Sometimes I find out in the opening credits that the movie I'm watching is based on a novel, and I admit that it bothers me a little. Not the fact that it's based on a novel, but the fact that I didn't read it. There are times when I just turn off the tv and say fuck it, I wanna read the novel first. But why on earth should I look for a novel if all I know is the single fact that some movie is based on it? not enough to stop me from watching.

Question is: when is it worth waiting? worth searching the novel, buying and reading the whole thing before watching the movie/series?

I'm asking this question because right now I feel like watching "Game of Thrones". I heard so much about it, and only good things. Everyone is saying how amazing it is. But I know it's based on a series of books, and I hear they're quite awesome as well. So that's my problem. What should I do first?

Obviously the "natural" way is to read the original novel first, then watch the series. Of course that requires much more time, but I'll enjoy the novel like a brand new adventure. If I watch the series first and then decide to go for the novel, then it won't be the same thing at all. I bet it's still is an interesting read, but the element of suspense is gone, I know what's going to happen. The reading will not be as fun.

On the other hand, if I decide to watch the series first, I will probably enjoy it much more like most people who've never read the book and are watching the series. They don't know what's going to happen and that adds a lot to your viewing.

So it's a win-lose situation in both cases. Some dilemma

I'd love to hear of your past experience with books to movies and vice versa.

Most people here have read the Godfather novel, and I'm one of those who read it after watching the movies. I already knew what will happen to some characters and even though the novel offers more interesting descriptions and great stories (like the Bocchicchios) my reading of the novel was still pretty much based on the movies. I had Pacino and Brando in mind, it's not like reading a brand new book.

On the other hand, I've read "The Maltese Falcon" before watching the movie, and it was amazing. The movie was great but less amazing to me, because most of it followed the book pretty close and I knew every line Bogart was going to say. It was still fun to hear him, when is it not, but yeah reading the novel first definitely took a lot from the movie experience. But I've no regrets. Reading the novel not knowing anything was a priceless experience.

I usually make the decisions to see the book or movie independently. A great series of books like "Master and Commander"* might get condensed down to a mediocre film. If the early reviews, ads, and people involved seem like a loser, I'll skip the movie.

A really fine movie, especially a fine script, can occasionally get me to pick up the book. I can only think of a couple of instances -- one being Field of Dreams -- where the book was a disappointment. I don't think it would have been improved if I read it first.

I think the only time I ever waited to see the adaptation because I hadn't read the book was for Lonesome Dove. From all I had heard of the book, it just seemed like the perfect big adventure tale. That worked out fine -- over the next ten years I wore out both a couple of paperbacks and a couple of VHS tapes.

*Edit: My best guess is that Master and Commander could only really be brought to screen correctly in a miniseries that might run 30 hours or more.

It depends.

I have read books and then been bitterly disappointed by the movie (The Sicilian, Dead Zone). I've also been thrilled with the adaptation of a beloved book, as I felt the actors added layers of depth to a character that I think maybe even the author didn't envision (Morgan Freeman in Shawshank, for example).