I saw the movie so the book is spoiled

Do you prefer to read a book before you watch its movie adaption? Or maybe the other way around?

I used to always want to read the books first, like with Harry Potter. I formed my own faces on the characters and painted my own version of the environments. Then came the movies and sort of erased a bit of that.

With the more recent Divergent and Hunger Gamea series. I've done it the other way around. Mostly because I just happened to see the first movies in those trilogies before I came across the books, but I've kept it up. The movies are great on their own imo, but when I read the books later and pick up the things they left out in the adaptation, I only feel like it's making the experience richer. So in a way, I've started to believe it's actually better to watch the movie first.

I've begun reading Mockingjay now but paused... The last film isn't out yet. Likewise, I'm just about to start reading Insurgent, but I might just go to the movies this weekend and watch it with my sister before I read on... Or should I? I can't really decide O.o which way really gives you the best overall experience?

I prefer to do one or the other, because my view of the other media is inevitably spoiled. It happens every time. I read the Harry Potter books first, and I didn't like the films. I watched The Lord of the Rings films first, and I found the books boring. I'm extremely critical of the Hobbit movies because I don't think the one book needed more than two movies at most...and so on.

There are two exceptions to this: Eragon, which was awful in both formats, and Stardust, which was amazing in both formats. Movies often cut out parts of books, and if I read the books afterwards I think them unnecessary padding, but if I read the books before I think they cut out the most important bits...or add in unnecessary crap to pad the film out. Before I read The Fellowship of the Ring, I would have said it was better to read the book, as it's the original source material and you'll get the best experience. But considering they cut out Tom Bombadil entirely and made the Council of Elrond quite an interesting scene - instead of the mind-numbingly painful chapter it was in the book - I would say this isn't necessarily the case. I'd say go for the one that looks most appealing to you and try the other one if you enjoy it enough to not care if your first impression is mutilated...or didn't enjoy it at all and want to give it a second try.

I've yet to see a film based on a book that faithfully recreates the characters in it, so I prefer to either watch or read it the once only. That way I get a good impression of it - or not, depending on what it is - and I don't find myself nitpicking the other media.

I don't think I've ever truly "spoiled" anything for myself per se when it comes to watching a movie before a book, or reading a book before a movie. To use the Mockingjay example, I actually watched the first movie in the series before ever reading the books, and I read the second book before seeing the second movie. One format didn't diminish the other in my eyes; it's always interesting to me to go read a book after a movie just to see how things "should" have been, and if I'm watching a movie after a book then I might actually be more hyped for the movie just to see how the producers handled it.

Although I do have to be careful. I also need to treat each of them as its own separate entity, or else I'll either be disappointed that certain things weren't touched upon, or I'll get annoyed that the movie isn't following the book just exactly right how dare they argh. But for the most part, it's what I happen to come across first that will be the first thing I indulge in. It might be the movie, it might be the book...but I won't stop from viewing either of them just because the other exists.

Oh, taking Catching Fire as an example since you mentioned it - there were things I really didn't understand the purpose of in the movie until I read the book. Things were explained better there, while in the movie the meaning was lost on me. But I still enjoyed the movie. So yeah... That's one point in favor for watching the movie first rather than the other way around 8)

Or maybe I would have understood the things in the movie better if I knew what the book had explained already :/ uh.

If it's a series that I think I could really get into then I'd prefer to read the source material first. If I'm just casually watching a movie or I don't think I'd be into the series then I don't care whether I've read the book or not.

It doesn't honestly make much of a difference to me. For the most part the book doesn't make the movie any better and vice versa. I used to be really adamant about watching books first until I realized that it didn't really matter because a movie can be totally different than the book it was based off of. I would say that I prefer watching the movie first though, it gives me a summary of what the book is all about and let's me really decide if I'm interested in reading it if the description on the cover isn't really the best. Though it does take away some of the creativity involved with being a reader rather than someone just along for the ride in someone else's dream. Hmm.

I read a lot more than I watch movies, so I tend to always get to the books first before I get a chance to watch the movie. Even in cases like the Hunger Games, I remember that they're a book series before a movie series, so I actively look for a way to read the books.

It really doesn't matter what order someone gets to the franchise first. As long as they realize that movies and books are different mediums and tell the same story (or close to it) in different ways, things are fine. Don't expect that the story's going to be the same between them.

I gotta be honest, it's been quite a while since I've just leisurely read anything. Movies in my opinion tend to be better than their book predecessors (successors for the random movie series that spawned a book series, idr which). But that might just be because I see them before I read. If it was the other way around, like me reading The Giver and then seeing the movie, I may appreciate the book more. In the case of The Giver, the movie was just bad, but I digress. I guess books will always have their value and spark, it's just when I choose to see the movie first, I don't really feel the need to read it.

I saw the first two Hunger Games movies before reading those books. Most often it is book first though.

Movie or book now days because I barely have to time to really sit down and read.
Sure when I was younger, I'd read first. Not because I knew a movie was coming out or anything, but I'd spend a lot of time in the library reading and I'd either heard about the books from friends, or I'd pick them up thinking the cover looked/ back summary sounded interesting (Harry Potter, Narnia, The Hobbit and even Twilight etc.)

These days especially watching the movies first, I like watching to see if a movie can hold out well on it's own.
My younger cousin is one of those book shamers. "READ THE BOOK FIRST BEFORE YOU WATCH THE MOVIE!"
"It only sucks because you didn't read the book", "The movie doesn't live up to the book".
Apart that I watch the movie first to spite her, I do like watching movies first to see if they are a great movie and not as an adaptation.

With the Hunger Games, I watched the first two movies and then read the first two books later. I didn't get a chance to see Mockingjay yet, and I want to see the film before I read the book.

Despite seeing them in movie form first, I still enjoyed the books a lot and they're one of my favourite book series.

I'm a huge bibliophile so I always take to the books first. And most of the time -- actually all the time as far as I recall -- the movie adaptations don't do the books justice. I'm not a Potterhead but any self-proclaimed Potter fan should've known that the films switched up a lot of character lines and others from the novels, which really didn't convey the same message as when reading it. And while we're all talking about THG, the first two films really did not do the novels justice, especially the first (but we all now how horrible it was). The Book Thief was another film adaptation that was a sour experience for me. That novel was close to my heart and it just did not meet my expectations as a fan.

There are some good film adaptations of novels out there, of course. LotR films were like pocket guides to the series and summarised most of the important details and lore that the books lectured on and on about. Life of Pi, surprisingly impressed me; while I did not really found the book so great, the film was bearable and an overall much better experience.

Well I saw The Perks of being a Wallflower before I read the book, and pretty much granted a vast majority what happened in the book was in the movie, but there was plenty left out, to where it felt completely new to me.

I would rather read the book, because I'm somehow more likely to sit through days and some-odd hours of reading, say, the entire Divergent series rather than sitting through a two-hour movie with the same stuff. I prefer the author's take on characters' appearances more than the actors in a movie, for one thing, and directors tend to leave out epic/funny scenes or characters from a book, so I would rather read a book than watch the movie.

Did this with the first Hunger Games book a year back. Thought to myself whilst watching, "MAN, this could make a great book!". Turns out, I thought out loud, and my sister said that there were already books released, three of them in fact. Bummer, haha.

Positively speaking, you could think of the movie series as a gateway drug to the books, considering the fact that the directors seem to leave out some details they couldn't adapt.

I actually do both. I always feel like the book describes more than the movie. So, I always try to read the book first, then I go see the movie. It all depends on whether or not I'm interested in either. When I first saw the Hunger Games, I didn't understand a fucking thing. So, I decided that I'd read the books first. I haven't really finished since I'm not an avid reader but... yeah.

It bothers me a great deal that some people honestly believe that seeing the movie first spoils the book, especially if they choose not to read the book at all even after liking the movie. Don't have an opinion on which one should be done first, however. It really varies for me. I read Hunger Games before I saw the movie. I read The Perks of Being a Wallflower before seeing the movie. I read Harry Potter before seeing the movie. I read Paper Towns before the movie (which I will be seeing when it's released). Though, I read all of these before a movie was even on the horizon for them. I saw Twilight before reading the book. I saw A Series of Unfortunate Events before reading the book. I saw The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe before reading the book. I have no preference for either or.

I prefer reading the books before watching the movie, but I'm not entirely strict about that. I prefer reading the books first mainly because it's what the movie is based on, and I like spotting the differences of the movie adaptation from the book. Also because I think the book is way easier to understand haha.

I don't really have a preference. As much as I love reading books, I've far too less time in my hands to just sit down and try to read a whole series, so I've turned to watching the movie adaptations instead!

If I have read the book of a movie adaptation first then you bet your ass I'm going to be playing spot the difference! :p

I watched the Giver after reading the book and the ending is just as WTFy. They didn't stay true to the book though! Percy Jackson too. I hate the second movie adaptation because it's nothing like the book besides the plot AND they got a prophecy wrong. Not sure if this counts, Avatar Last Airbender VS Stupid Movie Adaptation. Why do they always mess up with the movie adaptation? Except for Coraline, the movie was exactly like the book except for adding a character.