Great TV
-
omfg Dragon Prince season 3 right out the gate with feels
-
THREAD NECRO MWAHAHAHA
I just discovered that Grace Under Fire is on Amazon Prime and fired up the first episode. Forgot how much fun this show was, and how real it could get right out of the gate.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
The trailer for The Sandman is very good.
This is such a difficult piece of work though. Even though I'm happy to complain about other adaptations of my favorite works into TV series, but I'm not going to blame the producers in this case even if it doesn't translate well.
The original series uses amazing prose, inspired lettering, great - often moody - art... subtleties and wordplay that I have no idea how they can pull off on a TV screen. My hat's off to these folks if they do succeed, but I wouldn't hold it against them if it falls short.
-
The trailer for The Sandman is very good.
This is such a difficult piece of work though. Even though I'm happy to complain about other adaptations of my favorite works into TV series, but I'm not going to blame the producers in this case even if it doesn't translate well.
The original series uses amazing prose, inspired lettering, great - often moody - art... subtleties and wordplay that I have no idea how they can pull off on a TV screen. My hat's off to these folks if they do succeed, but I wouldn't hold it against them if it falls short.
Authors don't generally get a say in how things go, even when they are hired as 'consultants'. Usually, It's to shut them up. However, in this case, everything I've read seems to suggest that Neil Gaiman is heavily involved in this adaptation, so that might be promising considering he penned the prose.
Gaiman also co-wrote the script and is producing the show.
-
@raemira That's neat!
I think at this point what I expect (demand?) from book adaptations is very simple: Love the original work. Try to put that on the screen.
I feel a lot of the time showrunners try to make the series 'theirs', or they act under a direction from producers to 'renew' the material so a new generation of actors can take over, which essentially cheapens what draws funs like me to a franchise in the first place.
So for instance the new Star Wars series drew the original cast back but... they didn't do jack. In fact they were portrayed, largely, as failures. I didn't appreciate that. Game of Thrones tried to 'subvert expectations' and decimated the story it was building for years. The Wheel of Time... ugh don't get me started.
Just love the damn material enough for that to show. Then put it on the screen. The gold standard here is the Lord of the Rings movies; they made significant changes (no Tom Bombadil, Arwen replaced Glorfindel, etc) but who the fuck cares; the whole trilogy was a tribute to J.R.R. Tolkien's works and it showed.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
But they did fail.
Despite their victory and the death of the Emperor, the Rebellion was unable to defeat the fascist regime at the core of the films. This is an important part of the overall narrative.
Unfortunately, it is also the point of realism that keeps the series from spinning off into pure fantasy.
-
So for instance the new Star Wars series drew the original cast back but... they didn't do jack. In fact they were portrayed, largely, as failures. I didn't appreciate that. Game of Thrones tried to 'subvert expectations' and decimated the story it was building for years. The Wheel of Time... ugh don't get me started.
This makes me curious. For me and my perspective. I have enjoyed a lot of the Star Wars live action that most fans seem to dislike or despise. I enjoyed Solo, I enjoyed Book of Boba Fett. One could look at Solo and think, that's not his character, his time as an Imperial Fleet was more than that, its where he learned flight patterns enough to fake out the shuttle approach while going to teddy bear moon.
I tend to look at it in the classical since. Its tales from a very long time ago. All the works aren't going to agree and down the line, we'll pick and choose the parts we like and disregard the ones we don't. Any old mythology is all one has to look at. Greek mythology wasn't written by one author, nor was Arthurian legend. In fact, there is still works being created about them today. A lot of folks enjoy Percy Jackson, no one is saying, that is not Perseus how could they do that character injustice. Some of the recent Arthurian movies have taken the revisionist western point of view, it was a gritty time and he was a far more gritty bastard than the French writers painted him out to be (noble, chivalrous).
The curious part is how is it that in recent years/decades/etc if a derivative work comes out it has to be true to one source? Do we go back to like Cervantes being possessive of Don Quixote such that when other authors borrowed the character, he had to write book two for the express purpose of killing the character off to end any further adventures of Don Quixote? Is it just me being old and enjoying these other takes? In comics, a new telling of Peter Parker getting his powers and morals in new and interesting ways is what comic fans like. How is it most of us deviate from this if a TV show or movie goes 'off the rails' and doesn't stay true to the source?
Not to argue it, just curious what makes it 'true' to the characters vs off the rails and why live action seems to be the line in the sand of things being too far off the mark.
-
I think at this point what I expect (demand?) from book adaptations is very simple: Love the original work. Try to put that on the screen.
I disagree with this premise. If you want to relive the story from the books, then you should read the books. Every video adaptation of a story that doesn't have a LOTR budget has to make allowances and changes to fit the story into the narrative that you have.
Frankly, Wheel of Time would have been hella boring if they had stuck to the original source material. It was a whole bunch of scared dumb kids being scared and dumb, and their mentor figure being distant and unhelpful while they all contemplated the up-to-that-point largely theoretical prophecy and what they might be able to do with their fledgling powers until you get to the end of the thing, each of them lost in their own heads and generally just being judgmental and catty of everyone around them.
If you're going to have to tell a different story based on the medium, you might as well tell a fresh and interesting take on it. Also, there is absolutely nothing to say that this isn't just a different turning of the wheel, especially since
***Book spoilers ohnoes.***
click to showI know that I discussed that theory at length with @Devrex when I finished the books and was left a little 'what the actual f*ck' at the end of it. The show did way better for me.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
So for instance the new Star Wars series drew the original cast back but... they didn't do jack. In fact they were portrayed, largely, as failures.
I get where you're coming from, but I didn't see it that way. To use a RL analogy, the fact that Nazi-ism and fascism wasn't entirely eradicated doesn't make those who fought in WW2 "failures". They succeeded in their immediate goal of ending the war. They brought an era of peace, but peace rarely lasts forever.
It's the same in Star Wars, plus the original 3 stood up again in their later years to guide the next generation to continue the fight. Leia led the whole resistance. Luke's standoff with Kylo inspired the galaxy. Han's arc with Kylo was instrumental in the final outcome.
That's not to say I approved of all their story arcs (Luke's in particular), but failures? Not in my book.
-
I disagree with this premise. If you want to relive the story from the books, then you should read the books. Every video adaptation of a story that doesn't have a LOTR budget has to make allowances and changes to fit the story into the narrative that you have.
I think it's a balance.
Budget constraints are a real limitation, like you said. So are time constraints. If you tried to film every scene in a novel it would be a mini-series, not a movie. And some things that work fine in a novel don't translate well to screen. Adaptations are almost always necessary.
But if you're not going to be faithful to the spirit of the original story, then don't try to pawn your movie off as that story just to ride its coattails. Do your own thing.
-
@faraday To add to that, I'm completely fine (and in fact wouldn't have it any other way) with an adaptation making changes - both in the story and the narrative structure - to make sure the end result is watchable.
Those are probably inevitable anyway since an author can spend pages essentially providing exposition about world-building blocks for their setting like magic, politics, history, etc, but if one tried to do that in a movie or TV series it'd be just freaking boring.
But capturing and honoring the spirit... that's essential. I am concerned the new Tolkien adaptation will be too... generic fantasy for me to enjoy.
My golden example of this going terribly wrong was Isaac Asimov's I, Robot. Of course that's really tough to adapt, I get that. But the very essence of the work is that robots are fundamentally not harmful; in fact the author wrote about what he called the Frankeinstein Complex to specifically deride it. Then what was the movie about? Killer robots. Sigh.
As @faraday said, if people feel their work can stand on its own feet then tell that story. Don't slap the label of someone else's well-loved one then do your own thing.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
No one can convince me that anyone failed in the new trilogy except for J.J. Abrams.
And Colin Trevorrow, for losing his chance to direct one of them, for which I am eternally grateful.
-
But capturing and honoring the spirit... that's essential. I am concerned the new Tolkien adaptation will be too... generic fantasy for me to enjoy.
We'll find out in only 80 days. Aure entuluva!
-
This is totally not me, fuck y'all.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Ganymede Sauron, cat-shape.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
