Would You Choose To Never See The Film?

[Genaaa]

I think there are definitely some cases where the movie is so much worse when compared to the book, that even seeing the movie sort of ruins the book. However, I still like to see the movies for the books even if they change a bunch of stuff. Sometimes, if you put aside your expectations from the book, the movie can be pretty decent on it's own.

[Oshin]

If the movie has a chance of ruining the book, then yes, definitely!

[smhawkins]

I'd agree that most books are better than the movies. However, the art of film-making is not the same as the art of literature. Yes, they're telling the same story, but they are two different mediums. There is no way that you can encompass all of the thoughts and nuances of the characters in a novel into a 1-2 hour film. For having such limitations, I think filmmakers do an excellent job at making these movies.

Look at Harry Potter! Everyone LOVES those films, even though we can all agree that the books are certainly better.

I think I am only really angry with movies when they completely disregard/are not true to the book.

[hillajax]

I'm agree with you all guys. Whenever I read a book and see the movie, i find reading a book was quite more interesting than watching a movie. I don't know the exact reason, but in my opinion this happen because, while reading a book we imagine the character in our mind and that prescription can't be fulfilled through the movie because it's the directors and screenplay writer's opinion of how they see the book as. And when we watch their version of movie it hurts our feeling about characters that's why we choose to love book beside hating the movie. But in few cases I love the movie rather than book(i watched a movie 3 idiots(2008), adopted by Chetan Bhagat's Five Point Someone), because the story was quite different from original(Book Story).

[AK413]

Yea there are a couple of movies I have chosen to skip. Hunger Games for instance, and Fifty Shades and the Time Travelers Wife. I wish I skipped the Twilight movies haha.

[lane_vespertine]

For me, it was specifically the Harry Potter franchise.
I loved the books. When I was in high school, the third book had just come out and my drama friends and I were all 'atwitter.' I thought they were great. Then, a few years later, I saw the first movie and... never again.
Eventually I would stop being a fan of the books... especially since after the fourth one it took years between them, but no one can take away how amazing the first three were/are.
The big problem I had with them is just how small they were as compared to my imagination. Ron's hair wasn't red enough, Hermoine's everything wasn't right, and even the scar on Harry's head was in the wrong place. It was a series that depended on so much visual imagination that the movies could never live up to it.

[Dolphinlove1990]

I love doing both. Even if I loved the book I don't ever expect much from the movie. Its unrealistic. I mean, with a book you can do anything, go anywhere and see anything. With a movie we are very limited to what we can really do. So I go in with no expectations and either I like it or I don't. But either way, I don't mind that they make movies of books that I love, I will usually always watch them, for curiosity if nothing else

[Aleah]

Yes, I would choose to never see the film. I rarely do anyway since the books are much more enjoyable.

[easy_dc13]

Film adaptations are usually 2 hours of disappointment. Whether it's underdevelopment of story and characters, mishandling of stuff, they're usually just made to print some money. Once in a blue moon, I'll go see the film then if it's not that good, I have a reason to slap myself in the face.

[ebeth]

Yes I would chose to never see the film. Sometimes it ruins the enjoyment after reading the book. Sometimes they ruin the ending, making it upsetting.

[DATo]

I wouldn't say "never", but I would prefer to know in advance from critiques that the movie is faithful to the book before I would go out of my way to see it. I can think of twelve movies just off the top of my head which I thought were very faithful to the book within the limits imposed by time constraints. I found each of these productions to be a pleasure to watch.

1) To Kill A Mockingbird
2) The Old Man and The Sea
3) The Hunger Games (part1 - the mutts at the very end were slightly different but actually better in the film)
4) 84 Charing Cross Road
5) The Road
6) Fail Safe
7) The Godfather
8 ) The Red Badge Of Courage
9) Pride And Prejudice (1995 BBC miniseries)
10) The Hound Of The Baskervilles (BBC production with Jeremy Brett)
11) Cloud Atlas (The ascending / descending time format was differently presented but that was all and this format was better suited for film)
12) All Quiet On the Western Front (1930)

[Blue-siren]

If a book is being turned into a movie, I tend to lower my expectation and if I really want to see it I go with an open mind. For me it really doesn't matter if I read the book first or see the movie then read the book but for most of the time I would wait to at least a year after I seen a movie to read the book (or vice versa).

Though If I know for sure that I wouldn't like the move adaptation of a book, I won't waste money on it and wait for it come on T.V. or become a cheap DvD.

[Tiff-thebookworm]

For me it will be to never watch the other Fifty Shades of Grey films. I freaking loved the books, I mean I loved the books yet the first movie was a total crapper. I was so let down that I was tempted to walk out half way through the movie but didnt want to waste my money.

[Adri300]

Both film and books have their strengths and weaknesses. Being that they are different media outlets some things are better represented in others. People often forget this fact, complaining often that elements of the book were left out and such and such was missing. If every aspect of the book was included into the film application then the audience would get bored with a five hour plus movie. Most notably what I think of is the Harry Potter series, there were many things altered as well as pieces edited out to make a more concise plot. One example that I can think of is in the fourth installment of the series in which Harry must fight a dragon. Although this was a significant part in the book, in the film the dragon gets much more screen time than what is represented in the text. This is because actually watching a dragon is much more stimulating for an audience than other elements of the story. Both sources of entertainment have their pros but are better suited in different ways, something that people forget.

-- 15 Nov 2016, 19:26 --

[Polecat1]

A book's characters, scenery, atmosphere, and action are all alive and vibrant in the reader's imagination. Movie adaptations pull all those things out of someone else's imagination, which rarely corresponds to mine. I seldom, if ever, want to see the movie after reading the book. Movies are also constrained by financing, by the prejudices and peccadilloes of the producers, directors and screenwriters, and by public reaction to subject matter. (Let us not forget avarice...)
One exception comes to mind: Margaret Mitchell's ''Gone With the Wind". Perfectly made in 1939, I can only imagine how the geniuses in Hollywood would bastardize it today.