This is the trailer for Arrival.
It’s based on “Story of Your Life” by Ted Chiang. It’s directed by Denis Villeneuve whose last two movies, Prisoners and Sicario, have varied between ambitious and astonishing. It stars Amy Adams, consistently one of the most impressive and least well-utilized actresses of her generation. It’s a science fiction story that’s based entirely around language, the perils of not communicating clearly, and the personal costs of first contact.
It looks great. Advanced word is that it IS great. And it places me on the horns of a dilemma.
Do I read the story first or not?
Your first interaction with a story is the one that imprints on you, after all. There are advantages, and downsides, to both approaches.
Let’s take a look at coming to a story through the original text first. The advantage here is obvious: you hit the story in its original, purest, and most direct form. In the case of short stories or novels this is a big plus simply because it’s a chance to read a finite text in its original form. This is how the author intended it, so it makes sense that this is your first port of call.
That being said, the same doesn’t hold for long form stories. When faced with the choice between watching the two-and-a-half-hour movie version of Captain America: Civil War and reading the 98 issues of various comics, now years old, that contributed to the story line, it’s easy to see which is the most efficient approach, all other considerations aside. In cases like this, movie adaptations present as two different, equally interesting things; a second run at a story and the “CliffsNotes” version of the original. Civil War in particular did an excellent job of telling the same basic story without a lot of the elements that have dated very badly from the original. Likewise the movie version of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, which managed to hit all the right notes and carefully avoid the novel’s less successful elements.
But approaching a story—even a work of short fiction—through the original text first is no guarantee of success. If you do that, then you’ll find yourself going in to the movie version with a mental checklist of what you Have To See in the film. In most cases, you’re going to come away disappointed and, often, annoyed. As my teenaged 2000 AD-reading self—stumbling dazed and increasingly annoyed out of the Stallone Dredd movie and wondering what the HELL he’d just watched—can attest.
The thing he didn’t realize, and I now do, is that it was always going to be a disappointment. Not just because the film isn’t very good but because I went into it primed for disappointment. I wanted Dredd to keep his helmet on, I wanted Hershey to be more than window dressing. I wanted a sense of the chaotic, sprawling Mega City 1 that was in my head—not the often generic and entirely artificial environment we saw. I went in with preconceptions and I left with a headache.
So what about going straight to the adaptation?
Well, straight away you have the advantage of surprise. Going into a movie unspoiled is increasingly difficult these days but, if you don’t know the source material, it’s at least possible. Plus, just as reading the original first can set your expectations impossibly high, coming in with a clean slate means that those expectations are often at a sensible level.
Then there’s the issue of imprinting. The first version of a story you encounter is always the one you judge others by. Doctor Who is one of the best examples of this. Your Doctor is usually the one you first imprint on and it’s always difficult for others to live up to that. Likewise, if you watch the movie version of something, like it, and go back to read the book, there’s always a chance you’re going to find it lacking in some way. The best example of this is Lord of the Rings—I never made it through the original books for a whole variety of reasons and as a result, for me, Boromir will always be from Sheffield.
I’m okay with that, not just because it’s always nice to see Yorkshire turn up in heroic fantasy, but because the LOTR movies did a very difficult job extremely well. For me they’ll always be the lens I view that story through and because I liked them, when I do read the books, their existence will be an asset rather than a problem.
So what do you do?
For me, the answer is “all of the above, depending.”
There’s so much wonderful work being done across every media that we have no hope of ever seeing, playing, listening to, reading, or watching all of it. So instead we have to work out what we like, be brave about what we’re not sure of, and try new things as much as possible. Read what you love, or what looks cool, or what has a good cover. Watch the adaptation first, if you think it will be an interesting experience—there are no hard and fast rules, beyond keeping an open mind.
As for Arrival, I’ve decided that I’m going to see the movie first. I love what I’ve read of Ted Chiang’s work. His story “Exhalation” remains an all-time favourite and I’m delighted to see his work starting to find its way into other media. So, for this one, I’m going to go in cold and, from everything I’ve heard, be very pleasantly surprised.
But I have just ordered Stories of Your Life and Others from my local bookshop. And once I see the movie, I’m going in.
Alasdair Stuart is a freelancer writer, RPG writer and podcaster. He owns Escape Artists, who publish the short fiction podcasts Escape Pod, Pseudopod, Podcastle, Cast of Wonders, and the magazine Mothership Zeta. He blogs enthusiastically about pop culture, cooking and exercise at Alasdairstuart.com, and tweets @AlasdairStuart.
In this case, I concur – see the movie first. There’s a nice twist in the story that apparently will be even more so in the movie, so go with the visual version and compare notes afterwards.
I used to suffer a lot from high expectations created by reading a book first… but either I became more open to seeing different interpretations, or movie interpretations are genuinely much better now a days. I suspect its a combination of both. To me it seems like movie adaptations are just SO much better than they’ve been in the past. Just to take two examples… maybe some people didn’t like the Hunger Games movies, but I thought all four were fantastic adaptations, I didn’t even mind having the third book split! And there was The Martian! The spirit of the story was intact, even if many of the details changed. In these cases both versions are “cannon” for me, both equally plausible as the “Real Story,” just seen through different lens with a different emphasis. Usually they kind of meld together in my mind, taking the best parts of both to create an enhanced mental version of events. Head cannon at its finest. =D
Although I will admit it helps to have some… distance between reading a story and watching the movie. With that in mind I read Stories of Your Life and Others as soon as I realized Arrival was based on written fiction. I’m looking forward to seeing how they interpret it on the screen!
I had this same dilemma when deciding how to first take in Ender’s Game (I was late to the party). I opted to read the book first and loved it. I then delayed watching the movie cause I fully believed that it wouldn’t live up to the book. I finally watched it about two years after reading the book and I thought it was a pretty good adaption. Sometimes the movie doesn’t disappoint.
It pains me to know that Faramir will always be a jerk to you. Sigh. ;)
(But actually, aside from that I do think the Lord of the Rings captured the spirit and feel of the books overall quite well).
I’m not sure what my opinion is – for many things, I read the books first, and sometimes even go out of my way to read the book first, so I can know all the backstory, motivations, internal thoughts etc that don’t always make it in. The changes don’t always bug me even if I notice them (NO MERCY FOR FARAMIR THOUGH). There are even times I end up thinking the movie improves the book (I’ll be 100% honest, I kind of liked Ozy’s plot in Watchmen better in the movie than in the comic – but I’m not quite as invested in the comic as I am in other works).
But on the other hand, for things like comic book movies, I am perfectly happy sticking to the movie version of events..
I haven’t read the article yet, but “least well-utilized” sums up Amy Adams so well. Hiring a talent like here to play “a woman who cries” in Batman v Superman is one of Snyder’s more egregious sins.
I have read LotR many times before Peter Jackson started his magnificent job on it. On rereads however, I found myself skipping some parts, because, even though nice background to Middle Earth’s history, I found them irrelevant to the main story. Tom Bombadil comes to mind, as does the Scourging of the Shire. I was so happy to learn Jackson agreed with me somehow.
So for me, the Movie version (by Peter Jackson, not Ralph Bakshi) is the better version telling the story. Many hardcore Tolkien fans disagree with me of course *shrugs*
It does help that the casting was superb (except maybe Faramir, LisaMarie ;) However it’s not easy to find actors that look like Sean Bean, it’s a nose thing ;) ).
For you, Alasdair, Boromir will always be Sean Bean but for me, Cate Blanchett ALWAYS WAS Galadriel, starting with the Prologue telling in FotR. I just never knew it before I first saw FotR. Such a great voice actress, and she does the Elf look very well too :) With her, Gimli never stood a chance… Don’t get me started on Gandalf… :D
I could go on, but I will leave it at this for LotR. Except one thing: If you haven’t yet (probably impossible), watch the Extended Editions of the movies. The extra scenes make it so much richer, and the Appendices are real gems.
A similar example to me is Stardust. In this case I did see the movie first. :)
As for what version to see/read first, I always consider the fact that Movie and print are different media.
It’s a tough decision, and I wish you the best of luck either way.
Personally, though, I would recommend starting with the story in this case. It’s a truly magnificent work, built around a core idea that emerges subtly in the pseudo-epistolary structure of the story. This idea is more conceptual than visual, and is really not plot-centric in my view. While the movie might come to that same idea, it will be inevitably be a more visual take with suitable spectacle around it. It will be harder to get the full impact of the story after that, I think, whereas I am guessing that the movie’s interpretation will still be impactful — if only because of the more visual medium — after reading the story. In fact, I’m betting that having read the story will make it easier to see how the film makers are getting to the key idea despite the more spectacular effects- and plot-driven action.
Just my two cents, though. It would be good for us all to compare notes on both directions after the fact. I am certainly looking forward to this.
By the way, “Hell is the Absence of God” and “Liking What You See: A Documentary” are my other favorites from that collection.
As soon as I read this, I bought the book and read the story. For me, the experience of reading /watching a story in its original form is paramount, and I want to experience it without anything else influencing me. I watch a Star Wars then read a novelization. I read this short story and will then watch the movie. I’m not one to complain about changes made to film unless it completely destroys the intent of the original (I’m looking at you, The Dark is Rising!), so I’ll be able to enjoy the film of this as itself.
But the joy of reading this story without any knowledge of what it was doing is something I’m glad I didn’t give up. It was like looking at a piece of origami very close up and not seeing the beauty of whole picture until the story was complete, simply gorgeous. To me, to experience this in the other order would mean having two medium experiences instead of one brilliant and one medium, because I can’t imagine how a movie could surpass what the story did. I’m willing to be happily surprised, but I’m not betting on it.
When it comes to stuff like Captain America: Civil War, there’s no point in comparing that to straight up adaptations like, say, Watchmen, because Civil War the movie is only inspired by the comic of the same name. While it shares the premise and a lot of its elements, it’s not an adaptation of the original story in the strict sense, but a new story based on it. Watchmen, on the other hand, despite its changes, it’s a direct adaptation of the comic.
Same goes for Days of Future Past in X-Men, it’s not an adaptation of the original story per se; while the Harry Potter movies are, despite it’s differences with the source material, adaptations of the novels.
I’m back, having read the article! Stories of Your Life is great, but the characters are mostly ciphers, with the emphasis placed on the concepts and situation (true of most of the stories in the collection). Having read the story, I would say you’re not missing anything by watching first.
When I reread Lord of the Rings, I see a bizarre mix of the human actors from the films and Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam from the Rankin/Bass animated films.
Samwise will always sound like Roddy McDowall. Always.
@2 The point about distance was my thought too. When I’ve encountered an adaptation very soon after the original, I get caught up in mentally tallying similarities and differences. However, when the original is less fresh in my mind, I’ll rather end up seeing elements that I don’t recall how they worked in the original, but nevertheless get a sense of familiarity with. Coming to an adaptation of something read or watched years ago breeds certain moments of nostalgia, which then allow revisiting the original in a new light (if only to double-check how such scenes were originally dealt with).
I’m reminded of when the LOTR films came out and I opted not to re-read the books until afterwards, lest I be too refreshed. I face the same challenge with THE DARK TOWER now, having wanted to go back and reread the series for some time but thinking (especially in light of the changes to the material there already shown) that it’s best to come into the film with the gossamer of half-remembrance in my mind and then reread the originals afterwards.
6. Fiddler That’s funny because I love reading the Bombadil section (even though it always makes me hungry) and often skip ahead to the Scouring of the Shire. In fact, if that had been a separate novella I might have found it close to satisfying all by itself.
I can usually stand adaptations just fine, but young me stumbled out of Lensman: Secret of the Lens with literal tears because I had gone in expecting Doc Smith and instead got Nth generation Xeroxed Star Wars.
My wife just cannot take Agent Smith or Elrond seriously because she first saw Hugo Weaving in “The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert”. She keeps expecting him to belt out some ABBA.
To clarify, I have no problem with the actor playing Faramir at all, I like him quite well. It’s the story/arc Jackson gave him that hacks me off.
Also, I’d probably argue that the Scouring is in some ways the whole point of the story (people disparage Tolkien as being too ‘idealistic’, ‘happy endings’, etc but that really wasn’t him at all…) ;)
I decided to wait to see the Martian movie, before reading (well, before listening actually), and that decision paid off. I am planning to take the same approach for this tale. Fingers crossed!
Myself, I’m wondering whether to read The Last King of Scotland first or see the DVD. Opinions, anybody?
@12 Vinsentient. Ate least we’re constant in what we like. :)
13 wunder:
My wife just cannot take Agent Smith or Elrond seriously because she first saw Hugo Weaving in “The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert”. She keeps expecting him to belt out some ABBA.
Heh, I love that movie… Weaving sure has a list of interesting movies :D
Sometimes timing is the largest factor- if a movie lags the original by, say, a couple of decades, the only extant version will likely be the one encountered first.
In general for me, if I haven’t read the original first, I now will see the movie/ TV first because the original will have more depth and detail, which adaptations usually cannot provide. And I’ve never found a movie that was better than he original. An original source is presumably chosen because it tells a heckuva story; too many screenwriters and directors who don’t have an original bone in their bodies try and fail to improve on the inspirational story.
I don’t go in to a movie expecting disappointment- that sounds like a waste of time and/ or money- but it happens too often.
If it’s a movie I’m already planning on going to see that is an adaptation then I do usually try to seek out the original source material first, same goes for TV shows. Not that bothered about being disappointed by what I see on the screen if I’m honest, I just find it more interesting to see how much different each is when compared to each other – what bits are left in, left out, changed etc. If the movie/show is not up to scratch, then I’ll always have to book/comics to dip back into.
As it happens I’m currently reading ‘The Story Of Your Life And Others’ by Ted Chiang, specifically because of ‘The Arrival’. Really enjoying so far too. A collection of some really good thought provoking science fiction short stories with a HEAVY emphasis on the science! Will be looking forward to seeing how the movie compares with the original short story when I go see the movie in November.
I read the books, always. If a film/TV version appears, I may or may not bother to watch it. Probably not. Quite apart from the conversion getting some things WRONG, what’s the point? At best, it’ll be the same thing but cut down, and much, much slower (because conversation has to take place at talking speed, not reading speed, for one thing). You only ever see the characters from the outside, not from behind their eyes and inside their head as you do in a book, so it’s bound to have less depth, that’s the nature of the medium.
I started reading Harry Potter when there were, maybe, three books out. It was convenient to borrow them from a friend at work who had already read them. By the third book, they were fairly good. Rowling was no longer spending way too long explaining every facet of every concept and prop. Usually. I saw the movies after I read the books.
When the fourth movie came out, I hadn’t read the book yet, so I watched the movie first. For the first time, I wasn’t waiting for things to happen that didn’t make it to the screen and when I read the book out, there were pleasant surprises. It was about the best way to do it.
I didn’t, though. No desire to wait months or longer for the movie, while friends discussed the book around me.
Because I read a lot, chances are, I will have read the source first. But I totally understand that film and print are different ways to tell a story–film can bring descriptions alive without a word, but lacks the ability to get inside of a character. Sometimes editors will so trim a film that it is helpful to have read the book or story on which it is based. Other times the film ends up being a disappointment. So–I have no advice either way, except to tell viewers and readers that these are different media and love each for what it is.
I always read the original source material. But ALWAYS. That way I have a reason to be disappointed if the adaptation sucks….
It also depends on whether you’re more into books or movies, or are into them equally. Me, I could go the whole rest of my life without seeing another movie, so I’ll always go for the book first.
My feeling is that while movies provide lots of visual and audio stimulation, plot often suffers compared to the book. With a book you can get it all — plot, visual, audio AND even thoughts — if your imagination is up to it.
Bonus with books: Your characters can look any which way you want them to!
I have a policy to always treat the novel and the movie adaptations (or any other adaptations, for that matter) as separate works. The different mediums impose different restrictions on how one can tell the story, but they also have different advantages. I want the basic story to be well done in all the mediums it which it is told, right up to the limits of the possible.
Mmmm, I don’t know, in this case – the previews don’t look anything like the story I remember reading.
I recently watched the TV series Queen of the South after reading the book. The first episode bore quite a bit of resemblance to the first part of the book. However by the end of that first show I could see the divergence beginning to emerge. The central character on TV escapes from Mexico to Dallas while the book has her fleeing to Spain. I accepted this as a savings in production costs. By the end of the second episode it was clear that though many of the characters had the same names on the show as in the book, they were not following the same paths in the story. I did let this total rewrite bother me through the next couple episodes, until I realized I did enjoy the show and resolved to relax and enjoy wherever the screenwriter decided to take me and his characters.
By the way, anyone who enjoyed the TV series in the least should read the book. They will find it is much better and there are no spoilers to carry over from TV.
For me, it is usually better to see the movie or TV series before reading the source. That way, I don’t ‘miss’ the parts they left out!
As for adaptations better than the original, I propose “The Hunt for Red October” as a contender. I ‘think’ I saw the movie first, but also remember thinking that Alec Baldwin would be terrible as Jack Ryan, and that he should be Harrison Ford. Then, I saw Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan, and realized that I was WRONG!
Harrison Ford played him as Harrison Ford, Super Agent. Alec had that right combo of uncertainty and resolve that made Jack a fascinating character…
I was disappointed that Peter Jackson left out Tom Bombadil and the Scourging of the Shire, but could understand it in context of the film.
I read Cloud Atlas, quite enjoyed it, but left it feeling puzzled. Then I saw the film. The film made sense. The story made sense, and I went back to the book, and the book made sense.
But there’s no right or wrong way, just go with the flow.
When I was a kid, my family had a rule: you can’t watch the movie until you’ve read the book.
I don’t actually watch too many movies, and the ones I have do tend to be kind of disappointing. I only watched a few Harry Potter movies, for example, because they were such a letdown for me that I had no desire to continue. The Lord of the Rings movies, though, are my favorite movies ever to this day. I guess it really depends on your expectations going in, and whether the world, characters and story they put on the screen match the ones in your head.
I see the advantage in seeing the movie first, but old habits die hard…I’ll forever have my grandmother’s voice telling me, “Read the book first!!”
I go with the initial version, which is almost always the book. I want to read what the story-maker, the author put down, not a screenwriter’s interpretation based on the limits of film making in terms of point of view, time limits, even location, sets and camera angles. The original, please.
@7 For this instance I agree wholeheartedly.. this story in particular I think MUST be read first for how it would “flesh in” the more visual story (the trailer had explosions, as all movies must.. but I digress). I am biased for the story version though, as it is one of very few that has affected me the way it did: I read the end of the story with my heart-pounding, tears in my eyes, and just sat in silence for a long wordless moment when it ended.
By the by I hope this does extremely well, because “Hell is the Absence of God” is definitely my favorite of the collection and HAS TO BE the next Chiang movie. Imagine the visuals on that one.
Most people I know always do the book first. But I’m a detail nitpicker. Even the best adaptation has to simplify and omit so as not to wear out the audience. So you get the clever puzzles in Silence of the Lambs being dumbed down, cuz you don’t have time to explain why Billy Rubin is a pun.
And of course a good adaptation doesn’t usually rigidly adhere to the story in the book. If the filmmakers don’t supply their own creative ideas, you probably end up with a boring abridgment.
If I see the movie first, I can appreciate it on its own merits without being distracted by this minor stuff. And then when I read the book, I get to enjoy the story all over again with the added pleasure of thinking about what they changed and why.
I have to mention the 1980 spy movie, Hopscotch. Based on a very dark thriller by Brian Garfield, whose novels were notable for the Nasty Dude protagonists. The movie followed the plot very closely — but was a comedy!
All you are saying here (in the article) is that movie adaptations are bad (which is true) and only people who doesn’t know the source material will enjoy them (almost always true); so why bother with bad movies at all? I don’t watch movie adaptations, just a few of them. I don’t like to be cheated (learned my lesson via Lord of the Rings bad movies).
If I had the option, I would see the movie first.
In this case, I’ve already read the story – in fact, I didn’t even know the movie was in the works until I heard a recent ad for it, and something about the description of one of the main characters made me say “hey, haven’t I read a story like this?”.
Movies and short stories are very different media. Since I will find it hard to see one after the other without spoilers and misconceptions, I’d rather see the movie first because it’s generally a derivative work (in the pedantic, not the dismissive, meaning of that word). That was I can always come back and see how the original author presented the tale.
I’ve found a few movies that I can list off the top of my head which are unquestionably better than the books, rather than just different. I Am Legend is one that benefitted greatly from removing it from the specific anxieties of the cold-war era and by spending a lot more time on the protagonist’s emotional landscape as he survives, presumably alone in the universe. (Also, it had a stronger message overall than the original’s wandering collection of ideas that range from “I had a dog for a week but it died,” to “there are vampires doing a striptease on my lawn because reasons,” to “I am a relic that needs to be exterminated because… the vampires don’t eat people anymore because there’s no one to eat? So now some of them can walk in the sunlight?” Actually the removal of the vampire-specific tropes strengthened the story a lot. So did Will Smith, but considering that the original protagonist had all the depth and nuance of cardboard… Will Smith improves many things)
In almost every other case I end up liking the book better, but this is usually because I have a much easier time digging into books than movies, since books have more time to spend on why things happen.
I try to always read the book first, when it’s a novel. Case in point I had kindle in hand while waiting in line opening day of Star Wars The Force Awakens. I didn’t finish before the doors opened but I certainly made an attempt. I have yet to watch the Divergent movies for fear the end will not be the same. Someday, when I am bored enough I guess.
I can’t visualize people or places, and I find it challenging to understand video without captioning–so for me the choice is obvious. I read the book to make sure I’ll understand the movie, and I see the movie to find out what the characters look like.
So, what do you do when you *wrote* the original story? It helped that Kevin Costner’s film version of my novel The Postman occurred after Warner Bros bounced the property around for 12 painful years to everyone from Richard Donner to Ron Howard… not one of whom would deign to talk to me, even by phone. I did get a lot of conversations with folks like Richard Dreyfuss, who wanted to work with me closely if he could get access to the rights, but he was never allowed in WB’s circle.
The first three scripts – by academy award winning adaptation writer Erik Roth – were stunningly and grotesquely evil. To a degree that was almost laughable, Roth systematically reversed every moral point of the book, demonstrating why he only succeeds when tightly supervised by a strong director. Costner tossed those scripts into the toilet… score one point for him.
Then he kept with the WB tradition and never spoke to me, nor even bought me a beer. Point on the other side of the scale. Though I did get to visit the set once. And my wife and I were allocated seat’s off to the back and side at the premier. So that’s good.
Feh. What matters is that he brought in Brian Helgeland, whose script was not just not-evil, it was actually sweet and noble and true to the spirit – the heart – of my story about an average man who has a chance to do something special, by telling a big, fat lie. A post apocalyptic tale in which the core hero is not the protagonist. The heroism is borne (as it should be, but never is, in these flicks) by citizens. Survivors who are reminded that they once were part of something special. Something worth fighting for.
Um, were they faithful to the BRAINS of the book? Of course not. Moreover the last 20 minutes were an awful mishmash of triteness that could easily have been fixed… over that beer.
(Oh… TIMING! Costner brought out The Postman film the same weekend as … Titanic. I kid you not! Oooog, my head.)
The final point tipping the scale? Sheer beauty. Kevin Costner has a genius talent and it is not acting. It is cinematography. All of his films are drop-dead gorgeous, Visually and musically, I think The Postman is one of the dozen greatest films of all time when it comes to simple exquisiteness. Watch it in Hi-def and LISTEN. It is the Standout trait. That plus being faithful to my heart-message… are more than enough. Enough to forgive much else and give thumbs up.
I can buy my own beer.
Still… the book’s better. ;-)
David Brin
@@.-@ Lisamarie: I agree wholeheartedly on Faramir. On the other hand, the way it hurt me so much that he is such a jerk in movie made me realize even more, how awesome the book-Faramir is.
@39 David Brin: I have seen the film many times. Each time I made a mental note (or even real note on piece of paper) that this time I’m really, finally going to read the book. Now I´m really going to. If you say it is better… :)
One example of adaptation that I hated because I love the book is Dirk Gently. The miniseries, that is, and the upcoming one I almost dread. My list of “what I need to see” of this one is pretty long. Basically, I need to see every detail done just right. Or I will be disappointed. I have also some ideas about soundtrack… Anyway, in this case I recommend reading the book first, hating every adaptation that ever comes is worth it.