READ IT? OR SAW THE MOVIE AND SAID YOU DID?

i have never seen the film, book was wonderful

OH. Sniff. Well, I suggest you purchase it on vhs and view it. Seriously, the movie is very good, but, the book is many times better. Why mess with a good memory?

I'm a book reader, not a movie goer. There are many books which were filmed, which i would not consider going to see, as they might ruin the book for me.

I agree in part, ebeth. Still, there are books/movies that I like equally or nearly equally. I mentioned Grapes of Wrath because that is my favorite example, but I could have included books by Dickens, Victor Hugo and more.

I read the book, and not as required reading. Thought it was worth every minute of my time. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is the only book that I thought was equally succesful as a movie.

Saw the movie, but didn't read the book.

interesting: i really really liked Ed Abbey's "the lonely cowboy" and when the film (lonely are the brave) was made, the film deleted a main concept of the book and yet was still an excellent film.

I could not believe the cowardice of the ones who filmed THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. They imitated the other movies about Jesus, making it seem as if they did not even read the book to at least gleen the plot.

Lonely are the Brave? The Kirk Douglas film? I like that ome very much - Never read the book.

I would rather read the book, although I am an avid movie goer as well, sometimes the two meet and on occassion it is a nice addition to the experience however, I wouldnt say I read the book unless I did.
I picked up Nicholas Nickleby due to the film coming out and realizing it is one I hadnt read, Id like to read the book first.
On the other hand there are so many movies that are adapted from books in which I really dont have an interest in reading the book, or on very rare occassions I will say hummm..I should pick up that book.

If have not read a book before a film comes out I tend to leave it until after I have seen the film, because I am generally disappointed by the film if I know the book.

Films generally cannot match the psychological subtlety of a book and they often prune or twist plot-lines and themes.

I think it best, generally, to view the film as a separate entity.

Martin Scorcese made "The Last Temptation of Christ," one of the books that is plainly unfilmable but leave it to Scorcese to try. He's done better, that's for sure, but I don't think I'd describe it as cowardice. It cause an uproar of controversy in its filmatic state and Scorcese did earnestly try to tone it down and slip in what many considered blasphemous as a natural continuity of the Christ story.

As to books against movies, of course one gets to use their imagination and when one dwells and savors a good book, the film often seem superflous. I really do enjoy films that are written as films rather than from other material because the voice is that off a film visionary rather than a carbon copy (where the carbon gets smeared!)

Hate to appear redundant, but "The Lord of the Rings" is essentially an action/adventure book which is what Peter Jackson accentuated in the films, leaving out much of the fascinating characterizations and magical quiet scenes. The extended version of the first movie is much better and I expect so will the extended version of all three films (at about 12 hours long!)

Great literature depends on the author's narrative to absorb one in the story and less on dialogue. The film has to rely more on dialogue and a visualization of the narrative, leaving out nearly all the inner thoughts of the characters. I found this very demonstrable in the mini-series version of "Shogun." Where they book was written from the mind of different characters, you switch identification from character to character. That was dramatically lost in the film version.

I find movies sometimes to a better job with historical material, sometimes based on books and sometimes not -- especially biographical like "Chaplin," and "Nixon."

I misread your poll and voted for the wrong choice. I've never told anyone I've read a book after seeing a film. What's the purpose of that?

Wanking, LW!

Er .. that means trying to look smart, in that context - not sure if Americans use it in the same sense!

HOKAY!

One film that had me in sorrow was the Henry Fonda acted in WAR AND PEACE. Sure, time limitations and all that, but: WHY DID THEY BOTHER?

Dicey, this business of loving the book, then seeing the film. Somehow the film is always a disappointment, especially when the film deviates too much from the spirit of the book. Or even when it tries to mirror it exactly.

I loved John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman & was quite surprised at the "contemporary" aspects of the film ... But on reflection, the changes were consistent with the spirit of the book.

The critics trashed Richard Burton's DR FAUSTUS, but it was presented in the spirit of fun and I (I alone in the world?) liked it very much.

I would never say I'd read the book if I hadn't. In general there are too many details left out of a screenplay.

High school. "Lord of the Flies." Caught the movie on the late late show and skipped reading the book. Somehow passed the test.