2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > August > 05 > Entry
Has a movie ever made you want to read the book?
The trailer for Peter Jackson’s next movie, The Lovely Bones, has just come out, and it looks fantastic:
The movie is based on the 2002 novel by Alice Sebold, about a young girl who is murdered and watches from the beyond as her family tries to cope - and she watches her killer, too. Saoirse Ronan, who was Oscar-nominated for her work in Atonement, stars as the girl; Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci and Mark Wahlberg co-star. Jackson has made the film with much of the same team that brought The Lord of the Rings to the big screen. The movie comes out Dec. 11.
I’ve always thought it was inherently unfair (albeit inevitable) that movies are constantly compared to the books on which they are based. That’s why I typically do NOT read a novel I know is going to be made into a movie, especially shortly before the release. It would NOT do to sit there constantly thinking “This line was different,” “They changed that scene” or “That wasn’t in the book.” I don’t feel I could judge the film fairly with those distractions.
However, I think going in the opposite direction is potentially interesting. I’d really like to see how The Lovely Bones plays out on the page - but not until after I’ve seen the movie.
So let me ask you: Has a movie ever made you think “I’d like to read that book?” Or consider this: Has any movie ever made you think “That would make a good book?”
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment |
Comments
By oldtimer
August 5, 2009 5:15 PM | Link to this
Way back in 1939 when I was 9, I saw the “Wizard of Oz” then went to the library and read the book. It was better than the movie. A little later I read “Gone With the Wind,” after seeing the movie. I have since read several books after seeing the movie.By Harangutan
August 5, 2009 3:38 PM | Link to this
I did that for “The Prestige,” reading the book to try to understand the movie better. I even occasionally do it for movies that did not have a book until the movie was made, like “Spider-man 2,” and “Batman Begins,” and “Transformers.” If I like the story, I don’t mind seeing the movie or reading the book first. I like to compare them in either direction. The “Lord of the Rings” books are better than the movies, but the LOTR movies are great entertainment compared to other movies.By flipper
August 5, 2009 2:38 PM | Link to this
Nope. The movies are always more entertaining and usually over in 2 hours. A book can take days.By Allie D.
August 5, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this
It’s a regular practice of mine. I agree that reading a book right before the movie comes out is just asking for disappointment. But the reverse is always pleasing, as I think it makes reading the book a richer experience when you already have the “look” of the characters from the movie in mind. Right now, I’m reading The Golden Compass. I actually have The Lovely Bones sitting on my desk right now. I just read Get Shorty for the first time, which was as fantastic as the film actually. I am probably going to wait for the DVDs of My Sister’s Keeper and The Time Traveler’s Wife, however, as I just read those books and I have a feeling that neither film will live up to my expectations if I see them now. The movies frequently inspire my reading choices, and I find it helps me to appreciate both art forms when the seeing movie precedes reading the book. As a side note, I am VERY glad that I had foggy memory of the Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince book, otherwise I may not have enjoyed the movie as much as I did.By Tony
August 5, 2009 1:10 PM | Link to this
I had no interest to read Lord of the Rings until I saw Fellowship. But after seeing the movie, I was at the library within the week to read LOTR series.By tbill
August 5, 2009 1:05 PM | Link to this
All the time! I read Revolutionary Road, Coraline, and Bridges of Madison County after having seen the movies. Books are always better.