In general, I don't watch the movie version of books I loved.. or even liked a lot.

I loved The Reader by Bernhard Schlink.. and have yet to see the movie even though I love Kate Winslow.

I did watch Life of Pi.. and while visually stunning, it just didn't come close to the emotional impact of the book (or the audio version-- which I also loved). Reviews were really split on this book so perhaps those who didn't like the book preferred the movie?

I liked Heartburn.. but the scenes in the movie are what stick with me. (I know it is so wrong wrong wrong-- but i love the scene where she brings a big bowl of Pasta Carbonara to the bedroom after a romp in the sheets!)

I really disliked reading Marley and Me .. but the movie was ok.

Loathed Bridget Jones' Diary .. and tolerated the movie

I love to read. Some movies based on books turn out wonderfully. "The Secret Life of Bees" and "The Da Vinci Code" are two I'd put in that category. On the other hand, many more are so disappointing. Being a huge fan of Frances Mayes' "Under The Tuscan Sun" books, I absolutely hated the movie.

I almost never go see movies based on books I have enjoyed. Too many disappointments. I did read and go see Unbroken, and was very disappointed by the movie. It did not even touch on his drinking problem, which I thought was an important part of his story.

I normally avoid the film version of a book I love because I am nearly always disappointed and upset. I walked out of Simon Birch, which was based on A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving. On the other hand, I love the film version of Garp. And I left pretty quickly during Time Travelers Wife, a book I really enjoyed. I do love the film versions of the E M Forster novels, especially Room with a View and Howard's End.

I seldom see movies anyway, but would not likely see one of a book I loved. I really did enjoy Gone Girl (the book) but once you've learned all the twists and turns, well, all that suspense and surprise is no longer present when you see the movie. For me, that was the power of the book. Same with many others; once I know the conclusion, no point in seeing the movie.

But most of the books I love are because of the writing, the imagery, the use of description and language. None of that translates to the screen. I also don't want the images the author conjured up in my head to be changed by a movie director. I want to keep my own.

I am very grateful for movies being made of books, as it often brings my attention to books I have not yet read. I might see a movie trailer and think the concept sounds interesting and search out the book. Once in a while I can appreciate a movie for what it is and enjoy the book independently (like the Count of Monte Cristo, I enjoyed the movie and then read the book, the two were widely divergent, but good in their own right).

On the other hand, for some books, I will not watch it on screen as find it more intense. I was able to read the Game of Thrones books but doubt I could handle watching any of that portrayed on the screen, now matter how good the casting/acting/adaptations. For some other series though, like Outlander, I seem to be able to handle the intensity a bit better, perhaps because the characters are fleshed out a bit better and even though the emotions run quite deep and can be intense, it seems to be handled in a more nuanced way.

ET: Sometimes, for a more complex book or story, I have the kids watch the movie first to help them sort through what they are reading.

Because I think of films and books as entirely different ways of seeing/telling/exploring a story, I am seldom disappointed about the differences between a book and its movie version. It's like Rashomon. Contradictory interpretations of the same event by different people.

Best translations: Jane Austen , E. M Forster, Dickens, Last of the Mohicans, Gone with the Wind, Schindler's List, Band of Brothers, Percy Jones, Tolkien

Worst: Time Traveler's Wife, Harry Potter, American Sniper. All well done but the alterations drive me nuts.

i was disappointed with the 1st hunger games movie, but either the movies have gotten better or i have adjusted my expectations...i thought j Lawrence was terrible as katniss in the 1st movie, but liked her better in the role in subsequent movies.

texanjana, my point exactly!

tishtoshnm, I agree, some graphic details are more manageable in writing. I just spent many minutes "watching" Black Mass with my eyes downcast. Waste of time.

I'm with Kkay, the two are so different that I can read and watch, and it's two different experiences, and sometimes stories. I do think that Tom Clancy movies were better than his books, because the books had soooooooo much information in them. I will read a book after watching the movie, and like it better (such as A Walk In Woods). I don't make it a point, though, to see movies where I've read the book, just if it comes up at the library or on Netflix.

I am looking forward to seeing The Martian, and I'm even going to go to the theater for it! I loooooved the book, and I can already tell the movie is a bit different, and I was imagining Will Smith as the astronaut, but it has good reviews, so I'm going to see it.

They are often totally different, which I think is sometimes necessary, to change what is an interior experience to a moving one. Sometimes the essence of the book is retained very well. But sometimes not and sometimes the movie becomes something totally different. One example of a fail, IMHO, was "The Orchid Thief" which was a movie about trying to turn a book into a movie. I hated the distortion by the movie of what that book was about. I hope Susan Orleans got a hefty check for that one! My dislike for the movie, "And Then She Found Me" caused me to get and read the book by Elinor Lipman. Wowza, not even in the ballpark with the plot of the movie vs the book. However, I didn't much care for the book either. My next attempt will be "Republic of Love" which I sort of liked as a movie but it was sorta weird so I'm gonna try the book by Carol Shields.

Two books that I love both the movie and the book are "Dr. Zhivago" which benefits some from the 3D fleshing out of the story, and for me, "The Great Gatsby." The one with Robert Redford, not the newer one. Both books are a totally different experience from the movie, but it is cool to have both the exterior setting and real people living out the experiences in front of you, and then also the experience of their interior lives that you get from the book. In that vein, I liked the movie "Cold Mountain" better than the book. The book got a little too much for me and I didn't have much sympathy for the characters but I did in the movie. Oh and I adore both the book "Auntie Mame" and the movie with Rosalind Russell, even though they are quite different.

As a side note, when I was a kid, I ended up enjoying Dr. Doolittle and Mary Poppins as books way better than movies, but the movies did get me into the books. And both Willy Wonka movies were kind of let downs, but the Tim Burton one was especially bad IMHO.

A Walk in the Woods movie annoys me by the casting, Redford and Nolte are way too old, so I will not watch that movie. That's a cherished book and I don't want my mind visuals ruined.

I watched the Giver last night and thought it was a great adaption of the book.

I do very much love how movies introduce me to new books though.

A Walk in the Woods is one example of how hard it is to translate book to screen. There is so much information (and diatribe) in the book, and I enjoyed it enormously. The movie was entertaining. You aren't missing anything by not seeing it, but it was entertaining. And it prompted me to finally read (well, listen to) the book.

Same with Les Miserables and Dickens books. There is so much more in the books about relationships and social issues. In fact, they prompted me to do a little research to really understand them. But I still like the musical versions :)

Unbroken was such a disappointment. I read the book and was quite moved by the story, and wanted DH to understand this when he and I settled in to watch the flick. Nope - not even close. The whole point of the story - redemption and forgiveness - was totally lost in the big screen translation.

I agree with Bumblebeez about A Walk in the Woods. I'm also not going to allow a movie to ruin a cherished book for me.

Z for Zachariah is coming out this year based on a young adult book that I read many moons ago, as a young adult. I've probably read it half a dozen times. It's obvious from one sentence description of the film that they have changed the story immensely ("In the wake of a disaster that wipes out most of civilization, two men and a young woman find themselves in an emotionally charged love triangle as the last known survivors."-from IMDB) I can't fathom turning that book into a romance.

I've been know to avail myself of the last opportunity to read the book before the movie ruins it for me. I did that with The Da Vinci Code, though then I didn't actually go see the movie. I re-read Lord of the Rings for the umpteenth time before the movie came out. It was a fair adaptation, but still...I wasn't disgusted with it, but it was hard to take it as being its own thing, having read the books so many times.

The thing about movies is that a screenplay for a 2 hour movie runs about 100 pages, while the novels they are based on run 300 or 400 or 800 pages. Some adaptations can be good in their own right, but they are never going to be the same.