are TV show adaptions better than film adaptions? > Likes and Comments
date
newest »
newest »
I do believe Tv shows are the right format to adapt a book, specially a series because we lose out on less things. when we see a movie the 2 hours or 2.5 hours time constraint is a major reason why we see so many omissions. in Tv Shows you can easily step over such a constraint and create something worth watching (give the creators do not mess with the original story). I do believe there are no perfect adaptations tho, except maybe Normal People.
It depends on the book. Tv historically has been more dry and boring, with worse production values. The exceptions are SOME more recent ones, thanks to being released on cable, i.e. Game of Thrones, True Blood, Dexter, or the even more recent ones on streaming channels. However, there’s the question of whether you need a longer format OR a shorter format. Some books and short stories get padded out too much from either film or tv. In fact, many short stories don’t need a whole hour. Some novels are shorter and don’t need a whole series. I loved the original movie Time After Time, and the series was ok before it was axed, but it was incredibly unnecessary and went on too long. I can see why it was canceled.Adapt a book or series on a streaming platform, maybe, but think about adapting the book, and don’t think of it as a series that needs to go on for multiple seasons.
I see what you mean but hollywood is infamous for messing up good stories
I think it’s equally possible to screw up either format.I’ve seen TV shows adapted from books that ran out of content and started making up their own story that was nowhere near as good, or, despite having extra time, still managed to cut out good chunks of the story and water it down.
Personally I prefer a movie, something I can watch in one sitting and move on with my life and not have to remember ongoing plot threads or details. But this is largely reflective of how much time I actually get to spend watching TV or movies I want to see (which is very little time).
I think it may be a case of lowered exspectations. Not only for us, the viewer, but for the producer as well. Movie producers and directors are exspected to make the movie their own. This is an Ang Lee film! While telivision production is more about the story than the director. Just a thought.
Joe wrote: "In the last few years I have noticed a pattern a book gets adapted into a film but does not do well then a TV adaption is made which is generally more faithful to the books, more successful and bet..."I suspect a lot of it is going to have to do with how well the movie or the shows are made. While there will always be differences between a book and a show, Disney gutted Percy Jackson. I didn't mind so much with the first one, but it really did lose out in context. Dark Materials vs Golden Compass isn't something I can address, never having seen the show. But I also enjoyed the Movie. So maybe I am just an odd duck.
On the other hand, the Expanse while a good show loses out in comparison to the books and I felt Game of Thrones was the same situation. So the series isn't always the best of results either.
the percy jackson films were made by 20th century fox not disney (this was before disney started buying everthing)the reason golden compass is not as good as his dark materals is because the people who made the film took out the darker parts of the story and the religious elements which breaks the story considering what happens in the 2nd and 3rd books
I thought the adaptation of The Martian was handled pretty well. Very disappointed with Good Morning, Midnight however.
I think TV series have a slight advantage in terms of the flexibility of length hence more worldbuilding, characterization, plot could be included. It could be a tight three-parter (like the Cormoran Strike novels), or 6-8 ep miniseries (.e.g The Last Kingdom), or 10-12 eps ones (e.g. The Expanse) or a full on season a la c-drama (one season of 50 episodes, e.g. The Untamed) etc. A movie could be divided into parts but learning from The Hobbit adaptation, yeah nope. I just don't like 1) waiting for another year and 2) the way too many silly padding were added.For me, creators should really ensure that an unfinished work (esp. long series) could be adapted as the GOT experience was traumatic. Also, having the writers as showrunners/part of writing team is key e.g. The Expanse.
Joe wrote: "the percy jackson films were made by 20th century fox not disney (this was before disney started buying everthing)the reason golden compass is not as good as his dark materals is because the peop..."
Could be why I enjoyed Golden Compass. With the books the more open his attacks on religion the less I enjoyed them. And as a 'reformed' Catholic that says a lot.
I stand corrected on the Percy Jackson comment. it was Fox. who in the past has been highly hit and miss on series movies.
Jack wrote: "I thought the adaptation of The Martian was handled pretty well. Very disappointed with Good Morning, Midnight however."I only had one negative impression from the Martian and it came at the end of the movie and was a complete break from the book. Haven't seen the other so have no comment, but will bow to your better knowledge.
Silvana wrote: "I think TV series have a slight advantage in terms of the flexibility of length hence more worldbuilding, characterization, plot could be included. It could be a tight three-parter (like the Cormor..."I agree with the writers being part of the team when making a series makes a difference. My issue with the Expanse isn't that it is bad, but it is much more action-oriented than the books, so it loses some of what makes me enjoy the books. When I am done with the books I will come back to watching the show again. This shows that my complaint versus the adaptation of the show is pretty mild really.
crime/murder mystery stories have always adapted well to TV shows but not often to films
For a one-off book, a movie.For a series with multiple books (eg. LOTR, GOT), a tv show is better to avoid leaving out parts.
Gotta be TV. Even if it's just a miniseries, a movie is almost never going to be long enough to faithfully adapt anything but the shortest books. To me, movies are perfect for short stories/novellas.
The other problem is that historically films have much higher stakes. Bigger budgets, bigger names, and higher expectations. So studios are going to be inclined to meddle more because they think they're protecting their investment. And in their eyes, a film has to be compelling for all 120 minutes or whatever. TV shows, on the other hand, are allowed lulls to set the pace, develop characters and storylines, and generally just breathe.
Jack wrote: "I thought the adaptation of The Martian was handled pretty well. Very disappointed with Good Morning, Midnight however."Good Morning Midnight the movie was really disappointing. No comparison to the excellent novel.
I guess it lies on how expanded the world is, in the book? A tight narrative with one singular storyline would be epic as a movie, like The Martian or Johnny Mnemonic (1994 Keanu Reeves). But a world with multiple protagonists or a larger world would have too much cut out maybe? So TV would be better. Good Omens would have lost so much if it were a movie. The TV series was perfect. How much do we condense, eh? But I’m more on the series train than the movie, unless it’s that condensed a story.
Still waiting for the Dark Tower series that supposedly was in the works a while ago... The movie was crazy horrible (I did appreciate Idris Elba as the Gunslinger though, and as much as I love Matt McConaughey, he was a horrible Man In Black).
I finally got around to reading Sweet Tooth, Volume 1: Out of the Deep Woods, Sweet Tooth, Volume 2: In Captivity, and Sweet Tooth, Volume 3: Animal Armies. (On Goodreads there's a #4, my library system doesn't go that far.)I prefer the tv show, on Netflix, I think. I like what they do with the characters and making the graphic novel more cinematic, seeing more people in more places.
It depends on the novel(s), a movie works well for a standalone work (the Martian, 2001, blade runner) but I definitely prefer tv series above film series. Even LOTR would probably have worked better as a tv series and that also how I watch it at home in 1 hour chunks. And don’t get me started on Dune, broken into 2 ?, with a unknown waiting period for movie 2.
Sapha wrote: "I guess it lies on how expanded the world is, in the book? A tight narrative with one singular storyline would be epic as a movie, like The Martian or Johnny Mnemonic (1994 Keanu Reeves). But a wor..."I totally agree with you, Sapha.
I've seen success and failure in both formats. For example I thought the movie "The Martian" did the book justice. The movie adaption of "The Gunslinger" was horrible. Since I brought up Steven King, I think the 1994 "The Stand" 4 part miniseries was much better than last years 10 episode version.
I've always enjoyed experiencing both the movie/show version of a story and the written version to see how they were adapted.
I think now that Netflix has become such a staple in peoples lives that other companies are following suit, most of your adaptions should be streamed as a series. It's very seldom now to have a "Forest Gump" or "Braveheart" movie where everything is incorporated into it: action, romance, suspense, thrill.
The ability for people to sit for 3hrs in order to enjoy a story is rapidly changing. They are adapting to 45 minute increments of good show. Its more of having a choice to watch one episode and still remain productive for the day or get a cold and tube as much as you want.
This also allows for a more immersive story. Rather than trying to cram everything down to 3 hours and then edit it, you simply extend it by another two episodes. No one is complaining that there are too many episodes of their favorite series. Also, if they do not get into it, they can switch 30 minutes thru rather than trying to sneak into another theater.
I wouldn't be surprised if James Cameron removes Avatar from his films and adapts them into series.
1st Dune movie = bad reviews but a bit of a cult classic due to David Lynch's handling of the storyTV Adaptation = bad show due in part to bad actors in some cases, trying to be too faithful to the books and boring in part
2nd Dune movie = much better truer to book and better actors. I've heard it will be a three parter which is what I always thought it should be (Paul up until joining the Fremen, Paul during the learning part with the Fremen and small guerilla attacks and then the overthrow of the Emperor and a bit of the after story)
The movie Dune: Part 2 is going to cover the rest of the first book. The planned third movie will cover material from one or more of the immediate sequels.
Brandon wrote: "The movie Dune: Part 2 is going to cover the rest of the first book. The planned third movie will cover material from one or more of the immediate sequels."ah, thanks for the information
Yes, TV is objectively (ok IMO...) better for complex stories. Movies are great for more straightforward stories. The Martian worked as a movie because the story is pretty simple. Guy gets left behind on Mars. "Sciences the shit" out of survival. Space program realizes he's still there, goes back. The end.
I think movies also work if a studio is willing to do a LotR and commit to a series of movies that matches the books and the book series is limited like LotR was (vs WoT). Three books, three films and while we can pick at choices, the movies were a good adaptation (no adaptation will ever be perfect in the eyes of everyone).
GoT would NEVER have worked as a a movie or even a few movies. It needed to be a TV series because the story was far too involved for the theater.
PS: Some books don't adapt well, period. Books with a lot of internal perspective or description. Books like Foundation that time jump and are more about an idea than plot or character (and Second Foundation has both issues). And genre books have passionate fans that will often rail against even relatively minor things being changed which l think is often unfair. Both TV and movies are different media from a book and no adaptation will be perfect. Going even further, slavish adaptations are often terrible because the don't leverage the power of a visual medium.
Generally I think TV adaptations are better, but they can also fall into the trap of convoluted filler or "artistic choices". I was a huge fan of the Pretty Little Liars and and the Vampire Diaries books in middle and high school. And was excited for the shows, but then they were bad! They started out fairly faithful, but flew off the rails pretty quick. I'd tried so hard not to be one of those "that didn't happen in the book people" but when they started introducing things that came later in the series in season 1 or just changing things entirely to where they wouldn't make sense down the line, I was on the picket lines. TV offers a lot more freedom than film adaptations, but sometimes that freedom is taken a few too many steps too far.
Lexi wrote: "Generally I think TV adaptations are better, but they can also fall into the trap of convoluted filler or "artistic choices". I was a huge fan of the Pretty Little Liars and and the Vampire Diaries..."That happened in the Mystery genre with Midsomer Murders (7 book series) that went with one book per episode and is now up to Season 22. They also left out lots of bits of the books.
Longmire is the same with more made up characters and omitted characters
As for Big Sky made from C.J. Box's Highway series, that was changed beyond recognition especially with the replacement of a late 30s, slightly dumpy and homely character with a beautiful African American character and never a mention of the fact that in Montana there are very few people of color except for Mexicans and Native Americans so there is a lot of prejudice in that state.
The 100 certainly qualifies. The book becomes a kind of teenie-bopper "Does he like me?!" thing despite the more pressing problems at hand. The show takes it in the more serious and realistic direction.
In my opinion T. V. is a better format for book adaptations.Shadow and Bone done really well on Netflix, but I feel like they stopped short.
Another good example is to compare the movie and TV versions of Lee Child's Reacher. The two movies with Tom Cruise were so so but the TV servies on Prime is excellent. An 8 hours mini series really gets into the intracacies of the characters and story where a 2 hour movies just gets to the action.
Charlton wrote: "In my opinion T. V. is a better format for book adaptations.Shadow and Bone done really well on Netflix, but I feel like they stopped short."
Not always to be honest with you as Netflix ruined "The Witcher" with what they did to it. and that is just one of the recent ones for which I can think of.
John wrote: "Charlton wrote: "In my opinion T. V. is a better format for book adaptations.Shadow and Bone done really well on Netflix, but I feel like they stopped short."
Not always to be honest with you as ..."
See I really liked the show but I haven't read any of the books yet (on my TBR list).
They can be. I agree with much of the above. Because books are longer, they need more than 3 hours to be explained in full. To get every single detail, it's best to make it a series, or mini-series. Or you could do what Peter Jackson and Denis Villeneuve did, take a book and show it as multiple movies :D
I think The Handmaid’s Tale would have been a better movie. The book only covers season 1 anyway, so I’m really not sure if it’s an adaptation at this point.
A major problem with film and TV adaptations particularly in the past 5 years is the showrunners not respecting the original material whether a book, comic or videogame, and instead putting in their own agendas and biases into the show in an effort to make it appeal to so-called "modern audiences". Since most of these shows come from Hollywood they all end up with the sensibilities of a California liberal. That's why these adaptations are rife with race and gender swapped characters and political preaching that never existed in the original work. For examples see Rings of Power, The Witcher, Wheel of Time or pretty much anything produced by Disney. Inevitably this turns off fans of the original who just want something true to the original that made them a fan in the first place. With all the show failures and cancellations we're seeing now, maybe Hollywood is finally getting the message and things will start improving.
I'm not seeing the problem. Frankly, I'd rather see California liberal than some busted authoritarian wet dream.
It depends on the content they have. In general, I agree more time to have more content helps if there is a good amount of source material. I like Murderbot so far, but it's hard to do the first person well with as much internal dialogue as there is. But they have done a pretty good job so far.I'm not a purist about sticking to the source material. If it's a good story, I'm in. Sometimes, the new material is gold. TV is not a book, but the remake of Battlestar Galactica, for example, was epic but did deviate from the original somewhat.
I would love to get a tv/film adaptation of my book someday.
Dave wrote: "I'm not a purist about sticking to the source material. If it's a good story, I'm in.."I do agree with this. There are a small number of examples of great adaptations that deviated from the original in often important ways. For example, Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy. I've yet to meet a Tolkien fan who doesn't love these movies, despite them changing so much from the books. Another good example is Jurassic Park. The book is darker and more philosophical while the movie is more action-adventure and family-friendly. The important thing here I believe is that the adaptations respect the spirit of the original and the focus is on telling the same good story but using a different medium.
Compare and contrast these two quotes:
"We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. What we were trying to do was to analyze what was important to Tolkien and to try to honor that." — Peter Jackson
“It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like.” - Lindsey Weber, executive producer of The Rings of Power
for example Shadowhunter chronicles, a series of unfortunate events, Alex Rider, His darkest materials and there is a Percy Jackson series coming to Disney +
your thoughts?