Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Cyrus, Nov 4, 2017.
Fandom in a nutshell.
The books still exist. Any sense of them being tarnished by association is all in the mind. Effective reading requires one to fill in the undescribed parts of a fictional world using one's imagination. It seems to be a skill that many do not possess. They lie replete on their couches gorging on pretty sounds and images but their palates are extremely choosy about the fare that they will tolerate. If one doesn't like the showrunners' vision, switch off the TV and switch on one's mind.
The problem - as always - is that they clog up search engines .
And? I hate the Alien franchise for that too. Does that take away from the original work? No, the answer is a hard and fast no.
We fans are too protectionist of our precious kingdoms.
So, would you say as an adaptation, it is on the level in terms of strength and "authenticity" as Jackson's trilogy? Yes, yes, I know Jackson took many liberties / made changes with the movies, but I'm asking would the new series stand up with Jackson's as a quality Tolkien adaptation?
No clue. Haven't seen it yet.
Just need better keywords!
I don't know if that's really a fair comparison, since isn't directly based on a novel/s the way LOTR is.
Put it this way: would a Tolkien fan who loved Jackson's films hold this series in the same regard--as a "keeper"?
We can't know that until we actually watch the series.
Crazy notion, I know.
Sandbox time, I see.
Nothing is a keeper save the original work, at least for me.
Will it be entertaining and enjoyable? That's my questions not "does it make me feel like the Jackson films or the books?" Not my expectation.
Interesting; I once said that about Stoker's Dracula to a major Dracula fan, and she lost it over how could I not see how much of a "one for the ages" adaptation the Coppola movie was.
If the lore breaking is egregious and seemingly done to be merely salacious or shocking, I shan't persist in watching the series. However, I'm not going to prejudge it based on rumour and speculation. I might beef about it briefly once or twice here but I might instead be praising it, depending on how it turns out. If it's just "meh", I probably won't bother.
Funny that I don't care as much when stories by authors such as H G Wells, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Arthur Conan Doyle, Bram Stoker, or Jules Verne are adapted. For some reason, Tolkien's works seem more sacrosanct to me.
It's two different categories for me. A film can be "for the ages" but not the same as the original. The two are not the same for me.
I'm against people being angry, outraged or thinking anything is "ruined" "tarnished" or "insulted"
But it is ok to see a series as a huge opportunity wasted on a personal level. I would be mad keen for new LotR, GoT or SW shows but sadly for the most part they are or look poor. The problem then is that while these are ongoing it's unlikely someone will be given the reins to make the show you want to see. Not impossible though as Discovery which I didn't like was followed by stuff I did.
But any emotion stronger than disappointed over TV is silly
Sure, it's the rare adaptation that keeps Quincey Morris, but the Mina-Dracula stuff comes from the Jack Palace film of the 1970s.
I get being disappointed, I guess. It's not something I find often in media. As for people not making a show I want to see that's pretty much constant. What I want is rarely what actually sells lol
My gf read the novel and said the Coppola movie literally has none of the atmosphere of the novel...
It's just in the sense that you hear for instance someone is making a new LotR show and you have waited so long for more LotR it's a pity when it doesn't work for you.(Not judging a show I haven't seen yet just using this as an example)
I agree on the rarely liking popular shows.
Separate names with a comma.