When I watch a movie, I often hear people tell me to read the book first, but why? 

It might be because the book usually comes first and therefore is seen as the original format and the most authentic. 

Honestly though, whenever I read the book before watching the movie, I am often disappointed. Either the movie did not exactly capture the essence of the book because they left out stuff or changed certain events, or it just wasn’t the same as the picture I had in my head from reading the book. If I had never read the book, sure I wouldn’t be disappointed, but then I couldn’t point out to my friends all of the differences between the two, and all of the stuff the movie got wrong. If I happen to read the book after I’ve watched the movie, I can sometimes be dissatisfied with the book. Sometimes the book does not entirely illustrate the images I perceived in the film. Although, there is always the possibility that I will be surprised with unknown twists and new characters that enrich my experience while reading the book. 

Of course, this is not the case for every book-to-film adaptation. However, the point I am trying to make is that we ultimately compare the book to the film. It’s hard not to, but essentially the entire argument is pointless. Whether we watch the film first or read the book first, we are going to compare the second experience to the first. 

As I rant on about the debate between books v. movies some modern examples come to mind where I’ve been conflicted about which is best. When the movies Love, Simon; To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before; and P.S. I Still Love You were announced, I vowed to read the books before the movies. Because of this, I pictured certain characters differently compared to how they were portrayed in the movie. For example, in the book To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before, I saw Peter as more douche-like. Why? Because in the book, I saw Peter as just using Lara Jean as his fake girlfriend while still wanting to get back with his ex. This made me want Lara Jean to fall for Josh, her former best friend. In the movie, Peter is portrayed as this loving, less douchey character. It’s not just character perspective that changes but events and the plot itself. In the book, Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda, Simon has two sisters, but in the movie one of his sisters just doesn’t exist; poof she’s missing. 

The movie is always going to be slightly different because they have to adapt the story to a new medium in order to fit the movie genre better. Usually, if the book is good, then the movie adaptation will be, too. However, in my personal opinion some movie adaptations are just flat out bad, such as the Percy Jackson series. And some movies are so popular as movies that I had no idea they were books in the first place. Some notable examples are, The Princess Bride, The Princess Diaries, Jurassic Park, and Legally Blonde. 

Nevertheless, there are benefits to each of these experiences. Books are movies you make in your head and take with you everywhere. Both create a place where you can escape and visualize a whole new world. Movies are usually only a couple of hours, while a book may take you days to read, but books typically have more depth and detail. Overall, most books contain great stories which also make great movies, even though they’re inevitably different from the book. Try to avoid disappointment in your book-reading and movie-watching experiences as much as possible, but we should strive to see the merits of each genre separately. A movie can’t quite do what a book can, and vice versa, but if done well, both experiences can be awesome. Just watch the movie first if you like to be surprised while reading.