I liked the films of Circle of Friends and Bridges of Madison County far better than the books.

But which came first, book or movie?
You are first first person i know of who actually read and saw both of the Bridges of Madison County.

Of the Hunger Games, I say see the movie first, because I think it's hard to watch the movie if you have the book in mind, and then if you liked the movie, the book has way more depth and detail, and is a quick, pacy read.

I bet I could come up with lots of examples in all kinds of media, but I'm clocking the GoT reactions, which is pretty interesting.

Is it worse to be disappointed by the reach of your own imagination rather than have none? Do the majority of the latter ever realize what they are missing?

The problem is predicting which books will become movies. Then again, neither Suzanne Collins nor George RR Martin are writers I can stomach. They write the same slop as Dean Koontz and Dan Brown.

I've not read GoT (and probably won't, I don't particularly like that genre) so I totally Did Not See That Coming and was both shocked at what happened and yet also secretly glad to see the back of some of the most sanctimonious and po-faced characters in the TV show.

Usually I'm movie first, then book. Nearly every time I've seen a movie after I've read the book, I've been disappointed (although Stephen King's books often translate well on screen). The film of Revolutionary Road in particular lacked any nuance or subtlety to explain the characters' actions. In the book I understood clearly why they'd got to that point in their lives and why they made the choices they did.

I've got Silver Linings Playbook on my Kindle and am hesitant to start it, because I loved the movie so much that I don't want the book to be better to the point that it trashes my good feelings about the movie.

I think it's difficult to convey backstory in a movie, so much of what you can learn about a character in a book is missing in a movie for (understandable) reasons of time.

I don't watch all that many movies but, in general, I'd prefer to see the movie first - that way the book explains the movie, rather than the movie being a poor imitation of the book. Or something.

Oh, Senyar, please let me/us know how the book for Silver Linings is. It's been months since I saw the movie, and bits of it bubble up in my mind every so often.

I don't know that i would have read those things if they weren't free/inspired the product, but as i hadn't read anything genre since i was a kid, I was glad to find something that was so completely not a dense text that needed to be committed to memory or dissected at the time. My interest's definitely piqued by quick, easily digestible reads. Now I wish I could just consume books like some people, but I'm never quite sure what I'm going to find tolerable or palatable at any given time anymore, for whatever reason-- speaking of which:

I just snuck out to watch the latest Star Trek movie, which was a big Star Trek cartoon, and I know ridiculous amounts of Star Trek, but you throw in the blown up image of a superhuman Benedict Cumberbatch, who would be my top choice in casting a superhuman, and I am sold. Totally worth it for him, the rest of it I found kind of offensive with the lame fan service and overall obviousness. I have no idea what a Trekless person would think.

Again, so worth it for the 20 ft. Cumberbatch. I can't believe I missed him in Neverwhere for free.

Senyar, I suggest putting it aside until you can see it as its own thing, unless you are riding a fan wave. Still, one thing doesn't need to interfere with another. How you feel about the movie can be firmly set as its own experience in your mind, like how being affected by something as a kid doesn't have to be ruined because it doesn't hold up as an adult, etc.