Replies

It’s not

It makes a difference in how you view the films.

If you had read the books it may prejudice how you see the movie.

Most of the time if I have read the book and I then see the film, I interpret the book differently than the screen writer did and hate the film. Of course you can not force a 625 page book in to fa 2 hour movie effectively.

I read Dune when 16 and saw the film when I was 25 and hated it. Some People I know thought the movie good. No accounting for taste.

Reading the book can influence how you see the movie. Anyone who reads a book experiences it differently.

I read the Lord of the Rings when I was 18. 37 years ago. I liked the movies. I understood what was happening in the movie differently than you.

Reading the books can change your understanding of the movie.

If you read the books and see the movie again it could change your enjoyment of the movie.

Personally I would rather see the movie before I read the book most of the time.

If I like the movie I probably will like the book.. But invariably the book is better and the screen writer gets it wrong.

An exception to that rule was Catch-22. I must have read the book ten times by the time the movie came out. The screenplay was so attuned to the novel, I was mouthing lines along with the actors the first time I ever saw the film.

With very few exceptions, Stephen King’s books seem to have been impossible to put on the big screen, but many tried any way, and failed. Of course, starting with Tommyknockers, King’s books became unsustainable from the get go.

In Harm’s Way follows the book closely, but the book fleshes out things the movie didn’t have time for. Anyone who likes that movie should read the book.

Just the opposite, of course, was 2001: A Space Odyssey. The thirst for interpreting the movie led to the book being written after the movie, and the book, being based on the screenplay was bereft of added character or plot development and a waste of paper.