I used to subscribe to that philosophy as well. But then I didn't enjoy hardly any of the movies when I watched them. So I'm now trying out a new theory: Watching the movie first. It's very easy still to enjoy the book afterward.
I hear from people that The Last of the Mohicans was a good film, but reading the book first ruined the film for me. I read Forrest Gump after watching the film and just about the only thing they had in common was the title - so both were fine. Ciderhouse Rules was a good book and a good film - but only because Irving produced the film himself to keep it as close to the storyline in the book as possible. I love A Prayer for Owen Meany and have never been able to bring myself to watch Simon Birch(sp?) because I don't think film could ever do the story justice.
Maybe you could take your book into the theater, sit in the back with a book light, and skip around during the movie - would that count?
A goat chomped her way through a paperback. Then she found the DVD and, being a goat, ate that too.
"How was your meal?" asked her friend.
"Well, I liked the movie, but the book was better," replied the goat.
An old joke, but a true one. You can switch the words around, and that would be an equally valid experience.
I saw the movie Namesake, and loved the delicacy with which it was created. Then I got to the book, and it was a totally different experience. Both are wonderful works of art, and the movie does not divert from the book's plotline, but perforce it has to leave out details, and it is those details which add to the richness of the book.
So I'd say there is no hard and fast rule - it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.
Anjali
Knitting and jigsaw puzzles - I'm pretty bad at just sitting and watching too.
It's funny that you mention about your daughter and the Harry Potter books because when the first HP movie came out (this is way before I had my kid), I saw the movie first without ever having read the books. For lack of a better word, the movie was so magical for me! I think if I had read the book first it would not have lived up to my expectations. And I loved the movie so much, I went on to start reading the Harry Potter series. So it was great that a movie inspired me to read more!
The only thing that I don’t like about seeing a movie first is that you already have the images of characters and places forced in your mind. You can’t imagine them on your own. Instead of making up a visual of the main character, you have a Hollywood actor/actress in your head. That is part of what I like about reading – your imagination. Anyway, thanks for the post!
Marny
I don't have a rule about reading a book before watching a movie because it seems like every movie is based on a novel/short story/comic these days. I wouldn't have time to read anything else.
When I have read the work a movie is based on, I try to remember that movies and books are two different media and what can be accomplished in a book can't necessarily be translated to the screen exactly. I remember walking out of the theater for the first Harry Potter movie and overhearing someone say how much they hated it because of some very minor differences between the book and the movie. I was amazed at the intensity of her emotions.
Anyway, I think Brokeback Mountain is a good example of what can be done. The short story it's based on doesn't have a lot of the family life that is portrayed in the movie. I think the producers, writers, and actors did a very good job.
I almost always read the book before watching the movie which is probably a bad idea because the movie seldom lives up to my expectations.
I don't know; when I saw the first Harry Potter movie, it was SO true to the book (I felt) that I actually ended up being a little bored. I should explain that I'm a teacher and I had read the book ad nauseum, I might add-- because I taught five classes a day and read the book in all five of them.
Otherwise, no, I don't have a hard/fast rule about book or movie first.
Beth Fehlbaum, author
Courage in Patience, a story of hope for those who have endured abuse
http://courageinpatience.blogspot.com
http://www.kunati.com/blog-beth-fehlbaum
Chapter 1 is online!
I loved Brideshead Revisited as a book, and because of enjoying it so much, I have read several other books by Waugh. Many of them are very witty and different in tone from Brideshead.
As for books and movies, I am seldom disappointed in the movie version as I consider print and film to be different mediums of storytelling. A book is the theatre of the mind while a film is a feast for the eye.
That said, I do prefer to read the book first.
Thank you, everyone, for your comments. My day of reading was derailed by a family birthday party that I had forgotten, so I am still not sure if we are going to the movie.
Please excuse the grouping of my replies to your comments.
Wordlily - I suspect in this case, I will take your method -- see the movie first.
donstuff -- the book in the movie theater is hysterical! Sounds like something out of a Seinfeld episode.
Anjali - it may be an old joke, but I had never heard it. I love it -- thank you! I will think of the goat often.
Sarah - Knitting is definitely a great way to keep busy while watching a DVD. In my case, though, it has to be a very simple project or I have to rip it all out at the end of the movie.
Marny - the visualizing of the characters and setting is the primary reason that we have the "rule" in our house -- it's for the kids, really. I think imagination is important, especially when kids are learning to read and haven't yet discovered how you can lose yourself in a book. You're an adult, so you're excused 
Chris - Because we don't get to the movies often, the ones that I do want to see are almost always because I've heard that the book was great. Still haven't seen Brokeback Mountain ... I should rent that, I guess.
Linda - So if you didn't read the book before the movie, would you go back to the book? I know, so many books, so little time ....
Beth - You are proving that Marny (a few comments above yours) may have been right in her guess that HP movie would have been disappointing. I love HP, but I can't imagine reading it to 5 classes! I do love that you *could* read it, though -- my daughter's class was not allowed to read it as a class because some parents objected.
Wayne -- Welcome! I appreciate your perspective. Maybe I'm just being hardheaded about my "rule".
I'm off to check the movie times for the week. Thanks for your comments, everyone!
Yep, I'm a book before film person if at all possible. I recently broke this rule and was duly disappointed. I did like the film better and wished I had read the book first to fully appreciate it. -- Stardust by Neil Gaiman
Thanks, Maggie. I really need to read Gaiman one of these days -- I think I'm the last one on earth who hasn't.
Ann, I haven't read anything by Neil Gaiman either, so there are more non-Gaiman readers out there than you. 
I only just started reading Gaiman this year. But I have found myself reading more and more. Hadn't expected to like him even.
I saw the film Stardust before reading the book by the same name (when we rented the movie I didn't know it was based on a book, even). I really enjoyed the movie. Quite a bit.
And then, at least 6 months later I read the book. I enjoyed the book, too, even more than the movie.
Commenting by HaloScan
