25 Things #9: Books and movies
I have a rule of thumb about reading books that have been turned into movies, that I will see the movie first and THEN read the book.
I realize a lot of people consider this to be backwards, but I've found that if I see the movie and then read the book, I pretty much always enjoy both, whereas if I've read the book then I'll nitpick the movie quite a bit more.
I first actively noticed this when the first Lord of the Rings movie came out, and the group of people I went to the theater with split up to watch different movies. Only two of us opted for Fellowship of the Ring. Due to the lengths of the movies and the difference in starting times, I had to endure almost an hour of him whining about how horrible it was that they left out Tom Bombadil and how important that segment was to the overall story. Except, that if you didn't know the overall story, Tom Bombadil wasn't very important at all. (Admittedly, a single line about how only the Numenorian weapons can hurt the ring-wraiths might have been nice.) I had tried to read the series, but it was ungodly dry and I didn't get past the first chapter, so I was unfamiliar with the story. (I've been told by fans of the series that on the first run-through it's best to skip the first chapter, and someday I might get around to trying the series again.) Another friend repeatedly confirms my view by complaining about scenes from the movie that weren't "right". I, on the other hand, absolutely love the entire trilogy.
I noticed it again with the Harry Potter series. The later books are significantly longer than the early ones, so it stands to reason that subplots would have to be removed for the movie, but I hadn't really thought about it until a friend of mine expressed his disappointment over Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire because they left so much out. By then, I'd already decided not to read the books yet; I'd come late enough to the Harry Potter party that the movies had already started coming out before I'd read the first book, Rowling had already announced that there would be seven books, and the movies had had so much success that I was sure there would be seven movies as well. And, having not read the bit about the house elves and the other aspects of the book that were cut, I thought the movie was quite good.
However, after watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I had a lot of questions. I enjoyed the movie, but I was utterly certain that I'd missed things. A second screening of the movie told me that far far more had been cut out of the movie-- among other things, a modicum of background about who The Half-Blood Prince was. (It turns out that book isn't much better, but at least there's a sentence or two about where it originated from, which is more than the one line that the movie gave.) So, I started reading the series.
And now I have a conundrum, because I'm up to the last book. I'd really like to know what happens, and the book is sitting right there on the nightstand where John left it after he read it. It would be so easy... but then it's a good bet that I would not like the next two movies as much, because many of the subplots cut out of the last three movies have built on each other. Waiting for the movies, however, means waiting a long time-- part one is due in 2010, part two in 2011. On the other hand, the fact that they've split the last book into two movies indicates that they'll probably spend more time with it, and cut out less of it.
I realize a lot of people consider this to be backwards, but I've found that if I see the movie and then read the book, I pretty much always enjoy both, whereas if I've read the book then I'll nitpick the movie quite a bit more.
I first actively noticed this when the first Lord of the Rings movie came out, and the group of people I went to the theater with split up to watch different movies. Only two of us opted for Fellowship of the Ring. Due to the lengths of the movies and the difference in starting times, I had to endure almost an hour of him whining about how horrible it was that they left out Tom Bombadil and how important that segment was to the overall story. Except, that if you didn't know the overall story, Tom Bombadil wasn't very important at all. (Admittedly, a single line about how only the Numenorian weapons can hurt the ring-wraiths might have been nice.) I had tried to read the series, but it was ungodly dry and I didn't get past the first chapter, so I was unfamiliar with the story. (I've been told by fans of the series that on the first run-through it's best to skip the first chapter, and someday I might get around to trying the series again.) Another friend repeatedly confirms my view by complaining about scenes from the movie that weren't "right". I, on the other hand, absolutely love the entire trilogy.
I noticed it again with the Harry Potter series. The later books are significantly longer than the early ones, so it stands to reason that subplots would have to be removed for the movie, but I hadn't really thought about it until a friend of mine expressed his disappointment over Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire because they left so much out. By then, I'd already decided not to read the books yet; I'd come late enough to the Harry Potter party that the movies had already started coming out before I'd read the first book, Rowling had already announced that there would be seven books, and the movies had had so much success that I was sure there would be seven movies as well. And, having not read the bit about the house elves and the other aspects of the book that were cut, I thought the movie was quite good.
However, after watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I had a lot of questions. I enjoyed the movie, but I was utterly certain that I'd missed things. A second screening of the movie told me that far far more had been cut out of the movie-- among other things, a modicum of background about who The Half-Blood Prince was. (It turns out that book isn't much better, but at least there's a sentence or two about where it originated from, which is more than the one line that the movie gave.) So, I started reading the series.
And now I have a conundrum, because I'm up to the last book. I'd really like to know what happens, and the book is sitting right there on the nightstand where John left it after he read it. It would be so easy... but then it's a good bet that I would not like the next two movies as much, because many of the subplots cut out of the last three movies have built on each other. Waiting for the movies, however, means waiting a long time-- part one is due in 2010, part two in 2011. On the other hand, the fact that they've split the last book into two movies indicates that they'll probably spend more time with it, and cut out less of it.