Do you prefer to read the book or watch the movie? That’s the question for this week’s books and more blog hop.
I’m more likely to choose to read a book than watch a film. However, sometimes I’m too tired to even do that after a long day sitting in front of a computer screen. Sometimes, watching a movie is the easiest and less taxing way to relax.
Photo by Roberto Nickson
Regarding choosing a book or film version of a story, at one time, I never would have watched a film that was based on a book before reading the book. Now, I’m more chilled about it. I don’t have the time to be fussy as a mum, with a part-time job and a fiction writing career to pursue.
I also used to get really annoyed when books were turned into films, and they tampered with the plot or characters. A better understanding of the different formats of storytelling has changed all that. One can’t expect a two-hour movie to contain all the nuances of a book.
Nowadays, I try to enjoy them separately and appreciate them in their different forms. The most recent book-to-film adaptation I watched was the 2020 film Emma, based on the book by Jane Austen. It was a charming re-interpretation of a book I’ve read several times (the costumes were gorgeous, and I loved the inclusion of the put-upon servants). I’ve also watched The Hunger Games movies and enjoyed them, despite reading none of the books.
And you know what, some movies are better than their book. I’m risking backlash here, but a prime example is The Lord of the Rings. Now die-hard fans of the books may not agree (many have argued that too many important characters were excluded), but I think the films are much better because they cut all the boring travel sequences and the sitting around the fire scenes (yes, that’s multiple scenes of the same thing) singing in elvish. Oh God, I had to skip so much elvish poetry in the book.
On the other hand, The Hobbit films are excellent (if you haven’t read the book first), but they drag out the events of one book into three, three-hour films and a lot is filler. Legolas should not be in that film for more than about ten minutes, but I’m not complaining because Legolas is cool.
Reading is my go-to when it’s time to relax, but I still enjoy the occasional movie now and then. If it’s based on a book I’ve read, then great. I may comment, “that’s a little different from the book”, but I won’t rant about it. If I haven’t read the book first, then I won’t stress. I’ll enjoy the film as is, and be none the wiser.
Do you prefer to read the book or watch the movie? Let me know in the comments and check what the other blog hoppers prefer.
My firm belief is that it’s best to see the movie first. Then, when you read the book, your reaction is likely to be “wow so much more to enjoy.” And, if you don’t like it, you have spent much less time finding that out. If you read the book first, the reaction often is “why did they leave out this/that/the other?” I’ve been reading and watching movies for many many years. (I’m 80.) During that time I’ve seen one film that was identical to the book, Good Morning Miss Dove. And one film that was slightly better than the book, The Last Picture Show. (One moment in a scene where Ellen Burstyn conveys resisting the temptation to go after a young man she finds attractive.) Gone with the Wind, on the other hand, leaves out huge chunks of Scarlett’s life, including a marriage and a couple of children.
Finally, sometimes a book is almost impossible to read, e.g. Wuthering Heights, while the film is excellent.
I am so with you on reading Lord of the Rings. I thought I was the only one who was not a fan of the book.