[alistairSH]

As a general rule, always read the book first. In this case, that holds true - there was too much in the book to cover completely in the movie. It's a pretty quick read as well - you could probably bang it out in a long afternoon, if you were inclined.

That said, I never read Harry Potter and can't imagine going back and reading it now. So, YMMV.

[elictronic]

I don’t think it does here. This has been one of the times where I enjoyed the movie more than the book. I liked the character in the book, in the movie I couldn’t take my eyes off them.

[lmm]

> As a general rule, always read the book first. In this case, that holds true - there was too much in the book to cover completely in the movie.

That's normal, and precisely why my general rule is the opposite. Watch the movie first, and then if you like it the book expands on and deepens it. If you read the book first then when you watch the movie you'll just be annoyed at how much was left out or dumbed down.

[qingcharles]

I watched the Harry Potter movies first and then read the books and thoroughly enjoyed the books, and the movies didn't spoil them at all.

[9dev]

They might be a special case considering the audience, books, author, actors, and the movies themselves grew alongside each other; it’s pretty singular, I think.

[qingcharles]

It's definitely possible. I've almost never watched the movie first. Normally I see a trailer for an upcoming movie and I'm too impatient so I grab the book and read it.