The TV Series discussion thread

Yea… Also previously in this thread someone did ask if series are blindly following the book - they don't. I didn't read the book but some things mentioned in discussion are presented differently in series. Should I care what a bookwriter says about series based on the book? If I cared, I'd probably never play The Witcher 3 because the bookwriter hates what developers did to his "gem". He can hate it as much as he wants, the game is still a masterpiece. Again IMO.

I guess that was me. However all I asked was if the racism depicted in the book was present in the TV series. There was no request to ask if the series was "blindly" following the book. And actually, whether you want to believe it or not, my take in that regards is very similar to what a Hollywood director once stated about this topic: If the audience wants an exact duplicate of the book, then read the book.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,762
Location
Los Angeles area
Erm, no, we're not discussing audience but the bookwriter. If I understood correctly.
Because when it comes to audience, I was clear previously on Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Of course onscreen presentation can't be copypasted book. But you can't remove story critical character competely, remove the critical weapon included, then expect fans of the book will adore what you did.
Jackson did exactly that, removed completely things that made LotR what it is and still kept LotR title - unlike others who just change it a bit (example "the witch" alive or dead in The Name of the Rose movie vs book doesn't matter in the end, but she still appears in the movie as her presence is story critical).

In any case, that Hollywood director is stupid. You can't duplicate a book, ever. There is no way everyone visualized book characters or environments the same way, especially when descriptions are not detailed much and most is left to your imagination. What you can, and you should, is duplicate stuff that made that book - for example if a book base is hero being stupid, the script shouldn't go spielberg and make the hero highest IQ mensa member.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
In any case, that Hollywood director is stupid. You can't duplicate a book, ever. There is no way everyone visualized book characters or environments the same way, especially when descriptions are not detailed much and most is left to your imagination. What you can, and you should, is duplicate stuff that made that book - for example if a book base is hero being stupid, the script shouldn't go spielberg and make the hero highest IQ mensa member.


How can the Hollywood director be stupid when you are making the same point. In his experience when adapting books to movie one of the most common complaints was when the book was not true to the movie. Even when the changes were inconsequential. Eventually he (or someone) stated to some complainer to read the book.

In any event the book presented a world that was not only misogynistic but bigoted in race and religion. Hence the Handmaids were needed to continue the "superior" race. For me the read was compelling because this dystopian world was so utterly corrupt, the protagonist escape from it had more urgency.

I did not see the racism in the TV series that was in the book, hence the question I asked earlier in this thread.

And now as season two is upon us the producers claim they will address the racism that was not addressed in season one. The shows producers had to work to convince the author of the novel the need for change for season one. She relented because she said the evangelical move of today is far less racist than it was when she wrote the novel. She made her peace with the shift, to a time when “being a fertile women trumped race.” (yes, she laughed . . .)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,762
Location
Los Angeles area
With all the hype about season 2 of Westworld I decided to give season 1 another chance. I quit when the lab/host plot line became too stupid for me, but I decided...
Maybe the lab technician is an unknown host, that would help explain the stupidity of his actions
so I watched until the last episode and nope, no such luck, it really was a stupid plot line, so forget it, not watching season 2.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
Horror film producer Brian Yuzna made the most memorable comment for me about adapting books/novels into screenplays: "Adaptations that are too true can miss the whole damn point." Of course there are many exceptions like The Road that almost literally used the novel as a shooting script. Now there's a movie that didn't miss the point even if reviled by many as being too depressing despite the irony of Molly Parker's character at the end offering hope in a world without hope (is the undisclosed catastrophe an extinction event?).
 
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
360
Half way through Lost in Space. Anyone else think it has everything it needs to be a great show if they would only put the current writers in an airlock? How can they accomplish so little with so much material? And those "action endings" are you serious? But I'm in for the long haul...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,593
Location
Boston MA
Man, if you got past the first episode of the current Lost and Space and went back for more, well, you are of stouter stuff than I. I really like that actress from Deadwood but not enough to wade through that much drek.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,788
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
It’s watchable I just think it could be significantly better. A lot of the criticism I’ve heard is it’s lack of consistency with original series. The same complaints we heard for the Battlestar Galactica remake. I think the new Battlestar was one of the finest showe ever to air. Lost in space needs better writing.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,593
Location
Boston MA
LiS has severe pacing/padding problems due to that bad writing (and what did we expect? It's written by the idiots who wrote Last Witch Hunter, FFS!). I know a lot of us are watching through the rose colored lenses of our childhood and that fondness we all had for the original series, and it perhaps should be taken on it's own terms, but, man o man, those terms are rotten! By the 3rd episode of the first season in the 1965-1968 series, we had already had the Robinsons encountering aliens in interesting first contact scenarios, giant monsters, and eerie lost civilizations. What do we have in the current series by the 4th episode? They haven't even met Don West yet, and when they do they need to rescue him which takes up an entire valuable episode (something Irwin Allen's series would have done in 5-10 minutes). The only thing LiS 2018 gets right is the close family dynamic , but seriously, this show is the most badly paced, most glacial thing since the first season of HBO's Westworld (forget about the 2nd season… wouldn't watch it at gun point). Yeah, bring in a good writing team. Get the Dracula Untold poptards out of there…. PRONTO.
 
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
360
Didn't know those details but it makes sense. I wish I could disagree. I just hope it gets course corrected before it gets discarded.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,593
Location
Boston MA
The remakes of Battlestar Galactica and Lost in Space are in no way comparable. The first flipped what, a gender role, changed the cylons a fraction, and upped the ante for the entire universe. Lost in Space....well, it just seemed more like lost in a toilet. Granted, I only watched the first episode but I cannot see how it could improve, and from what I've heard from friends, the pilot was one of the better episodes of the series, if not the best.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,788
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
They are comparable in the obvious sense in that they are both old "classic" scifi remake efforts? That was my only point. One did it well. The other not so much. And there was a ton of complaints on its release. Changed the Cylons a fraction?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,593
Location
Boston MA
Not sure if it matters.

I watched the original Galactica. And I liked it back then, dunno if it's really good or not, I was so young and enjoyed any kind of TV, maybe today I'd hate it, maybe I'd love it even more than I did. But I got old and grumpy so dunno. :)
Didn't watch the reboot from SyFy and there is a good chance I never will - cancellation of the original after not even full second season broke my heart 78634578635784 years ago.

Never seen original Lost in Space series. It wasn't available where I live.
Watched some movie a few years back and it wasn't something I'd remember or care about. But I did watch the whole new LiS and posted previously in this thread - this new series suck.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Lost in Space's problem is far more than just being different from the original. Nothing makes sense, too much stupid drama, unbelievable behaviors, everything is inconsistent, basically... it sucks.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
LiS has severe pacing/padding problems due to that bad writing (and what did we expect? It's written by the idiots who wrote Last Witch Hunter, FFS!). I know a lot of us are watching through the rose colored lenses of our childhood and that fondness we all had for the original series, and it perhaps should be taken on it's own terms, but, man o man, those terms are rotten! By the 3rd episode of the first season in the 1965-1968 series, we had already had the Robinsons encountering aliens in interesting first contact scenarios, giant monsters, and eerie lost civilizations. .

Nah, the original show was just alright. But it had a few things going for it that for me made it stand out.

1) Angela Cartwright. Any kid of the era knows what I'm talkin bout.
2) June Lockhart. Timmy's mom, who couldn't love that
3) The first episodic sci fi show (ignoring anthologies)
4) A fantastic robot with crazy wavy arms
5) and a real life bad guy featured every week you just really couldn't root against
6) Dr. Smith retelling of history… in 1693, Columbus sailed the sea (still recollected after all these years)

Still, even back then as a kid the stories overall were just not that compelling and the forced wait-till-next week endings did not sit well with me at all. And then Star Trek came along around the same time and upped the sci fi factor a million fold and just months later LIS was fondly remembered.

(cue Brando)

Angelaaaaaaaaa

(/cue Brando)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,762
Location
Los Angeles area
Exactly that, Wolfing. I looked for something, anything at all in the current show to keep me interested. I WANTED to find something, I loved the original series and even the movie from the nineties wasn't too bad, but this just utterly failed for me. Perhaps that is on me, I'll just have to live with it, I watch enough shows and movies that missing one will not kill me.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,788
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
Not sure if it matters.

I watched the original Galactica. And I liked it back then, dunno if it's really good or not, I was so young and enjoyed any kind of TV, maybe today I'd hate it, maybe I'd love it even more than I did. But I got old and grumpy so dunno. :)
Didn't watch the reboot from SyFy and there is a good chance I never will - cancellation of the original after not even full second season broke my heart 78634578635784 years ago.

.


Well to me the Galactica remake was brilliant. They took all the silly out of the original and put in some fine dramatic and believable sci fi writing. OTHO, the show was just too intense and by the second season it was kind of a chore to watch the goings on. It might actually be better as a binge watch because you don't have to wait a week to follow the story.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,762
Location
Los Angeles area
I'll say I also enjoyed both of the Galactica's. They were both very different, and both quite watchable. The reboot didn't nothing to lessen my pleasure for the original series, not in the slightest.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,788
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
With all the hype about season 2 of Westworld I decided to give season 1 another chance. I quit when the lab/host plot line became too stupid for me, but I decided…
Maybe the lab technician is an unknown host, that would help explain the stupidity of his actions
so I watched until the last episode and nope, no such luck, it really was a stupid plot line, so forget it, not watching season 2.

I have the feeling that you just didn't get it. :)
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,129
Location
Florida, US
Back
Top Bottom