Value of reading book before seeing movie/tv series

[treasurekidd]

Most of the time, for me, the movie or series is never as good as the book(s). An example: There are many (even most) of the Stephen King books I love. There are few movies or series based on these books I like.

I agree, most Stephen Kings books that I liked were awful movies, the few exceptions being The Shining, Firestarter, Cujo and The Dead Zone. My absolute favorite books, The Stand and It, were terrible movies. The all time best book to movie adaptation I've ever seen was The Hunt For Red October - brilliant story by Tom Clancy and the movie was fantastic as well.

[mkpunk]

As a comic fan who knows a good amount of the backstory of Marvel Comics through animation, I find it frustrating when it goes against the source too much like say Amazing Spider-Man 2 with the green goblin. It helps understand some gems like say the Steven Strange name check but it can be an annoyance when done wrong.

[Unsettomati]

Books and films are very different animals, so to speak. They will necessarily differ from each other to various degrees even when one is the source of the other, because telling a narrative with printed words is different than telling it with moving pictures and sound.

People who expect one to replicate of the other need to readjust their expectations.

Let's face it, reading the novel The Wizard Of Oz is very different than watching the film The Wizard Of Oz. The film No Country For Old Men lifts a great deal of dialogue right from the novel, yet the works are still very different (the film necessarily leaves out much - the backstory of the sheriff, the hitchhiker, etc. - and changes many things outright - the ending, the fate of the businessman who fronted the money for the heroin, how Carla Jean deals with the toss of the coin, etc.).

A good film based on a book will always differ from the written work, because if it does not it's going to be a lousy film. In some cases, the differences will be dramatic. And that's fine.

So to your question, for the reason that these substantial differences exist, there is no answer. Neither is right. Enjoy each for what it is, not because you want it to be the other - that will always result in disappointment.

[Electrician4you]

I find the book to be more informative. You can simply go in more detail than a movie. If the movie was verbatim most movies would be like a tv series.

[kat949]

Originally Posted by theoldnorthstate

Here is the thing. Someone mentioned reading a Wiki summary of the GOT series and was having questions about some GOT plot elements from the TV series.

To me, if a film or movie is based upon the book then it is easier in the long run to read the books first or it becomes confusing and questions come up.

For example, a friend and I watched Hunger Games on CD and she just didn't get it. She saw the action and the plot but she didn't get the why or how. Or any of the reasoning or nuances.

To me you can't understand Hunger Games (other than as an adventure type movie) unless you understand that survival is mostly mental and to know what is going on requires reading the book.

Which is OK, just it baffles me that she loses the richness of the story and has so many questions that would not arise if she understood the undercurrents, thoughts and needs.

GOT and Hunger Games are two popular series I would say go to the library and read. It will enrich the experience.

How do you all approach these type of movies/tv based upon books?

The book is more of a genuine and authentic effort to create a story free from commercialism.

12 Years a Slave, the original autobiography is 1,000x's better than the movie, which to me was, meh.

I actually cried reading the book. Not the movie.