Please excuse me. I have a terrible thing to admit.
I watched the movie before the book. Even worse, I’ve watched the movie and I don’t even want to read the book.
Now before you say anything, I wasn’t always this way. When I was younger, I truly believed in reading the book before seeing the movie. This was partially enforced by my mom, who always wanted me to finish the book before taking me to see its movie adaptation.
Throughout my childhood, I made sure to power through all seven books of the “Harry Potter” series before even purchasing the DVDs. I even missed being able to watch the “Divergent” series in theaters because I hadn’t finished “Allegiant” in time.
Even in my early high school years, I was determined to keep this sacred promise. I refused to watch movie adaptations of any assigned books, despite how close the due date was and how long the novel was.
There would be the occasional film that I would watch and find out it was based on a book after the fact, but in my head, that didn’t really count.
When I first heard that Timothée Chalamet was going to be starring in the “Dune” movie adaptation, I freaked out. This wasn’t because I loved the book, but because Timothée Chalamet would be back on the big screen.
After researching more about what “Dune” actually was — a sci-fi novel — I decided that I would purchase the book for two reasons.
The first was out of genuine curiosity of what the story had to offer. The second was out of fear of judgment if someone had found out that I watched a movie without reading the book.
I bought “Dune” by Frank Herbert sometime in 2020 after it was announced that its original release date would be pushed a year later to October 2021.
I figured this delay would give me ample time to finish the hefty novel; however, no one told me how dense the book’s content was.
I was still slowly plowing through the sci-fi story just weeks before the movie’s release, yet I had barely just gotten to the end of part one in the novel.
Luckily, watching “Dune: Part One” helped a lot when it came to bolstering my understanding of the actual novel. Aside from the movie being plain amazing, it was a lot easier to follow the plot when everything was visual and not just left to my imagination.
Despite watching it on my living room television due to its direct release on streaming platforms, I found myself enjoying more than just Timothee Chalamet’s face.
The funniest part about it all? The movie had ended exactly where I had left off in the book, but that’s on me for not connecting that it was “Dune: Part One” and not just “Dune.”
When “Dune: Part Two” was announced for early March 2024, I figured that it would also give me plenty of time to finish the second part of the novel just as it did the first time around.
Unfortunately, I was mistaken. College made it difficult to find the downtime to read, and when I did have the motivation to read something for pleasure, a political sci-fi novel wasn’t exactly the first thing on my reading list.
I still thought that I could read the original content before its theatrical release, especially since I was back home for winter break with nothing to do but relax.
Still, amidst all the relaxation, I could not bring myself to crack open the now dusty “Dune” book.
March whipped around and I had nothing to do on a random Saturday, so my friend and I bought tickets to see the 7 p. m. showing at the Coolidge Corner Theatre.
We were both going into the movie blind expectations. My friend had never touched the book, let alone ever seen the first movie. But in our true fashion, that didn’t stop our excitement.
A good movie is a good movie, right?
And a good movie it was. We left the theater in total awe.
If you’ve seen “Dune: Part Two,” you would know what I mean by “wow.” It had been a while since I’d watched something in a theater and this movie single handedly reignited my love for film.
From the visuals to the sound, the movie was able to utilize all of the elements that I cherish in filmmaking to make the story more digestible.
After the release of “Dune: Part Two,” a lot of content that compared the book to the movie came onto my social media feed. One of the main points of comparison was the book’s focus on politics, society and religion compared to the very action-packed film counterpart.
I read a few articles highlighting the major changes that Director Denis Villenueve made to the movie from the book. Although the political nature was a major plot point in the book, I can’t imagine adding more content to an already two-and-a-half hour long movie.
This got me thinking: Would my movie experience really be diminished if a few things were changed? Was it necessary to know these meager background details to better understand the overall message of both the movie and book?
Also, would it be worth it for me to power through more than 300 pages of spice wars when the thing that I was so captivated by were the intense fight scenes — okay, and maybe Timothée Chalamet as well? Would reading the book really change the way I enjoyed the score and visual setting?
I thought back to all of the other movie adaptations that I’ve seen where they condense their original source by so much. I’d rather watch all of the “Twilight” movies blindly if I got back the time it took me to power through so many pages of Bella Swan’s internal monologue.
You know what? I’ve come to my personal conclusion on this book versus movie debate. They are too distinct mediums. What I like to read doesn’t necessarily align with what I like to watch — and that’s completely fine with me. The science fiction genre is definitely a more visually appealing genre for me, but I’d much rather read a fantasy novel than watch its big screen adaptation.
Moving forward, I’ll have more time to consume any media the way I like, and I can be proud of being a person that’s okay with watching the movie first before even thinking about reading the book.
So, next time you’re in a movie theater, don’t let the phrase “based on the book” scare you away from a fun movie experience.
