Does anyone agree with me that it's more difficult to draw the line when it comes to the horror genre? If i have to choose one, i tend to watch the movie as opposed to reading the book first.
I like options, so i dont have an issue if themes from books or movies manifest themselves in different mediums although i do feel that alot of those movies are rushed, giving the impression that they're just cashing in on the popularity of whichever novel. Then again, it's never easy to tell a whole story in under 2-3hrs.
Yes Jared, I do agree with you about horror. Though, Steven King is one that is better in book form than on film. (Though, I hate to say, the TV version of "The Shining" was better than the Hollywood version because it stuck to the story rather than sensationalizing it. Still, gotta love Nicholson's "Heeeeeere's Johnny and the elevator scene.)
I have read Stoker's Dracula and and Shelley's Frankenstein. I have also seen almost every film of both. I love them as much as the books - just for different reasons. I find I am more critical of book/movie differences in other genres. With horror - I'll take everything I can get - book and movie.
One other book/movie that was quite perfectly matched (for me) was "The Haunting" (1963 starring Robert Wise, Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Russ Tamblyn). I read the book after seeing the movie and both were excellent. The book is short, so more of it could be included in the film version. I also liked the sequel "Legend of Hell House" (1973 starring Roddy McDowall, Pamela Franklin) and the 1999 Haunting remake, though it was the house years later and had more fluff than fear. I'm a sucker for anything horror-related - good or bad, I'll watch it and read it.