Is it better to read the book before watching its movie adaptation?

Let me steelman the less popular order: watch the movie first. The usual case for Book first is that the book is the richer original, so you should meet it untouched. I concede the book often holds more. But that is exactly why the order should run the other way. A film is a compression, and compression is kind to a first encounter. You get the skeleton of the story in two hours, and then the book becomes a deluxe edition: every cut subplot, every inner thought, every character the screenwriters had to merge feels like a discovery rather than a missing piece. Reverse the order and the movie can only subtract. You sit there ticking off omissions, casting quibbles, and changed endings, and you judge the film against a version that lives in your own head, which no director can ever match. Watching first also protects both experiences. The movie gets a fair hearing on its own terms, and the book is never held hostage to a visual style you have already absorbed. Yes, the imagination argument is real: you lose the chance to picture the characters yourself. But the page is long enough to overwrite a casting choice within fifty pages, and many readers end up hearing the actor's voice anyway. Book second is the order that turns an adaptation from a downgrade into a doorway. I look forward to hearing what Book first can offer that survives that.