Meanwhile western fantasy adaptations seem to be full of arrogant showrunners that think their vision is better: wheel of time, the Witcher, House of the dragon (to an extent). George RR Martin even publicly criticised HBO for this recently.
I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy is also quite good, even though it does stray quite a bit from the books, omissions aside.
It's really hard to make good media and I haven't found any reliable indicators hinting at whether an adaptation will be good or not. I found The Hobbit trilogy to be laborious despite having Peter Jackson at the helm of it as well. Though in that case, maybe the source material itself is the issue.
With The Hobit , there was a change in directors (originally Guillermo del Toro) and lots of studio meddling (eg pushing for 3 movies when the original is a 200 pages book, inclusion of LOTR actors for wider appeal).
I think Peter Jackson was brought in to try to salvage what he could.
Take Dungeon Meshi, for instance: The anime only covered about half of the material of the manga. So if you liked the show and you want to know how the story ends, you've got to pick up the books. If the showrunners changed important plot points, finishing the story might not be so easy...
The Dungeon Meshi anime probably made some money on its own account, but there are a lot of marginal anime series that aren't really designed to make money, but are intended to increase awareness/sales of various manga properties.
I would argue that reinterpretations/taking liberties aren't always a bad thing. I went back and watched the Jojo's Bizarre Adventure OVA from the 90's that compressed/deviated the Stardust Crusaders arc considerably, especially compared to the more recent anime, which follows the manga panels to a 't'. I would argue the OVA holds up very well and makes some necessary edits for the sake of the pacing. Plus, the OVA staff clearly did their research, because OVA Egypt feels way more authentic than anime Egypt (which looked like your stereotypical mishmash of Middle East/India).
It seems like mega series with 200+ episodes where fillers are needed aren't getting made now? Demon Slayer is only on 63 for example.
Animation standards have gone up enough, and there are so many more competitor series, that just needing to fill a broadcast TV slot forever just isn't as important as back in the day. The levels of animation repetition of the Sailor Moons and Captain Tsubasas of the day, which allowed for a lot of episodes with a reasonable budget, would be seen as unacceptable today.
That's because they made it at a rate of an episode per week, and in parallel with the source material. That doesn't give time for anything very fancy, so it's mostly a panel by panel adaptation. Plus some filler in the mix, because a chapter usually doesn't have enough meat in it to last a whole episode. It's often 2 chapters per episode or so.
And that's why the slow pacing and the awful fillers.
Never read The Witcher or played the games but also really enjoyed the netflix series
I wouldn't put to much weight on someone not liking something. After all, either they haven't watched it all, or they are watching something they don't like. And that's not someone's taste I trust.
Having said that, what do you think of people like GRRM (wrt House of the Dragon) and Brandon Sanderson critiquing these adaptations? Your last paragraph seems to imply there's no value to someone dislike something.
That's some very "heads I win, tails you lose" logic right there.
It honestly baffles me that anyone who liked the books is able to enjoy the TV show, it feels like bad fan fiction.
* Rand and Egwene's relationship going from "they like each other but are kind of hesitant" to "sneaking away to have sex in the woods". Not only is this completely unnecessary, it's completely at odds with the moral values of Two Rivers culture for them to be doing that.
* Perrin being married (WTF), and then killing his wife by accident (WTF squared). In the books Perrin is very careful to not accidentally hurt people as he is conscious of his strength.
* In general, trying to change the Two Rivers to have the diversity of modern day NYC. A region so far off the beaten path that even their de jure queen doesn't remember they exist is simply not going to have a broad selection of races. This isn't as big of a sin as the character changes, but it's also completely free to have this bit of worldbuilding via character casting. There is no good reason whatsoever to give it up.
* Generally changing relationships in ways that just aren't supported by the books. Like, Siuan and Moiraine aren't in a sexual relationship at that point in the story so it's idiotic to depict them as such.
* Trying to act as though the Dragon could be any of the Emond's Field kids is against the very metaphysical foundations of the WoT universe. The Dragon could only be a boy, and Moiraine would know this damn well. And while we're at it, Moiraine had no idea that there were ta'veren in the Two Rivers at all, certainly not more than one, unlike what the show claims.
* Aging up Min severely and making her a Darkfriend. Just WTF.
* At one point Nynaeve heals death, which is again completely impossible in this universe.
* The damane costumes... so bad it's laughable. What on earth were they thinking? How could they get it so wrong? How you go from collars (in the books) to ball gags in the show is utterly beyond my ability to even imagine.
Those are the main things I can think of, and that's just season 1. I didn't even bother trying to hate read about season 2 after how bad season 1 was, but from what I heard it wasn't better (like apparently Rand bangs Lanfear, which he absolutely would never do). I understand that adaptations need to change things. But the changes they made to WoT aren't necessary, and often make the story worse than what Jordan wrote.
It all shows a grave disrespect for the source material, contrary to the staff's claims that they love the books so much (bullshit). As far as I can tell, Rafe didn't want to do an adaptation of Jordan's story, he wanted to tell his own story. Which is fine, but then tell your own fucking story, don't take a massive dump all over someone else's work which many people love.
I'd argue that there is benefit to re-evaluating one's tastes based on new information. It's always good to think critically of the content you consume.
EDIT: Wow. Can't even post comments on a new account. Not gonna beg dang for approval in his e-mail so I guess that's it for me and anyone else who's privacy-aware.
They made so many changes (mostly shit) that it was hard to even see it as an adaptation. The official statement (mental gymnastics) was that it's "another turning of the wheel".
In the fandom, it's fairly well received. JordanCon/WoTCon had everyone loving it. Sure, some people might not like it, but the majority of people who watched it loved it.
Martin's criticism of HoD is silly considering he still hasn't stuck the landing on his original series, and I imagine is holding back because people didn't like his resolution and is now stuck. Regardless, lots of people love these things. That you don't is fine. Not everything needs to be for you.
I didn't like Witcher 3. Overrated lame open world with boring stories and poor combat. Never finished it. So I had zero interest with any of the Witcher shows. But I also realize that a lot of people love it. I'm happy those people have something they enjoy.
As an aside, I imagine the commenter you're replying to will find "That you don't [love these things] is fine. Not everything needs to be for you." to be patronizing.
"the majority of people who watched it loved it"
Because why someone who doesn't like something watch it all the way through. The majority of people who watched Wheel of Time loved it. Sure, some people who disliked it or weren't interested would have watched it all the way through, but most people don't. Did the majority of people who watched only an episode or two love it? I don't know. But that was never my claim.
Maybe you can share why you think people, outside of being reviewers, will watch things they don't like? Am I the odd one out? Seriously, if I don't like a book I stop reading it. If I don't like a show I stop watching.
"JordanCon/WoTCon had everyone loving it." (completely different from saying "everyone loving it")
Because I attended them, and everyone there was loving it. Judging by the cheers and the interest at the associated panels, and well everyone I spoke with.
> I imagine the commenter you're replying to will find "That you don't [love these things] is fine. Not everything needs to be for you." to be patronizing
Facts hurt?
No it isn't. On Reddit, people are extremely critical of the show. And outside of Reddit, I literally do not know one fan of WoT who actually enjoyed that monstrosity.
I'm talking about the people that attend conferences. Not just people who happen to stumble across a subreddit.
I also played the games (which take place after the books) and loved them - although despite having a great story, the first game was really rough. Witcher 3 is in my top 10 games of all time, and it rewards you for playing all three by letting you carry over your saves and seeing your impact on the world. I hear they're remaking the first game as well as a fourth, so there's a lot to look forward to there.
If you're turning a prose novel into a tv show, you have to basically create everything from scratch. You can set it in the world of the novel and basically follow the plot, but the pacing is impossible to translate directly, and you don't have any of the visuals.
Most just want to have their own take on whatever they're adapting and I think that's preferable because whether good or bad, at the very least they're adding something new.
The nostalgia and fanbase driven reproduction of the same stuff over and over adds nothing, it's just fanservice. If I want The Witcher the game I can just play the actual game, if I want GRRM I should read his books. Adaptions in which authors take liberties have much more potential to be interesting. King famously hated Kubrick's The Shining, Garland took a lot of liberties with Annihilation and Starship Troopers was straight up subversion and satire of the book and Heinlein's worldview.
Given that we're in the age of maximally non-offensive Disney and comic book adaptions that just refuse to die and with so few genuinely novel media out there to begin with, I'm in favor of people at least taking some risks with adaptions.
If I took Fahrenheit 451 and adapt the story so that the state executes Guy Montag because my vision is that hate speech is dangerous, it's not Fahrenheit 451 anymore.
Take the most recent Dune movies as an example; In the books, Paul spends so much time becoming Fremen and trying to resist the prophecy as well as endlessly worrying about a space jihad, only taking the water of life when he was not able to predict that Gurney would try and kill his mother.
In the new vision "Let the Jihad begin!"
The first is the story of a reluctant hero who is trying to keep his family alive and cherish the love of the desert people who adopted him.
The second portrays a mother and son who scheme to use those around them to further their end goal of power and revenge.
If I enjoy eating Oreo cookies and I buy an ice cream that is labeled "Oreo Ice Cream" but when I taste it, it is Strawberry Jam flavor, I am not going to be writing a review that praises the product designer for their bold vision. I will be taking the product back for a refund.
That was present in the books at times as well.
>“I must tell you about my waking dream,” Paul said. (Now there was fury in his voice.) “To be sure you accept what I say, I’ll tell you first I know you’ll bear a daughter, my sister, here on Arrakis.”
>Jessica placed her hands against the tent floor, pressed back against the curving fabric wall to still a pang of fear. She knew her pregnancy could not show yet. Only her own Bene Gesserit training had allowed her to read the first faint signals of her body, to know of the embryo only a few weeks old.
>“Only to serve,” Jessica whispered, clinging to the Bene Gesserit motto. “We exist only to serve.”
>“We’ll find a home among the Fremen,” Paul said, “where your Missionaria Protectiva has bought us a bolt hole.”
>He suddenly saw how fertile was the ground into which he had fallen, and with this realization, the terrible purpose filled him, creeping through the empty place within, threatening to choke him with grief.He had seen two main branchings along the way ahead—in one he confronted an evil old Baron and said: “Hello, Grandfather.” The thought of that path and what lay along it sickened him.
>The other path held long patches of grey obscurity except for peaks of violence. He had seen a warrior religion there, a fire spreading across the universe with the Atreides green and black banner waving at the head of fanatic legions drunk on spice liquor. Gurney Halleck and a few others of his father’s men—a pitiful few—were among them, all marked by the hawk symbol from the shrine of his father’s skull.
>“I can’t go that way,” he muttered. “That’s what the old witches of your schools really want.”
>He remained silent, thinking like the seed he was, thinking with the race consciousness he had first experienced as terrible purpose. He found that he no longer could hate the Bene Gesserit or the Emperor or even the Harkonnens. They were all caught up in the need of their race to renew its scattered inheritance, to cross and mingle and infuse their bloodlines in a great new pooling of genes. And the race knew only one sure way for this—the ancient way, the tried and certain way that rolled over everything in its path: jihad. Surely, I cannot choose that way, he thought.
So no, what happened in the book after the fall of the House of Artradies and what was shown in "Part 2" of the movie are diametrically opposed.
Even before he meets the Fremen, he hates that everything was manipulated by the Bene Gesserit. He does not want to go along with the pan and wants to find his own way that would result in a better future.
What it is, is your relationship to the story and that's really what an adaption is about. A good adaption I think always shows you what someone feels in regards to the original work, it's a response to or a dialog with the original and that can include any emotion you have towards it. Artistically you don't really owe Fahrenheit anything, that's the sort of "fandom" mentality that I think is pretty misplaced and immature in art, but popular now because everything has fans and followers.
I agree with your observation about Dune but I think it's quite smart. Villeneuve has basically rewritten Chani entirely and shows us the story from her point of view, starting and ending the two movies with her deliberately. It's a critical outside view on Paul unlike the book in many ways, and I think that just reflects Villeneuve's perspective. (and also coincidentally Herbert's actual intent for Paul, it will hopefully spare people the awkward monologues from the second book)
Deep Space 9 is another example of this right, there's the die-hard fan mentality of "It goes against everything ST is about!", but ultimately it makes the universe much more interesting and compelling because it gives you another perspective from another point in time from someone who didn't quite buy into the utopianism and just expressed that.
To use my food analogy again: If I take pita bread, stuff it with cheese, spread tomato sauce on top along with toppings, it may be very delicious but if I serve it when someone orders a pizza...well I doubt they will be a repeat customer.
I bet you could make an amazing comedy by showing the events of "The Christmas Carol" from someone other than Scroog's point of view but it's not "The Christmas Carol" then and shouldn't be labeled as such.
"Old Man and the Sea" from the fish's point of view could be an interesting commentary but it would also not be "Old Man and the Sea"