I cannot stand to spend days doing something on the lines of deja vu! The book takes much longer to get the answer and is way more in depth. The movie takes hardly any time at all what? A couple hours? When a book takes time and dedication. So when you look at it this way the book allows for you to fully understand what the author is trying to portray in extremely vivid details. Then you see the movie to get someone else's opinion and enjoy losing some time out of the day.

If one argues by calendar then the book would be first. The thing is, is I don't think there is a "right" way or a wrong way to view these things. The author sets up his/her characters in one way and the screenwriter sets them up in another and it's always probable that they will enhance some and play down others. I've seen books that were much better than the film and some films better than the book. The right order is your order!

I like to imagine how the story is in my head first. I want to see the characters and the settings in my imagination and try to picture just how they react or how certain events happen. After this, I like to see the movie to see what they left out (always way too much) and how the director interpreted the book.

I also love reading the book first. Yes, most of the time you really gets disappointed when the movie comes out differently from what you have read. But books really talks about the whole story and movies tend to skip some important details from it sometimes.

I think reading a book before one sees a movie is much better. A person will then know if the book was better than the movie.