I recently bought The City of Ember, Inkheart, and Eragon, all of which I'd seen as movies but hadn't read the books (mostly because I didn't know they were books).
Hank Green (of Vlogbrothers on YouTube) has started a movement to "Read It First," which I think is to prevent you from watching the movie, thinking it's crap, and never reading the book because you didn't like the movie. Example: Eragon. I think we can all agree that the movie was disappointing, including for people who didn't have any preconceived expectations from reading the book. As they say in the movie, "I was expecting...more."
Hank's website, readit1st.com, states "Don't let the movie ruin the book." I suppose part of Hank's reasons include trying to get people to read more. I am not one of those people who need to be encouraged to read more. I am not one of those people who will watch a movie and do their book report on that to get out of actually reading a book. And you, who took the time to read this blog, are probably not one of those people. Probably because we're nerds. But so is Nerdfighteria, the audience to whom Hank addressed this issue.
While Hank may have some valid reasons to advocate reading before watching, I feel the opposite. Here's my argument to watch it 1st, read it 2nd:
1) Watching it first gives you an idea of whether you'd want to read the book. You meet the characters, find out the plot, see if it's something that interests you. I don't know about you, but the two hours it takes to watch a movie is way less of a time commitment than what it takes to read a book. (The people who cop out on book reports know what I'm talking about.)
2) You may not have known it was a book. I've often watched the credits of something and been surprised it was a book. And I read all the time and worked in a library, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with books. Example: When I started watching Legend of the Seeker on TV, which is exactly the sort of fantasy/adventure stuff I like, the show credits said it was based on the book Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind. Since I'd already determined I liked the story (see reason #1), it was a safe bet that I'd enjoy the books as well. (And I did.)
Also, a film will credit the book it was based on, but a book won't necessarily advertise that there's a movie too, so you might not be aware that you can continue the fun. Conveniently, readit1st.com allows you to sign up for the READ IT 1st newsletter to keep up to date on adaptations about to hit theaters. In a rather accomodating move, you can do that whether you pledge to read the book first or whenever you please.
3) Here's the biggie: The Changes. If you watch it first then you have an image of what the characters and locations look like to help you when you read the book, instead of being annoyed that the movie sets and actors don't match what you imagined or what the book described.
Sometimes books repeatedly mention a detail that is changed for the film. For example, Kahlan Amnell and Harry Potter are both frequently described as having green eyes, but the actors who play them have blue eyes. If you've read the books and had it drummed into your head that they have green eyes, it's going to bug you when you watch it and they don't. If you're reading it second you may not even remember the color of the actor's eyes, or else it's easier to say "Oh well, close enough."
If you're watching it first, you don't know what's been left out or changed. You're not distracted from the movie because you're making comparisons. It's less annoying to read a book and think "Oh, this is new" than to expect it to be completely faithful to the book and go a certain way.
Example: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Fans of the book were all "They skipped Tom Bombadil" and "Arwen's part is not supposed to be this big" and "Elijah Wood is too young to play Frodo," whereas I, who hadn't read the book yet, could just enjoy how awesome and epic and life changing the movie was.
The quote from Eragon is actually kinda pretty much my thesis not to read it first: You expect more than you would if you hadn't read it yet. As everyone know, the book is always better. So don't you want to save the best for last?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
2 comments:
I both agree and disagree with your arguments. The first point you said was that by watching it first you'll know whether you'd even want to read the book. But what if the movie's so awful it completely turns you off? For example, Eragon was such a terrible movie on its own that even though I like fantasy and dragons, I might have never read the books. Without first reading the book, I don't know how much they've changed to know whether or not the book is just as awful as the movie. And the movie can just be loosely based on a book, so there could be new characters, characters with the same name but different personalities, and a completely different plot. Such as in the Percy Jackson movie. They changed several of the characters so they didn't even slightly resemble their book counterparts. So it isn't a reliable introduction to the book at all.
I agree with the second point though. I've discovered awesome books and series thanks to loving a movie or TV show. So I'm in complete agreement with you there. But that's not necessarily a conscious thing. You're not choosing to read it first or second; in this case, you didn't really have a choice.
The third point is where I'm torn. I agree that the changes made when transitioning a book to a movie can be hard when you love a book. And by seeing the movie first, you can avoid being disappointed when it doesn't live up to the book. But I'm one of those people that likes to imagine things my way. I don't like reading a book with someone else's interpretation in my head, especially if they pictured things very differently from the book. Another great example of this is Percy Jackson. If I'd seen the movie first, I probably never would have gotten the awful image of Steve Coogan as goofy rockstar Hades out of my head, when Hades in the book is described as severe and terrifying.
But then of course there are those very rare occasions when a movie excels the book. Two examples are Under the Tuscan Sun and The Princess Diaries. I watched both of those movies first and figured that since the movies were pretty good, the books were probably better (which is usually true). But both of those books were awful. The first was so boring and so completely different I didn't even bother finishing it. And the second was just terrible- badly written and not kid-friendly at all. If I'd read the books first, I would have never watched the movies.
So I can understand why you would choose to watch first, and sometimes I'm tempted to as well. But I really do enjoy reading the book first, and in order to keep myself from always being disappointed by an adaptation, I've found the best thing to do is to go see the movie with really low expectations. If I watch a movie expecting it to be terrible, I usually end up being pleasantly surprised. It's my best way to "have my cake and eat it too".
personally I don't try to do one or the other first. If I have the opportunity to watch a movie that i know is based off a book, I'm not going to hold off until I read it, because it may be years before I'm able to get the book, find time to read it, and then track down the movie again. When eragon came out, I hadn't read the book, but i didn't watch the movie because I never had the chance, not because I heard it was terrible. Now I've read the first book, and if i get the opportunity to see the movie, I will still watch it even though i know it will be disappointing. if I've already read and loved the book, I'm going to enjoy the movie even if it's terrible. I have a high tolerance for that. I would probably watch any twilight, harry potter, or hunger games movie made no matter how lame it ended up being. However, I would expect excellence and be disappointed if my standards weren't met.
Post a Comment