How do you approach adaptations?

I really want to check out the new Alexandre Dumas adaptation, since it has received very positive reviews, but I also know the billion-pages long source book is one of the most beloved that has ever been written, and I don't know if I want to spoil experiencing the story of such a monument with an "inferior" one that is a 3-hrs cinematic take...

What would you do if you were in my boots?

__________________
HEI guys.

Then don't..
If you read it first you eliminate the chance of spoiling right?
Why take risks into unknown, just follow the correct order...
Also if you're behind on your reading, catch up..

__________________
Letterboxd
Entertainment log

I haven't started the book yet. I know I'd like to read it sometime in the (unkown) future, when I have hopefully more free time for such a massive work. right now, it's the thirst for the film that's on my mind... perhaps I'll watch it, hopefully forget enough of the story by the time I get my hands on the novel?...

Unlikely..

If you haven’t read the book and want to see the movie, watch the movie first. I read the 1,245= page version of the book in a few days. It’s not because I’m a fast reader (a 1,215-page version of War & Peace took me several weeks to get through), it’s because the book is a real page-turner. One of my all-time favorite novels. Also enjoyed the 2002 film adaptation by Kevin Reynolds.

Mark

I think it's more fun to watch the film first, and then discover how the story was meant to be.
And since the novels are often considered to be superior to the films, then it'll help to make that second experience a better one (because we always want things to get better, not worse).

The bare bones of this story are quite well known. I’m an old person and seen several adaptations. I liked the Gerard Depardieu one best. I haven’t read the book, but it’s a classic and probably unruinable. I’m sure it includes all kinds of interesting stuff that movie won’t have the time or inclination to include. Enjoy your movie. The book will keep.

Always watch the movie first, it won't spoil the book for you. However if you read the book first it almost always will spoil the movie for you.

It depends. Sometimes the movie is actually better. I saw Trainspotting before I read the book, and while I liked the book, I thought the movie was fantastic, so I'm really glad I saw the movie first. Another example would be The Cider House Rules where I read the book first and liked it, yet still thought the movie was better, although I suspect some might disagree on that one.

Then there's what I've always thought of as the more typical scenario where I saw the movie first(Fight Club), which, although I liked, I found to have some major flaws. Found out later that the book supposedly is fantastic, which was a bummer as I couldn't imagine the experience to be nearly the same going in knowing the plot beforehand so I never read it and kinda felt like I missed out on something special by starting in the wrong end.

This is one of those issues that has a corollary in the question of whether you read about a movie before you see it. Literary people almost always seem to say that the book is better, but a lot of that is in the question of how much time you have to tell the story. A book can keep you in a chair for many hours, but most movies have you out of the building in two or so.

The literary people will bemoan the loss of depth and detail, the movie people (like me) enjoy picture, motion, music and sound much more than lots and lots of print.

In that respect, I never go into the movie expecting it to be like the book. Adaptation is the key word there,....a different medium with different assets. No movie could keep my butt in a seat long enough for a faithful movie version of Crime and Punishment and if you break it up, that's risky too.

The OP asked about whether to read a book before seeing a movie, not about whether they should expect them to be the same.

It depends on your attitude and experience with adaptations. Mine is almost always that I prefer the movie because of my short attention span. I don't expect them to be the same, just have some parallels. I've never seen a movie version that was the same as the book and gave up on that expectation. My guess is that it would have to be a short book and a long movie.

Okay, so I replied the first time because it seemed like you didn't read the first post in the thread. Now you've replied directly to me, and it seems like you didn't read my post, either.

The thread is about whether to read a book before seeing its film adaptation. Your post above is not about that at all. It's just talking about the differences between adaptations, again. This might be an understandable mistake the first time (if you're skimming, which I assume was the case), but it's inexplicable to do the exact same thing again, while directly replying to me explaining the distinction.

hii. thanks for sharing this topic.