It'd be better as a TV miniseries...

[Norrin Radd]

I often here this argument for sci-fi/fantasy adaptations. But. No. Most miniseries have shit for budgets. They lack the potential for the proper scope. And sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope. Look at the Dune series for instance. Despite being more faithful to the books, it lacked the mythic grandeur and vision of the movie.

Disagree?

 

[Christopher]

Every option is going to be a tradeoff. A movie has the budget to capture the scope and visual grandeur of a prose SF novel or series, but requires such draconian compression in its storytelling that it often must leave out most of the prose work's detail or complexity. A TV series has the room for more involved worldbuilding and character-arc development, but with a lot less money for scope and spectacle -- and it can run the risk of overextending the premise, taking something that would work well in a limited form and dragging it on too far. A miniseries can be a good compromise, with more budget than a weekly series and more room for storytelling than a feature film.

And I disagree profoundly with the statement that "sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope." Some of it is, but you can't make any such blanket generalizations about such a broad genre. There are many works of SF that are more about ideas and characters, the sort of thing that television generally handles better than feature films.

 

[Aragorn]

"Faithful" is a subjective term. When adapting a novel into a feature film or TV movie or TV miniseries or TV series, one should actually pay attention to the word "adapting." A movie is not a book and vice versa. There are different abilities/constraints to telling a story and they can't tell it the exact same way, despite the idiot on here who thought The Long Halloween movie should be told word-for-word, panel-for-panel exactly the same as the comic.

The Godfather and L.A. Confidential are kick-ass movies that had to cut out some of the fat and adapt the source material for filmmaking. With something like The Chamber or Rising Sun, on the other hand, they simply didn't know what the hell they were doing.

My biggest issue with those that cry about "faithfulness" is that they also love the Bourne movies, the latter two which had absolutely nothing to do with their novel counterparts. You can't have it both ways.

I agree that the Dune miniseries lacked the scope the storytelling demanded, so we'll have to see how the Peter Berg feature turns out. But I thought The Stand miniseries did an excellent job.

It's not really what a story is about that makes it good or bad, but how the story is told. That's why I hate The Asylum for pissing away money on big epic sagas that they don't have the budget to make (that their movies suck on every level is another issue). But the budgets they do have could allow for more movies like Swingers or Cube if they actually gave a damn about quality.

Something like the Jack Ryan series, I think might work better as a TV series, where you could have tell book per season.

 

[MyCylon]

I think the BSG Mini is terrific and manages to convey everything it needs to. I don't know about the budget though.

Generally speaking I agree that most tv adaptations aren't very successful in being as epic in feel as movies often are. But I wonder if the budget is the main problem. Sometimes there can be a tendency to drag stories out and thus reduce e.g. the feeling of urgency that some tales require.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I often here this argument for sci-fi/fantasy adaptations. But. No. Most miniseries have shit for budgets. They lack the potential for the proper scope. And sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope. Look at the Dune series for instance. Despite being more faithful to the books, it lacked the mythic grandeur and vision of the movie.

Disagree?

ABSOLUTELY disagree.

The movie was complete and total crap, IMHO. Totally unwatchable... and I really WANTED to like it.

The Sci-fi miniseries was (1) yes, more faithful, (2) more WATCHABLE, and (3) more impressive, visually.

I was never a fan of Lynch's cocaine-induced hallucinatory style anyway. But he just ruined "Dune." It was a huge relief that someone else came along and did it better. And it's a shame that so few people actually SAW it. Oh well...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And I disagree profoundly with the statement that "sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope." Some of it is, but you can't make any such blanket generalizations about such a broad genre. There are many works of SF that are more about ideas and characters, the sort of thing that television generally handles better than feature films.

QFT.

I want to see sf/f in all formats: movies, movie series, TV miniseries, TV full series. The subject matter should determine the format. In general, the more the subject matter is geared to visceral action, the shorter the format; the more it is geared towards complex themes and characters, the longer the format.

 

[Anachronus]

I often here this argument for sci-fi/fantasy adaptations. But. No. Most miniseries have shit for budgets. They lack the potential for the proper scope. And sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope. Look at the Dune series for instance. Despite being more faithful to the books, it lacked the mythic grandeur and vision of the movie.

Disagree?

ABSOLUTELY disagree.

The movie was complete and total crap, IMHO. Totally unwatchable... and I really WANTED to like it.

The Sci-fi miniseries was (1) yes, more faithful, (2) more WATCHABLE, and (3) more impressive, visually.

I was never a fan of Lynch's cocaine-induced hallucinatory style anyway. But he just ruined "Dune." It was a huge relief that someone else came along and did it better. And it's a shame that so few people actually SAW it. Oh well...

You are on the logos side then.

Hated the Sci-Fi version of Dune. The "Swiss-Miss" Bene Gesserits were horrible. I loved their Children of Dune. Susan Sarandon and Alice Kriege were just wonderful in that.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I often here this argument for sci-fi/fantasy adaptations. But. No. Most miniseries have shit for budgets. They lack the potential for the proper scope. And sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope. Look at the Dune series for instance. Despite being more faithful to the books, it lacked the mythic grandeur and vision of the movie.

Disagree?

ABSOLUTELY disagree.

The movie was complete and total crap, IMHO. Totally unwatchable... and I really WANTED to like it.

The Sci-fi miniseries was (1) yes, more faithful, (2) more WATCHABLE, and (3) more impressive, visually.

I was never a fan of Lynch's cocaine-induced hallucinatory style anyway. But he just ruined "Dune." It was a huge relief that someone else came along and did it better. And it's a shame that so few people actually SAW it. Oh well...

Well enough for Scifi to combine books 2 & 3 into a miniseries. I agree with Cary that I much prefer the miniseries to the movie.

Sharr

 

[Starbreaker]

A lot of people saw the Dune miniseries. It was the network's most watched program at the time, only beaten by Children of Dune. I prefer the miniseries to the movie, but I'll still go see the new movie. I don't think anyone can outdo Ian McNeice as the Baron though.

 

[Michael Chris]

It all depends on how it is done. For instance the miniseries Band of Brothers, I can't possibly think that a movie version could ever be better.

As to Dune, much preferred the Sci-Fi mini and am eagerly looking forward to the new film.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I often here this argument for sci-fi/fantasy adaptations. But. No. Most miniseries have shit for budgets. They lack the potential for the proper scope. And sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope. Look at the Dune series for instance. Despite being more faithful to the books, it lacked the mythic grandeur and vision of the movie.

Disagree?

ABSOLUTELY disagree.

The movie was complete and total crap, IMHO. Totally unwatchable... and I really WANTED to like it.

The Sci-fi miniseries was (1) yes, more faithful, (2) more WATCHABLE, and (3) more impressive, visually.

I was never a fan of Lynch's cocaine-induced hallucinatory style anyway. But he just ruined "Dune." It was a huge relief that someone else came along and did it better. And it's a shame that so few people actually SAW it. Oh well...

Well enough for Scifi to combine books 2 & 3 into a miniseries. I agree with Cary that I much prefer the miniseries to the movie.

Sharr

I'll also throw in my vote for the mini over Lynch's Dune. I think it did capture the scope...

And I think it's better than Children of Dune with the mustache twirling performance of Susan Surandon.

I do think for many novels a TV mini-series would be a good way to go...just because of time...but that may not always be better...sometimes short and sweet might be better than putting every detail in that actually works better reading than watching.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It all depends on how it is done. For instance the miniseries Band of Brothers, I can't possibly think that a movie version could ever be better.

As to Dune, much preferred the Sci-Fi mini and am eagerly looking forward to the new film.

That's a perfect example...

You can get a "short story" feel from a movie, but the amount of character development, along with "action," you can shove into a 2-hour movie, is inherently limited. "Band of Brothers" could not have been done as a movie, since it was all about character development.

Similarly, "Dune" failed as a movie because while they got the visual impact pretty well in the first movie version, there was no room to come to CARE about these people. For that reason, I'm also very dubious about the upcoming movie version as well (though I doubt it'll be as bad - IMHO - as the old movie was).

This is also my big concern re: "Watchmen" as a movie. There's just too much "meat" in that story to adequately cover in 2, or even 3, hours. In the best possible case, the film will be a "Cliff's Notes" version of the story... and you'll still need to go back and read Moore and Gibbons' original to fill in the deeper stuff.

Watchmen, on the other hand, would have been IDEALLY suited to a "miniseries" (which, for all practical purposes, is what it was originally, albeit present on paper rather than on a TV screen).

 

[misskim86]

I can think of a lot of things that would be better as tv series, especially comics with lengthy runs.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

I often here this argument for sci-fi/fantasy adaptations. But. No. Most miniseries have shit for budgets. They lack the potential for the proper scope. And sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope. Look at the Dune series for instance. Despite being more faithful to the books, it lacked the mythic grandeur and vision of the movie.

Disagree?

I think when people say X would be better as a miniseries, they often qualify what kind of miniseries. For example, I often read "Watchmen should have been an HBO miniseries." The implication is that it would have a budget, good directors, writers, be well cast, ect. In general, quality. No one ever says, this should be a sci-fi miniseries, because barring nuBSG, sci-fi ain't that great.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

I often here this argument for sci-fi/fantasy adaptations. But. No. Most miniseries have shit for budgets. They lack the potential for the proper scope. And sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope. Look at the Dune series for instance. Despite being more faithful to the books, it lacked the mythic grandeur and vision of the movie.

Disagree?

I think when people say X would be better as a miniseries, they often qualify what kind of miniseries. For example, I often read "Watchmen should have been an HBO miniseries." The implication is that it would have a budget, good directors, writers, be well cast, ect. In general, quality. No one ever says, this should be a sci-fi miniseries, because barring nuBSG, sci-fi ain't that great.

Yeah... "budget" isn't the most important thing, really (though an inadequate budget will always harm a project).

The real question is "what kind of story is it?"

Movies are great for representing "a day in the life" sort of things. Granted, those "days" are sometimes supposed to be hugely transformational days (ie, Luke Skywalker's entire life gets ripped out from under him and a few days later he's a galactic hero... or terrorist, depending on your point-of-view, I s'pose!)

But stories which are supposed to show a lot of characterization... growth and change and so forth... well, in my opinion, those usually fail as movies. Try as you might, there's just not enough time to tell an exciting, entertaining story AND develop a single character, much less and entire CAST of characters, in the time allotted to a movie.

As the days of conventional TV draw to a close, and the days of movie theaters being the primary place to watch films go away... the line between "movie" and "miniseries" will blur, and eventually go away entirely.

I can give anecdotal evidence from my own personal behavior... but I know that a lot of other people do exactly what I do. I've got a nice "home theater" setup... big TV, great sound, comfortable seating... better popcorn and snacks... you name it. And no punk behind me kicking my seat throughout the entire film, no drunk/stoned couple at the end of the aisle giggling and making fun of the film, no screaming kids, no "hey, what's going on" spoken in a very LOUD "whisper" three seats down... and I can pause the flick if nature calls, too!

And I watch almost no "live" TV except for the news, because I hate commercials and "edited versions" and channel ID "watermarks" in the corner and all that nonsense. Plus... again with the "bathroom break" thing.

So I watch VERY few movies at the theater... and I watch very few TV shows in the conventional fashion.

We have DVDs and Pay-per-view and Netflix and real-time-streaming and TiVo and all that... and the old model is fading away as a result.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Well, I don't think that "movie" versus "miniseries" is going to remain tied to the existing preconceived "low budget TV versus big budget theater" argument in the future. Regardless of what medium it's initially made for, the real money and the lion's share of the viewing occurs in "on-demand" viewing environments.

This frees up creators to make their works in different ways... with the realization that the amount that they should budget will be based not upon the initial venue (TV or theater) but rather the number of hours produced (and thus the sale, or rental, price of the associated viewing media).

A crappy movie will end up in the $1.00 bin at Walmart today... so the argument about quality, while true, is not specifically tied to one medium/format or another, by the way.

A quality "miniseries" format production could, under this new model, make a lot more money (increased sales price for more hours of entertainment!) with a disproportionately lower production cost (you still need the actor/director/etc time, but sets, props, costuming, etc, can be leveraged over the whole series).

 

[MarianLH]

I think when people say X would be better as a miniseries, they often qualify what kind of miniseries. For example, I often read "Watchmen should have been an HBO miniseries." The implication is that it would have a budget, good directors, writers, be well cast, ect. In general, quality. No one ever says, this should be a sci-fi miniseries, because barring nuBSG, sci-fi ain't that great.

A mini with a budget would be the best of both worlds, and if you can get it, great. But if you can't, which would you settle for? A mini that tells the story well but looks like cheap crap, or a film that looks good but compresses the story?

Note that Lynch's Dune isn't an example of the latter, since it doesn't so much compress the story as shatter it and play pinochle with the shards.

 

[Barbados Slim]

I often here this argument for sci-fi/fantasy adaptations. But. No. Most miniseries have shit for budgets. They lack the potential for the proper scope. And sci-fi/fantasy is all about scope. Look at the Dune series for instance. Despite being more faithful to the books, it lacked the mythic grandeur and vision of the movie.

Disagree?

I think when people say X would be better as a miniseries, they often qualify what kind of miniseries. For example, I often read "Watchmen should have been an HBO miniseries." The implication is that it would have a budget, good directors, writers, be well cast, ect. In general, quality. No one ever says, this should be a sci-fi miniseries, because barring nuBSG, sci-fi ain't that great.

Words right out of my mouth. I'm reading Watchmen now and it would work so well as an HBO miniseries where it will get the budget and love it needs, still be TV-MA and long enough to tell the story in its entirety.

 

[Christopher]

You can get a "short story" feel from a movie, but the amount of character development, along with "action," you can shove into a 2-hour movie, is inherently limited.

Right. A movie script is comparable in length to a novelette or short novella. I recently read a comment from a screenwriter or producer or somebody who said that the key to adapting a novel into a movie is to find the novelette hiding inside the novel and make a movie out of that. I wish I could remember where I read that so I could give the specific quote.

 

[Forbin]

You couldn't do Ringworld justice in a 2 or 3 hour movie format. It'd simpley HAVE to be a miniseries. Hell, there's enough material there to make it a whole series.

 

[Christopher]

You couldn't do Ringworld justice in a 2 or 3 hour movie format. It'd simpley HAVE to be a miniseries. Hell, there's enough material there to make it a whole series.

An HBO series, what with all the rishathra going on...