So i will buy the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy book in a few days but i want to watch the film also.What do you think is better read the original story (book) first and then watch the film?.I saw it has a really nice cast Gary oldman,Mark Strong,John Hurt,Colin Firth,Benedict Cumberbatch and for me film with this cast is must watch.
Also does anyone have read this book?.
Edit: AND nominated for 3 Oscars
Edit2: also i'm bored right now.
General rule of thumb...
Read the book first. As a book it will trigger your imagination.
If you watch the movie first, the book will bring back the images from the movie, and you will be influenced. Your book experience will be gone...
I wholeheartedly agree with this, but just to play devil's advocate...
When you read the book first, the movie will almost always be a huge disappointment; when you see the movie first, the book will seem that much better, and while the movie will have most likely still sucked, it will be like, "man, what was I thinking when I saw that," instead of while watching the movie, "I can't believe I decided to see this." (－‸ლ) However, as @psycho_666, the images from the movie will taint your imagination when reading the books. I don't remember this happening when I finally read Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, though.
Personally, I'd rather read the book first, as it is every reader's god-given right to be disappointed in a film or television adaptation of their favorite books. Really, TV would be the better medium for book adaptations, because of the detail you can get into, but I digress, and there's all sorts of factors that can screw that up that don't affect film.
I liked the movie, haven't read the book.
I hope no one minds the thread bump (as the forum is informing me I might notify everyone already participating here), but I found the topic interesting.
In my case, I prefer to watch the movie first, then read the book for more details. Now with TV shows becoming more popular form of visual adaptations, you get more details, but books still usually go more in depth. And I actually find having a visual reference for characters to be useful.
Since this thread has been revived I'll add my two cents too.
I usually only read the book because having grown up reading books and hardly watching anything I just cannot see why people enjoy movies, especially over books. And to add to what people have said before, even if you watch the movie after reading the book, if you read the book a second and a third and a fourth time (and more if you are me) it will affect the way you experience it. For instance, reading LotR after having watched the movies has never been the same. Can only recommend skipping the movie, though it is up to you to decide what you want to do.
Because it's a different medium that enables you to experience the story in a different way. A movie is a visual medium, so it uses that to its advantage and it appeals to visual perception. It can be a bit more ambiguous and more subtle, as it depends on how you interpret what you are seeing, which is what makes it interesting. A full page internal monologue can be conveyed by a single glance, if the actor is capable of capturing the emotion. Etc, etc...
A perfect example of a book and a movie that are the same story, done in wildly different styles, would be 2001. It's one of my favorite books and one of my favorite movies, but both for basically completely different reasons.
So I wouldn't really say one is better than the other, and I'm not denying you your opinion, but I do think there's lot to love about movies.
I will agree on one thing though, I never quite understood the need to see something adapted to screen at any price. Like comic book movies. People are excited just to see something on screen, regardless of quality.
Sure, I see what you mean, movies are not and should not try to offer the same experience that a book does. I was just stating my opinion, maybe I should have clarified.