Peter Jackson’s big-screen adaptation of The Lovely Bones lands in theaters this Friday, which presents me with a dilemma. You see, I’m one of those folks who really, truly intended to read Alice Sebold’s 2002 novel. (My colleague Karen Valby gave the book one of its very first raves and it’s been on my to-read list ever since.) But now I worry that I won’t have the time to do so before I see Jackson’s film adaptation, which stars Saoirse Ronan (Atonement), Rachel Weisz, and Mark Walhberg.
Sure, there have been plenty of movies I’ve seen without having read the book first. And many instances when I’ve gone back and read the source material afterwards (Sideways, The Sweet Hereafter). But seldom have I done so with a book as popular as The Lovely Bones. I know that there will doubtless be plotlines (and perhaps even characters) who will be missing from the movie. I know, too, that the book will invariably be better (as the book almost always is in these book vs. film showdowns). But I fret about all the other ways that the movie might color my impression of Sebold’s work. Will I envision the characters as the actors who play them — despite how Sebold might describe them? I know that I couldn’t help but picture Daniel Radcliffe when I was reading the later Harry Potter titles.
What about you? On book-based movies like The Lovely Bones, do you prefer to read the book first or let the movie serve as a long trailer for the story’s truest form, on paper (or Kindle screen)?
Never read the book before watching the movie. A movie, even when it is the most fateful adaptation ever, is only ever an adaptation. It’s someone else’s imagining of the events/characters. It can never be your own vision, unless you’re the editor or the director or whomever it is that has the actual final say.
Of course, sometimes you don’t really get to choose. I read The Lovely Bones years ago. There’s no way to un-do that. And that’s okay, too. I can’t wait to see how Peter Jackson envisioned it.
So based on what you’re saying, wouldn’t it be best to read the book first? Isn’t that the best way to experience the book on it’s own terms, free from the movie’s visual incarnations of its characters and settings? If you see a movie before reading the book, isn’t it impossible to imagine the story without the actors and sets from the movie popping into your head at least sometimes? And doesn’t seeing a movie first spoil the payoff of reading the book?
I tried to read it…but as a parent, I had a difficult time grappling with the subject matter. My worst fears are on the pages of this book. So I had to put it down about 4 chapters in. I know, I suck–I admit it.
That said, I have heard nothing but praise for this book (and while I was too lame to finish it myself, it was exquisitely written). I have confidence that Peter Jackson can pull it off. Will I go see it? Not sure yet.
I know what you mean! I read the book (a few times) when I was a teenager, and was excited to learn they were making a film out of it. However, since I gave birth to my daughter a year ago I can’t even watch the trailers without putting myself in the parents’ position. I’m not sure if I’ll be able to go see it for that very reason.
Jules, you’re being too hard on yourself. I read the book when it came out and couldn’t finish it. I’m not a parent but, I think the storyline would be upsetting for anyone.
I read it and it broke me up…
same with The Road. I don’t know that I can make myself sit through either of these “oddly released at the holidays” films.
Not oddly released during the holiday/Oscar season.
That is the sweetest thing. I know I can’t watch L&O:SVU since becoming a father.
I had the same problem reading it…especially since I have a daughter. I did get through it though, and it is lovely. I will see this movie for one reason only though, and that’s Peter Jackson. I’m hoping he stays true to the story.
Being a parent of 2 little girls, I wasn’t sure whether I could read this book. It took me 3 months to finally make up my mind and read the book and I’m glad that I did. It is heartbreaking. I cried, I laughed, and I felt anger but I the end I felt comforted. I don’t think the movie can quite catch the essence of the novel but I hope Peter Jackson can.
That’s why I didn’t get through the first book. It just made me sad from Page One. I just picked up another copy of the book to give it another shot though.
I try to read the book well in advance of a movie. If I can’t, I wait until after. I need there to be distance between a read and a movie because I nitpick too much if I do them too close together. The exception is if a movie looks decent and I didn’t like the book (as with most chick lit – Bridget Jones and Devil Wears Prada, etc.)
April just so you know they did take the rape out of the book and that was probably the part you stopped at. They will not be showing that or some of the other post-murder things that really make you wonder about the nice but weird guy that lives down the street.
The book is amazing. Don’t worry about trying to finish it…you won’t be able to put it down once you start. I always read the book first.
JM,
Outstanding advice! It’s exactly what I was going to tell Thom. Thanks for beating me to it.
Thom,
I wonder if you don’t care for the movie if you’ll still want to read the book. So, read the book – lots of hours in the day before Friday (more hours if you don’t go on opening night).
One more thing – read the 1st page (heck, the 1st sentence) and I defy your ability to not continue until your eyelids become too droopy to continue.
Always go for the book before the movie. Infinitely more satisfying to conjure your own images of the characters and events than have them be created for you. It’s very difficult for me to retroactively read a novel after seeing the movie. ‘Atonement’ and ‘The Reader’ were wonderful films, but I had a difficult time trudging my way through the novels afterward because I had already seen the Cliff Notes versions of the story via film.
for my part i recommend reading the book first, i made the mistake of watching “time traveller’s wife” before reading it,coz my book hadnt arrived yet and the film was gonna get removed from theater,needless to say even though i really did enjoy the movie,it took me a lot of effort to read a material that wasnt really new,it took me 2 weeks instead of 2days to read it,then when i realized what cuts had been made, but worse that a character was portrayed differently in the film,i like gomez in the film but in the book he’s not really henry’s bff,so that was a huge let down.
As an avid reader,characters belong to their creator,and from experience the film always colours the book’s perception badly,whereas the book can never do so as it is the source material,and therefore the film can only improve on it or not live up to it…i’ve been considering reading it for a while also since i heard its been made into a movie,its just that the subject matter is not exactly my cup of tea,but it gives me something to look forward to in my future reading endeavours!
It does not matter if you read the book for “The Lovely Bones” before you see the film, its not a good movie. The movie is nothing like the book at all and it lacks its heart and substance. Peter Jackson squanders a very good cast in order to play with his visual effects and the story and the casts performances get sideline because of this.
And you know this how, since the movie hasn’t come out yet?
I liked the book OK, in that I liked it enough to NOT see the movie – because movies based on books are more often than not a letdown. But then Peter Jackson signed on to direct, and I became intrigued, and from the previews it’s clear that his vision has a bigger emphasis on the more ethereal and fantastic parts of the book. When I read it, I was really stuck on the reality – the wrenching horror of what happened to this girl and her family. And because those parts are so visceral, Jules, you most certainly do not suck! The book stood out as something new and different because of the contrivance of the Heaven thing, but in essence this is still another dead child book. The rape, murder and family heartbreak were hard to read even if you aren’t a parent. Quite honestly, I’m not sure I could have read it if I had kids.
At this point, I’d say see the movie first – it will likely make you more interested in reading the book.
ALways make my daughter read the books before she sees the movies. I think of movies as the readers digest of a book. There are a few I have read after (Jurassis Park, The Sookie Stackhouse Novels), I’ve noticed they change the beginnings to set up the mystery. I am happy knowing why Neville Longbottom is such a crucial character to the story. With HP, I walked out on the fifth, because they left out so many salient facts that I wonder how they will make the seventh movie, when so much of the minor plot points lead to the solution.
You walked out on the fifth Harry Potter movie because they left too many facts out? Sheesh.
You wasted your 10 bucks. Your loss.
The 5th HP book was about 800 pages! Of course some facts will be left out!
TexasMom sounds awful. The fifth Harry Potter movie is one of the best examples of a movie’s contraction of the plot actually making it better. It was tighter, faster, more meaningful — and the bits where Yates included otherwise dropped plot and side-story details by including them in the newspapers that we saw during transitions? Brilliant.
I thought the fifth one was the best one! Messages about all the great “wizards” were kids once too, that anyone in authority has the potential to abuse it, friends and family being worth fighting for, that no person is all good or bad, and the visual symbolism of the Order and the DeathEaters when they are in “flight.”
How unreasonable are you that you expect an 800-page book to fit into a two and a half-hour film? They left out a lot, yes, but none of it was absolutely critical to the plot, and the film was lighter and more streamlined for it.
I love books and I love movies, but I have the God-given common sense to know that when you Xerox one to the other, something is bound to get lost in translation. That’s why it’s called an adaptation. It has to adapt (read: CHANGE) from the book to the film version. It’s necessary. And if you hadn’t walked out, maybe you’d have seen how solid and well-made the film was.
You might as well wait to read to book after since there isn’t much time. Plus, it’s a great book, and you wouldn’t want to rush through it.
Its a great book and I would definitely read it before seeing the movie. I tore through in 3 days about 5 years ago. Also good by AS is Lucky. That one was harder for me than Lovely Bones, but I dont have children and can understand the difficulty other posters had.
Never read the book first! If you do, then you’ll most likely be disappointed when you see the movie (b/c that’s usually the case) and you’ll have wasted $10 when you could have had the chance to watch it unbiased and ended up liking it. I mean, it is Peter Jackson, but I still wouldn’t take that chance.
Wouldn’t you rather be disappointed in a crappy film than have the experience of discovering a rich, and completely new story. It seems silly to say that you would rather ruin the end of a suspenseful and beautifully written book for yourself than be disappointed if the book is wonderful and the film is a flop. It also says something about your preference for entertainment. Read much?
I agree with Maiv and one of the commenters above: it’s rare for me to enjoy the movie adaptation of a book I’ve enjoyed, since it’s never MY version which is put on screen. And there are many books I’ve read after seeing the movie version: the movie never ruins the reading experience perhaps because I come to the book looking for a fuller version of a story I already know.
What a rude, close-minded post that was.
I read ALL the time, and I personally prefer to see a movie first if I have the chance for the same reason maiv stated. Reading frequency/ ability has nothing to do with it.
I say, watch the movie first and you’ll probably enjoy it more. Then read the book and compare the two. They will be different of course, but if you are a stickler about films being true to their book counterparts, it’s much better to read the book afterwards.
Never read the book first just because you’ll be disappointed in the movie? While I’ll see your point, you need to learn how to separate your own expectations about a movie adaptation from what is really being shown. Sure, there have been times where I’ve been disappointed after first viewing a movie adaptation from a book, mainly because certain parts weren’t included or they changed. But then upon second viewing, seeing the movie for what it is and not making comparisons, it still can be worth watching.
No.
I try to read the book first so that the movie doesn’t color my experience of the source material. That doesn’t always happen, though, since I’m slow getting through my seeming endless Books to Read list. But when I see the movie/TV show first, I try to think of it as completely different material. That being said, I often picture the characters that are described like the actors who portray them on screen. Those that are described differently are easy for me to re-imagine. Of course, The Lovely Bones is suspenseful, right? (It’s on my list…) So, I think the book should come first when it comes to anything suspenseful. For example, I wouldn’t want to read Stephen King’s The Shining after seeing it in two movie incarnations. Then there’s the quality of the movie to consider. If the movie is said to be awesome, definitely read the book first. If the movie is rumored to be crap, then it’s safe to see it first because the source material will still thrill.
It’s a very complicated decision diagram in my head. As you might have noticed.
No. Read the book. You HAVE TO. And don’t worry about not having enough time…It’s the kind of book that goes by really quickly. Read it. I’m serious. Don’t make me come over there and staple it to your hands. I’ll do it.
I tend to see the movie first to make sure that the book will hold my attention. If I like the movie and think that it has a solid story, then I will go back and read the book.
You are an idiot. No one is forcing you to go the the theater anythime soon, so just read the damn book if you are so worried. You can finish it in a day. What a pointless article.
What is it about this book that’s brought such venom out of the bookworms?
I don’t understand all the negativity that EW.com commentors seem to be filled with these days! These are supposed to be fun! Why does the internet make everyone so mean??
If you aren’t interested in the topic being discussed, don’t read it! And don’t spend time commenting! No one is holding a gun to your head! You just make the experience unpleasant for the rest of us.
Thom, my two cents is to see the movie first. It was cast well, if you need to picture the actors as the characters later when you read it, it will still match. And then you won’t be disappointed with what’s left out.
I don’t think the articles should be fan pages. But neither do I think it should be free hunting for trolls. But since most newspapers/magazines/etc will have not the money to pay both writers and moderators, and goodness knows the staff doesn’t have time to do both, I don’t anticipate any changes in the future.
I mean, I’m not going to call this person an idiot, but is someone forcing this guy to see the movie on opening day? No? Then what’s the problem?
I read The Road the week it was coming out in theaters and decided I would not see it until I had finished the book. If it took me a while to finish I would simply put off going to the movie until the following weekend. But guess what! It only took 2 days to read!
To solve the problem: if you like beautifully written books then read the book. If you don’t care then see the movie. Ta da! No one is forcing you to see the movie opening night.
Hey, Kristyn. Sorry if you found my post pointless enough to add a comment. It seems that other readers, though, had rather interesting (and conflicting) views on whether they’d prefer to see the movie first or read the book on which it’s based first.
And as it happens, since I edit EW’s movies section, I do have to see the movie “anytime soon.” True, that’s just me. But I appreciate everyone’s advice.