Usually I'd read it first. That way I can moan about how the movie ruined it! :)

Seriously, in some cases (the original Dune movie, to a lesser extent Watchmen maybe) I don't know how you'd be able to follow the movie without reading the book! Only one movie's ever exceeded my internal vision of a book anyway, and that's the Lord of the Rings series.

Also you have cases we had this Christmas when a local movie theater suggested to one of our branches they put up a display of Sherlock Holmes books to cross-promote with the movie. I don't know if they did so, but I really have a hard time thinking that the fans of either form would be much interested in the other. The two are worlds apart from each other.

The chicken! No, the egg!

If I know there's a book, I usually read the book first, but I'm not going to skip the movie because I haven't read the book yet. Sometimes the movie inspires me to read the book (Twilight).

But what I really love is finding books I didn't realize were the basis for movies (Simple Simon by Ryne Douglas Pearson = Mercury Rising with Bruce Willis). I love looking at what they do to a book to make it a movie (above example, they make the kid younger and Bruce Willis is a white guy (shocking, I know)).

What influences me more with the "voice" of a character, however, is an audio-book. I think it is because they take longer to unfold than a movie and so I'm stewed longer in that voice. I can't read a Stephanie Plum novel without hearing Lori Petty in my head.

If I haven't read it before it is made into a movie, I'll watch the movie first and decide if it is worth my time to read it. Incidentally, there are a few movies that I liked better than the book. The example that comes to mind is The Notebook, which I enjoyed a lot more than I thought I would as a movie, but the book was just not for me. I am glad I read it for readers advisory purposes, but I doubt I will read another of his books.

Several times, I've been inspired to borrow a book from the library when I heard someone was making it into a movie! It saves me buying a ticket if I don't like the book, or hear from early reviews that they changed the parts I liked.

For what it's worth, I prefer to watch the movie first, just because I like enjoying things, and I'm less likely to enjoy a movie if I have lots of preconceptions of how it should be. However, whichever I choose to do first, I try to keep them separate in my mind. Books and movies are two very different media, and I respect them for different reasons. Books have a lot more ability to get into all sorts of complicated backstories, subplots, and characterizations, but an author doesn't have to depend on any actor's performance, weather, or the special effects budget. That's not to say they have an easier or harder job than the filmmakers, just a different one, one that allows them a lot more control over the finished piece.

As far as characters go, I've never had my visualization influenced by an actor's appearance. I do tend to start mimicking their voices in my head though. I've only once had trouble reading a book (V for Vendetta) after I'd seen the movie. I do tend to have problems with movies if I've read the books first. Largely because of the plot. Writers have a lot more ability in a novel to make sense of everything with a chapter at the beginning and in a hundred other paragraphs scattered throughout. Movies don't have that ability, at least not to such an extent. And if I read the book first, it's a lot more apparent.

That said, I appreciate having different voices for all of the characters in a book. For whatever reason my auditory imagination is severely limited. :-S

As a preteen, I used TV shows and movies as a way to find books to read. Case in point: Star Trek (the original series) - because of that show, I was reading Theodore Sturgeon, James Blish, and Harlan Ellison at age 11 and 12. The Hallmark Hall of Fame production of Hamlet, starring Richard Chamberlain (aired in Spring 1968 and convinced my visiting aunt that I was a hopeless nerd when I chose to watch it instead of going out with everyone else), triggered my decades-long love of Shakespeare plays. I learned pretty early on to read the ending credits and see if the movie I liked was based on a book, then I'd go to the library to find it.

Since I read so much, nowadays it's rare that I can watch a movie before reading the book. I find that I enjoy the movie a lot more if I see it first and then read the book; however, that may be a holdover from my preteen and teen years' experience.

I always read the book first. In my opinion, it is almost always better than the movie. There are a few exceptions, but I will try to read the book before seeing a movie.

I like to read the book first. If there's a huge amount of difference between them (think The Postman, by David Brin, and the Costner movie 'based' on it) then I look at them as two separate stories, both based on a similar vision.

This way I can find myself still enjoying the movie, even if the book was better.

For what it's worth, slavishly following the book for a movie doesn't always work. Some things work in print, with the descriptions, and your mental images. Those same things come across as horribly corny or saccarine when filmed.

It works the same way, when a writer is hired to turn an original movie into a book. Sometimes it works, sometimes... well... Alan Dean Foster has a lot to answer for.

I don't have a preference for reading the book before seeing the movie. If I really enjoy a movie based on a book, I will read the book. That's how I started reading Tom Clancy and Olivia Goldsmith. If I enjoyed the book, I would like to see the movie, unless said movie was not good (ex: Eragon). I enjoyed both the books and film of "Spiderwick" and "Holes". When I saw the first Harry Potter film (having read the books), many scenes had me saying, "It's just the way I imagined it!" Some adaptations work well, some are dreadful. And in answer to one of the other responses, I enjoy reading Sherlock Holmes stories and I really liked the Guy Ritchie film. You can't say someone wouldn't like both. I do!

Honestly it is going to sound pompous but the truth is it is very rare for a book I am interested in reading to make it to the movies without me having read it. Even the fastest of turn arounds is a year at the least and that is enough time to read the book.

I watch the movie first when possible, so that I can enjoy both. If I watch the movie after reading the book...all I can focus on is what is missing. If I watch the movie first...then I can more easily remember that it is an entirely separate beast from the book. I can enjoy it for itself.

Usually I've already read the book first because the book is around way before the movie is. If I haven't already read the book by the time the movie comes out, I'll still see the movie. I live in a small town, the movie is only around for a week. Either I see it or miss it and have to wait until it is out o dvd. Then I have to remember that I want to see it.

If it's good enough or the story somehow interests me, I'll read the book after I see the movie. If the movie is enough, I'll just stop there.

I see pictures in my mind anyway so if I read the book, I see the movie in my mind. If I see the movies, I see someone else's pictures when I read the book. I'm not sure it really matters to me. I read the Lovely Bones, then saw the movie about 2 yrs afterwords. I knew things were missing but I at least knew what was going on because I read the book first, same with Percy Jackson. Lots of stuff missing but I still enjoyed it.

In a perfect world I would always read the book first. I like the movies my mind makes. If I really liked the book, then I will see the movie to compare what I imagined with the film. It's kind of fun to see if someone else sees the same thing. To see if the book is written in such a way that the images end up be universal images.

What's even better is hearing the author talk about the book, reading the book then seeing the movie.

I would rather read than see a movie any day, but, if it is a book I plan to read, I will see the movie first rather than get caught in the trap of hating a movie merely because it didn't do the book justice. I learned to do this when I saw The Cider House Rules the first time.

Frequently I will refuse to see a movie because I love the book so very much, and I just don't want to be disappointed. I also have been known to refuse to see a movie simply because the book has imagery that I am far more comfortable reading than watching.

Whatever works for them, and gets them to read the book, I don't care which they do first.