Let me put you to test here. Books and movies. If you are a book nerd who loves reading novels you will agree with me the novel carries much more content than the movie itself. Well, only that movies kills the curiosity and let us see in clear dimensions how that act turned out to be with the pictorials, favorite actors and actresses.
At times the movie adds content to spice it up and make it juicier for audiences while in other cases they flop in bringing the story out. Take for instance the romance novel 50 shades of Grey. After reading the book, if you in a country like mine where content is censored before it reaches its audience, I almost dozed off only that the votes it was credited for kept me going so that my movie addicts could see we were riding along. If the other chronicles of Grey are to be acted, I would rather stick to the books.
Were it not for authors who keep tales unfolding chapter after chapter, a script is derived and movies showcase this magnificent art. More of a win-win situation since good actors make books readable and more acting of those books. Harry Porter’s books were among my 1st read books that turned into movies and thanks to the cast I could relate so well to the turn of events.
Reality books become so much fun when acted like the Steve Harvey Act like a Lady, Think like a Man. The humor and sarcasm makes it worth not forgetting the curiosity that one want to purchase his books. Are there movies that make books out of them? I think so since lately book stores start piling them after months a movie is forgotten. That is not bad either, but having watched a movie then the book pops up, I would rather stick to the movie since all curiosity would be spoilt unless IF it was inspirational and would want to borrow material from it.
Anyway, that is my general view. So would you read the book or wait for the movie?