence for good things I have otherwise heard about the book, this nudges me towards the book.

I watch plenty of adaptations with no intention of ever reading the book, but if I am interested in both, I always prefer to read it first. It preserves the integrity of the original story, then I get to see it come to life. If I've already seen the movie, I lack the enthusiasm that pulls me through the book to find out where it goes. The best experience I've had going in the other direction was reading The Haunting of Hill House after watching the series, and that is an entirely different story.

In regard to the poll responses, I don't agree with "Rarely the film is better", but when given the choice, I definitely prefer reading the book first. The act of reading a book from start to finish generally takes more time and endurance than the act of simply sitting in front of a computer/tv screen for a couple to a few hours and watching a film, with very few exceptions. If I watch the film first, I find I need to get in the right mood to read the book since I already know the general outline of its story is. If I read the book first though, I find I can commit myself to the film adaptation quite effortlessly.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd