Re: the book was....

[GidgetTMsMan at aol_com]

> one of the library patrons declared that they
> typically read the book *after* watching the movie,
> because they accept the differences with a little more
> grace and enjoy getting more of the story that the
> book frequently offers, rather than resenting its
> abridgement.


I don't know.  I think that once we recognize adaptation as more a type of literary criticism than authorship.  It presents a group of people's view of a book.

> I adored the film, "Fellowship of the Ring"
> then, several months later, read the book, finally,
> and loved it. there are a lot more differences than I
> had realized, but I accepted both "versions" like I
> accept watching hamlet done by ethan hawke, kenneth
> branagh and the reduced shakespeare company.


I think that it also depends on the purpose of the filmmakers as well.  Are they trying to give their view of a book, regurgitating exactly what is on the page, or trying to make a buck?  The motivation of the filmmaker plays a large part into my estimation of a film adaptation.

> so, what do you film lovers, book lovers do?


Take them as separate narratives.

> who reads books before watching movies?


Usually

> who views films before reading the novels?


Only when I am unaware of the novel version.

> (this is not lotr specific, btw)
> who does both and which is preferable?


I think it depends to  large degree on the style of the book and that of the film.  They both set out to accomplish different ends.  A book and film are fundamentally different in the method in which they communicate meaning and value.  Then you have to judge it against other narratives that attempt a similar process and message.

> furthermore, which is your favourite film based on
> novel?


I think my favorite to date is "High Fidelity"  I have enjoyed Nick Hornby's books for a while, and I found that while the filmmakers changed some of the fundamentals such as place, time, and plot structure, they retained the basic intent and style that communicated the difficulty of modern relationships in a way similar to Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" did for 70s relationships.  I think About a Boy did a faily good job as well with another Hornby novel.  

Then there are adaptations like "Fight Club"  which diverges so far as to completely change the ending and purpose but which works somehow as a different story.  Comparison becomes more difficult with older novels that have a strong following such as Austen, George Elliot, and of course Tolkein.

Steve

Factoid: Die Hard is based on a very fine neo-noir novel and manages to completely change the point of the story from one that shows the futility of a society based on violence to one that requires violence for salvation.