Do current trends make adaptations bad?

[@TonyB2279]

Only tangentially related, but I watched a great video the other day by a Zoomer who'd just watched Lord of the Rings for the first time, and he talked about how the film's earnestness and straightforwardness was very jarring for him -- he kept expecting a joke or a bit of snarky dialogue, a wink to the audience to let us know that yeah, we get it, we know how silly this all is. And of course, the films don't do that.

[@Bookborn]

OH what a FASCINATING insight! I would've never thought of how that element is injected into a lot of current stuff coming out...

[@ThumbMerrilin]

I think I may have seen the same video and it was excellent and a great observation. If the writers of a film or show can't take their own story seriously, and lack respect for it, how do they expect the audience to?

[@Frogface91]

​@@ThumbMerrilin Executives wouldn't think in that way though, they just saw how well Joss Whedon's style did to get the Marvel gravy train flowing and they point and say "copy that!" Publishers and producers keep pushing a trend until we're sick of it and don't know when to let it die.

[@pjalexander_author]

Yeah, it's called bathos, and I hate it. Very rarely is it done well, for example Joss Whedon on Buffy (sometimes, not always). As @thumbmerrilin alludes to, we seem to have a generation's worth of movies now where writers and audiences are afraid to feel an emotion. That would be considered cheeesy, so we all have to agree that stories aren't allowed to carry any real meaning. It's depressing. :(

[@Frogface91]

@@pjalexander_author The problem isn't with a trend existing, I have enjoyed all of Whedon's projects (to my chagrin), but the issue is when greedy corporations get a whiff of what's popular and then put it in everything. We need variety.

[@Maximus0623]

This is a great topic and video. I’ve noticed two trends impacting adaptations (and remakes): 1. The increase of morally gray villains. It’s rare now to have a bad guy who is just plain evil. I think this trend is mainly due to the success of Game of Thrones. Rings of Power made Sauron grayer. Disney has done this in almost every animated and MCU movie the last 5 years. I bet the new Harry Potter series does the same with Voldemort. 2. Female heroes lack flaws in modern adaptations/movies. Studios are now very reluctant to portray women as vulnerable or making mistakes. This likely reflects a push in society to have more female leaders, equal pay etc., and the studios don’t want to be criticized for being sexist by showing their female hero having any type of failure. The irony is all they’re doing is creating bland female characters, thereby failing to create new memorable heroines for girls and women to look up to.

[@MrJero85]

Are villains actually grayer? Or is it that storytellers are increasingly giving villains internal conflicts due to having a more dramatic style. I think it's fine to complain about villains having internal conflicts when it's not necessary (wasting precious time), but that doesn't make them grayer. I find it actually more annoying that main characters have completely pointless internal conflicts that are resolved in a pointless way. Most writers now will insert very cliche personal conflicts instead of just avoiding having the character question themselves. Many older stories never had these plot lines. Sherlock Holmes never really questions if he wants to be a detective because such a story is boring. The audience likes to see confident people doing stuff. Also plenty of male characters in old stories had zero flaws. Most 80s action movie heroes don't have real flaws except in the most superficial way possible. They make errors (otherwise it's boring) but they aren't really flawed. This is very similar to many 20s female action heros we're seeing today. It's not new and it's not bad. In fact giving an action hero some annoying cliche personal conflict would be boring.

[@Maximus0623]

@@MrJero85it seems a matter of semantics with what you said and I said about villains. Storytellers giving more backstory and internal conflict to the villains evokes more sympathy towards them from the audience, which in turn makes them appear grayer. You could argue they always had these internal conflicts, but if they aren’t in the story, the villains and heroes appear more black and white, when in reality they could be just as morally gray, but the audience wasn’t clued into their internal thoughts. I think the comparison of modern female heroes to 80s action heroes is a good one. There were a lot of 80s movies that had stock good/evil characters, heroes with no flaws. I also should have said modern female heroes tend to not have flaws or face difficult challenges. The latter is more frustrating. I think those 80s heroes tended to face more difficult obstacles and weren’t always immediately great/powerful. It seems like female heroes are going from amateur to master in like 5 minutes of screen time. I agree cliche and forced internal conflict is bad, and I think that happens a lot in modern movies too, especially with villains.

[@MrJero85]

@Maximus0623 You might want to give them a watch. Most of them don't have the main character slowly learn to become a badass. They start the movie competent. Bruce Willis is already a seasoned cop in Die Hard. Arnold and his team start Predator as seasoned special forces operatives. Jason Bourne is a badass assassin who doesn't even remember he's a badass. They are all already hypercompenent. And while they face challenges, the point of the action movie genre is that they can defeat their enemies. So it's debatable how "challenging" they are. I guess you could count how injuries or setbacks they have. But I suspect your complaint is actually about pacing. Usually an action movie has the hero face a series of wins and losses (or win at loss) that build up the stakes. But that's an issue with the plot, not the character. Because the characters are generally supposed to be very relatable and show a power fantasy. The setbacks are to build narrative tension to be relieved at the point of victory. I suspect the issue is that movies are having pacing issues that people are mistakenly assuming are an issue with the characters. It could also be an issue with idiot plotting where a character makes a dumb choices for the sake of providing additional tension.

[@Maximus0623]

@@MrJero85 I’ve seen Die Hard and all the Bournes. McClane is a flawed character. He’s a bad husband. He’s a bit of a jerk. He actually gets injured and isn’t overpowered. Bourne also faces hardship. He struggles to overcome amnesia. He faces internal conflict of not wanting to be a stone-cold killer anymore and living with a past that haunts him now. He also experiences a difficult death. Also, it’s a huge deal the story begins with them already as experts. Typically, if the hero starts as a novice, he doesn’t almost immediately become the most powerful person in the movie. Luke trains with Yoda and loses to Vader the first time. Rocky loses his first fight. Daniel LaRusso spends the whole movie training with Mr Miyagi. Even females didn’t become experts right away. Look at the difference between Sarah Connor in T1 vs T2. Contrast it to Rey. The first time she picks up a light saber, with no training, she out duels a Sith Lord who has been training in the force and with a light saber for decades. Hulk has been trying to master his powers for years, but when She-Hulk gets them, she is immediately does everything better than him right alway. In LoTR, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Gandalf, Boromir and the hobbits collectively barely defeat a troll, but in Rings of Power( Galadriel defeats one single-handedly without much of a problem. Those are just a few examples. There are always exceptions either way both past and present, but I think in general, female heroes today are more poorly written than they were years ago.

[@MrJero85]

@Maximus0623 So you're upset about characters having a back-story which doesn't quite fit with the rest of the movie? Sure, but that's a fairly minor grievance.

[@PinkGrapefruit22]

I just wanted to comment on the "Persuasion" adaptation as someone who did watch it and agreed that it really did suffer from attempting to conform to current trends. To me, the biggest problem with the adaptation was that they completely misunderstood the main character, Anne. In the original novel, she's someone who is very reserved and struggles to assert herself. She lets people walk all over her instead of standing up for herself and what she wants. She was too easily influenced by the opinions of others-i.e., too easily "persuaded," hence the novel's title-when she was younger and thus lost out on a chance for true happiness. The 2022 adaptation tried to make Anne into this, like, snarky, wisecracking, drinks-to-self-medicate, very modern-feeling type of woman, which just is NOT who the character is meant to be. Her personality is the foundation upon which the novel's plot and themes are built, so completely reworking that personality makes a mess of what the novel is even supposed to be about. I think the changes were made to try to create a character who appeals to contemporary audiences' ideas of what an interesting or cool woman is like. And, yeah, like you said, they were possibly trying to just turn Anne into Fleabag. It's a shame because it's not as though in current times there aren't plenty of women who are just like the original Anne, more focused on pleasing others than doing what's right for them. There's no reason a character like her couldn't resonate with modern audiences! The writers just wanted to make a movie that centered on a completely different type of personality, much to the story's detriment.

[@HeavyTopspin]

The only current trend that harms adaptations is how we will consistently see the hiring of showrunners and writers who either don't know or understand the source material they're adapting, or in some cases actively dislike some or all of the source material and desperately want to change it to match what they want it to be. And I don't just mean the whole "modern audiences" garbage; you'll see this where romances that never existed in the original are forcefully inserted into the story and even made a major part of it, as an example. And we won't even get into the worst types, where characters are wildly altered to become the writer's self-insert.

[@sophiacorvere7018]

“How can we remake this popular piece of media and put our own agenda on it”

[@Bookborn]

I mean, there are a lot of reasons shows fail. I'm looking at a specific element today, not necessarily everything that goes wrong in shows. That said, I think some show runners really do love the source material but are simply bad at writing, or pressure from higher ups - the ones with the wallets - influences their decisions.

[@sophiacorvere7018]

@@Bookborn I think the Disney ones are the ones that upset me the most because I just feel like they insult the originals so much

[@PonderingsOfPete]

Rafe Judkins, a massive WoT fan, is a point against this theory. you can be a massive nerd about something and still make a bad adaptation.

[@alb0zfinest]

@@BookbornIs it really that simple though? Why would Amazon that invested billions in Rings of Power for instance not do the minimum and hire decent writers or at least ones with experience for a ROI? Let's even say that's something they overlooked, what about for season 2? Couldn't they have changed writers? What about for the Wheel of Time? To me it seems to be happening to all major franchises, when there is a pattern there is a reason.

[@Jay-yr9oi]

With Rings of Power (and Wheel of Time), I think some aspects of current trends have definitely had an impact (in my opinion for the negative). Specifically, the trend towards mystery box storytelling, where setting up mysteries is a big part of how they create buzz around a show. In WOT, in the first book, you knew who the dragon reborn was basically by the time the concept is first introduced, whereas the show tried to make you wonder, and even implied it could've been the girls (which would undermine the main threat associated with the dragon). The same issue with ROP, with the whole "who's Sauron?" thing they tried to do. Also, with ROP and WOT, a couple other aspects of trends which I think hurt it. The first is the trend that largely became the norm after GOT, with shorter seasons of longer but fewer episodes with blockbuster movie level budgets, which shrinks how much time you have to tell your story but also forces them to stretch things out to time the big hook at the ending of a much larger stretch, as opposed to shorter chapters. The other trend, which is more relevant to ROP, is the trend to just do adaptations in general, because I think they wanted to make a LOTR adaptation as a cash grab, but didn't have the rights to the material for the story they really wanted to tell, and tried to do too much with too little, leading to a bunch of things that maybe could've made interesting separate shows of 20-30 minute episodes, but feel very scatterplot. Also, I feel like any discussion of adaptations should include Shakespeare, and comparing some of the modernized versions we got in the 90s (most notable "Romeo+Juliet," but there were others, including on stage or the Hamlet movie with Ethan Hawke), and what I've been seeing now is more a trend towards more traditional adaptations now (like the recent MacBeth), where the only "changes" may be colorblind casting, but they're otherwise straightforward tellings of the plays.

[@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t]

To be fair, the RoP actually had the rights to enough characters and plot points (via the appendices to LotR) that they could have made a very faithful 'skeleton' of story to flesh out. I think the biggest problem was that they decided to compress the story so that they could cast a bunch of people to play mortals for the full 5 season run.

[@Jay-yr9oi]

@@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t To a story, absolutely. Just not the story they seemingly wished to tell, the way they would've wanted. I also think the modern streaming trend of less consistent seasons (ROP and WOT seemingly being 1.5-2 years between seasons) changes a lot. In WOT especially, I think the slow release pace necessitates aging up characters, since if they were younger, the actors would age too much over 7-8 seasons, which is what it sounded like was the original plan. Especially if 7-8 seasons ends up being 11-16 years. Adults, even young adults, tend to physically age a bit less rapidly and obviously than teens.

[@Bookborn]

I have an entire video in the works about mystery boxes lmao nothing has made me angrier than how they set up these mysteries...it's NOT A GOOD WAY TO DO IT!!!

[@Jay-yr9oi]

@@Bookborn yeah. it works in some contexts, but not so well in an adaptation like these, where the mystery was explicitly not written in.

[@Eyoballin]

The biggest problem is that TV writers are more interested in hijacking the IP and making their own “better” version of the story than do what the fans want, merely adapt the source material and only change things when absolutely needed. Thats why it’s so frustrating, it’s done out of pure ego it feels almost spiteful

[@neondemon5137]

This is what I've been saying for years. Most of these tv writers are nepo baby hacks with mediocre talent at best.

[@matthewschwoebel8247]

Even experienced writers. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice I enjoyed for some of the performances and visuals, but the story was all over the place. Like a season of TV was crammed into a movie. Maybe it was over-edited or had too much studio input. Who knows, but the writers have plenty of experience.

[@Bookborn]

I'm not sure it's this simple. There are certainly cases where I think this IS true (I personally think WoT suffered from this), but other times I'm convinced it's execs writing by committee that's really hurting us. With these hugely high budget shows, and the number of producers listed (looking at you, RoP) I feel like nobody has a clear vision and it's just throwing stuff at the wall to capture interest. Interest is harder to capture now-a-days AND the desire to keep up with the constant stream of content, means you may not sit and storyboard as long as you should. It's really hard to define what makes good stories, ultimately. Today's video is just a look at one aspect.

[@Eyoballin]

@@Bookborn Yeah I don't think its the only problem but I stand by that I do think it is the biggest. I don't disagree with you though that having 8 different writers for a 10 episode season is undoubtedly leading to alot of problems as well. Particularly with house of the dragon I noticed alot of repetition, characters feeling quite different episode to episode, it gives it like a sitcom feel where events in the previous episodes are quickly moved on from or forgotten about.

[@Grantimusss]

⁠@@BookbornExactly. There are a ton of people involved in the production that all have to come to an agreement when handling writing/casting/etc. I’m sure some of those agreements come reluctantly because at some point you have to make the damn show!

[@JamanMosil]

I did not expect today's video to be featuring Pride and Prejudice - oh how pleasantly surprised I was! Also yes you are correct - the BBC P&P is the superior production and one I will never stop re-watching. Even hearing the theme music (as I am hearing it in my head now!) makes me smile

[@Bookborn]

when I was pulling clips from this and that theme music played I just...it makes me SO HAPPY. I had to physically stop myself from sitting down and just watching the entire thing 🤣 It's the soundtrack of my childhood!

[@eolair]

@@Bookborn I do agree with both of you on the BBC version. However, I would encourage you to check out the 1940s version with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier. As adaptions go it is not very faithful, but it is in keeping with the 1940s style of movies, so it fits the theme of this video. It always has a special place in my heart.

[@Perry_Wolf]

I think you kind of nailed it on the head about fantasy fandoms. We read these works and are so immersed and affected by them that we REALLY want to share that with those around us. But many of our friends may not really like reading. So when a producer comes along and says they're going to adapt our beloved stories, we are so excited we're going to be able to finally share it with those others we couldn't before. So when that producer interjects their own politics or views, or thinks they can tell the story better, it absolutely ruins our "share" with our friends. It's no wonder the fantasy fandom then gets angry and retaliates when these beloved IPs are tainted in this way. And we're completely robbed of being able to share our love of it with others. Worse is when these friends watch it and approach you saying, "Yeah, I don't get it, why do like _this_ story so much", only to have to argue that the story told there isn't the story it _should_ have been! So, it's a major slap in our face when these producers deviate so much from the original IP. The producers just don't understand this. They think we're mad just because they made changes, but it's so much deeper than that.

[@AllTenThousand]

Love your stuff - one difference that makes the fantasy/scifi seem more high stakes is that it involves a sense of play in the world building (see d&d and a million video games). Emma is Emma, and Becky Sharp is Becky Sharp, and we can get them right next time. But if, for example, a show comes along and calls Mordor the Southlands, when tolkeins maps accompanying the books already have a Southlands, a Near South, a Far South, and South Gondor, all south of Mordor, it feels like someone came to a football game with a tennis racket and insists on swinging it around. For casuals here to watch the halftime its just confusing; for football fans, a few seconds of confusion becomes irritation and disgust at a ruined game pretty quick...

[@mamin8army770]

Wheel of time was adapted when the grimdark trend was still prevalent over fantasy, they specifically said they wanted to make it the new GoT, and so they inserted some intimate scenes and some bloody scenes but not too much and ended up messing up both the original WoT atmosphere and GoT darkness, giving us a lukewarm adaptation

[@Bookborn]

One of the greatest things to come out of me reading ASOIAF (besides enjoyment obvi) is the fact that I can now confidently say that people who try to copy GoT don't understand why it worked in the first place lol

[@Bloomandgrow5756]

@@Bookborn true , most of my friends till this day think its the blood , the torture and the death that made got..got but thats sooo not it.

[@Bloomandgrow5756]

@@Bookborn you bring up a very interesting point here and i think people need to hear this. I agree with you a lot about "Interest is harder to capture now-a-days AND the desire to keep up with the constant stream of content, means you may not sit and storyboard as long as you should". and sorry for any grammar mistakes. I am learning to do better.

[@ThumbMerrilin]

@@Bloomandgrow5756 a key element of effective and entertaining grimdark is humour. You have to be able to find and share the humour, albeit dark humour, with the reader/audience. That's what makes ASOIAF and Abercrombie's books so entertaining - the humour (as well as little redemptive arcs here and there, little moments of decency and compassion). Without the humour, and glimmers of humanity, grimdark can just become laborious and depressing.

[@jordanford9320]

​@@Bookborn the reason they fail is because ASOIAF (early got seasons) are based on what all of George's work is based on ",the human heart in conflict with itself"

[@NDenizen]

The biggest problem is characters acting with a weird modern moral compass in a setting where that doesn't make sense. Understandably you want relatable protagonists, but it creates bizarre situations where characters benefit from some horrible system whilst espousing views that are counter to how it functions. House of the Dragon's Season 2 is probably the most absurd example of this, where royal family members in a succession war are considering the problems of "killing innocents" when it's well established they absolutely do not care about the smallfolk, and especially not a conflict where losing nigh guarantees the execution of them but also their entire family. The context of the society and the stakes of the conflict do not allow for any concern of the people they knowingly oppress. You have female characters complaining about the "hot blood" of "young men" when they themselves have recklessly endangered and in sometimes directly and knowingly murdered other people. We, the audience, remember what these characters did but the writers will become amnesiac to spin some modern political angle into a conflict with the context of a very different world and predicament. Worse, this is happening in the world of ASOIAF, the entire thesis of the first mainline book (Game of Thrones) being that the world is unfair and being honourable is not all its cracked up to be.

[@clownpendotfart]

The Northman was a wonderful exception to that trend.

[@oswinhull4203]

There is definitely a problem with making Rhaenyra and Alicent saying to everyone how moral and virtuous they are while at the same time being completely without morals or virtue. The book doesn't do this at all. You never get a sense in the book that Rhaenyra for example is reluctant to fight for the throne. In fact she is presented as sort of hot headed and strong willed.

[@PonderingsOfPete]

First: Andor. Amazing. No notes. gonna go rewatch your Andor content now because I just like thinking about Andor. On to the main thought! I think one of the things that adaptions can come up against is how they are honoring the source material, specifically the themes. Shows like Rings of Power are more obsessed with introducing new and modern themes that they forget where the material came from. They want to "introduce new things" and "show you a Middle Earth you've never seen before" and to me, this is an example of "progress for the sake of progress" hurting an adaptation. You can change things in adaptations without completely disregarding the spirit of the thing that was wrote. Some of my least favorite adaptations like the Percy Jackson movies and the Avatar the Last Airbender movie did this. Another point people will make is that you need a fan of the source material in order to make a good adaptation. Andor and the WoT show both contradict this. Tony Gilroy was not a Star Wars fan before creating Andor, but he did a phenomenal job honoring and shaping the source material into something new and beautiful that added to the story of Star Wars. Rafe Judkins was a die hard WoT fan, and yet the adaption is widely panned for being a terrible adaptation. Workers on the set and the directors/writers/actors being fans can be a good thing, but it is not a necessary thing. the only necessary thing is a commitment to telling a good and well made story.

[@Bookborn]

I agree so much on your last point and I don’t think it’s talked about enough. I always say they don’t need to be a fan, they just need to at least respect the source material (aka I think it would be hard for someone to make a good adaptation if they outright disliked the property). I think being a fan is over stated. In fact, supposedly, the RoP creators were GIANT Tolkien fans. I believe them - but that doesn’t make them good at interpreting stories or writing them!

[@PonderingsOfPete]

@@Bookborn oooh another data point, thank you. Yeah I see it everywhere. There’s so many things that can go into making a good adaptation that reducing it down to that one specific thing is unreasonable.

[@ThumbMerrilin]

@@Bookborn I think that's a great way to state it, 'respect for the source material' (and being very self aware about what makes the source compelling to others, not just oneself) is more important than personally being a fan. I think the problem with some fans who become writers/showrunners (looking at Rafe Judkins right now) is that they can be blinded to the importance of all the characters, themes and story beats, even the ones they don't personally understand or like. Instead, they just want the show to be about the individual parts of the original they like (Aes Sedai/White Tower politics in Rafe's case). Taken to an extreme, it can lead to the writer unbalancing the narrative with their own ideas, themes, wish fulfilment and self insert/Mary Sue (Egwene in Rafe's case). A more distant showrunner, one who did not have 'favourite characters and scenes' that they prioritised above all else, might well bring a more objective, balanced, and professional perspective to the project. That doesn't mean I don't think a fan can't do the story justice. But they need the self awareness and emotional intelligence to realise their own biases and preferences, and ensure those don't end up colouring the entire project (and thus alienating all the fans and audience members who don't share their personal preferences).

[@Bookborn]

@@ThumbMerrilin YES, I've talked about this with friends, sometimes a fan has a hard time seeing clearly because they will over focus on THEIR personal favorite parts, not always realizing that the entire narrative is still needed to MAKE those parts good. We've seen this across many media - a lot of people credit Hermione and Ron being ruined slightly in the HP movies because the director said Hermione was his favorite character...and there's other instances too, although that's the most famous imo.

[@Belkerlos]

Emma Thompson's Sense & Sensibility is my personal favorite Jane Austen adaptation

[@Bookborn]

Tis a great one 🥹 We were really eating in the nineties with those adaptations

[@JamanMosil]

I love that one!!! It is simply fantastic and one of my favourite movies, full stop. Cast, writing, acting, production...all simply wonderful.

[@berlineczka]

This is a very interesting topic and a great video. As I watched, I started to think about the movie adaptations of the classics. Sure, there are some that get a new version every other decade. And then there are some that only get one that - even if not perfect - becomes so iconic that nobody is touching the IP at all. "Gone with the winds" comes to mind immediately. This is not a perfect adaptation, is very much a product of late 1930s, many things are glossed over there or cut completely (especially the racial relations) - and yet nobody is even considering making a new version. On the other extreme there are some classics that get several adaptations but none seems to be loved/appreciated/considered classic. "Wuthering Heights" is an example.

[@denglongfist4270]

I think you raise a great question in terms of adaptations and the times in which stories are adapted. The 1997 Persuasion is one of my favorite adaptations to a story I really enjoy. Then look at the recent Netflix series, filled with modern speak, office confessionals, 2020s themes and in which the main characters do not resemble any of the adaptations, let alone the book for which it is based. I always thought it was laziness and lack of talent from the writers, but not quite sure anymore

[@trajanthegreat2928]

To me it always goes back to the Peter Jackson quote: "we didn't want to put any of our own messages into the movie, we thought we should honour Tolkien by putting his messages into it". This is much more in line with something like the Pride and Prejudice adaptations than the current Rings of Power or other recent fantasy adaptations.

[@anni.68]

I wonder, have you ever read the books? The movies are great, but Rings of Power stays closer to Tolkien's themes and the philosophical and ethical questions of the books than the movies.

[@FrancT-]

How? ROP has such poor writing that the themes can't even be recognized. The LOTR movies were action packed but the core themes of Tolkien are in there. This is coming from someone who has read the books. ​@@anni.68

[@GRB-tj6uj]

​@@anni.68no it doesn't.

[@anni.68]

@@GRB-tj6uj Well, your comment only proves that you have not read the books.

[@xanderpoortvliet7976]

@@anni.68 Sorry but writers of RoP wanted the middle earth to look like the world how it looks like today how is that closer to Tolkien themes who wanted to give England a myth

[@nont18411]

Would love to know your opinions on George RR Martin vs HoTD

[@CharlesBHamlyn]

I know you're not asking me, but I imagine a lot of authors feel this way when their stories are changed. The 3rd Harry Potter movie will ALWAYS be my least favorite because of how much plot they cut out (mostly regarding the Marauders). To me, they lost the main thread of what tied the events of the prior generation (Harry's parents), to the current one, and every movie after was shallower for it. GRRM made some great points about how cutting characters can make sense for the budget, but the story will almost always suffer because you lose some of that interconnectedness. There are exceptions on both sides of course. In the WoT books, you could cut like 60% of the named characters, combine others and end up pretty close to where you started. GRRM and Sanderson though are really apt at relationships and character arcs, so cutting piece out can cause ripples that will lessen the impact of the story later on. GRRM also griped a bit at some of the changes during the first season of GoT. In particular Drogo kills some other Khal, but that Khal is still alive and affecting the plot as of Book 5. I personally doubt it's that big of a deal but it's the sort of author he is. He's too close to the material so everything matters, including the number of legs of the dragon on the banners. I understand his point of view on that, but it's funny. He can't stand the extra legs because dragons in his world don't have 4 legs... but the heads... there's 3 heads and he's fine with that because it's symbolic.

[@Bookborn]

Because I don't watch the show I feel like I can't fully respond...however I'm with you george I get you ☠

[@nont18411]

@@CharlesBHamlyn Cutting Tysha, Lady Stoneheart, JonCon, Faegon, Victarion, Aeron, Euron, Arianne and Quentyn from the show was a huge mistake

[@gabbylikestoread]

great topic! Speaking of period dramas specifically, I feel like newer films and TV series that are heavy handed with modern themes tend to put viewers off. I know it does for me.

[@rebeccaroy3751]

As a massive fan of fantasy, Jane Austen, and Louisa May Alcott, this video was a blast to watch. :)

[@thedpshow]

I've been waiting to hear where you were going with this question!

[@Bookborn]

Not sure I went anywhere with it but I enjoyed the journey 🤣

[@BrianBell7]

love how much thought you put into making your videos. it's so much more coherent than stream of consciousness-type of analysis.

[@JoelAdamson]

What these adaptations, especially the spinoff/fan-fiction types like ROP, show is that Hollywood is decades behind the literary world.

[@Bookborn]

It makes sense: these things move more slowly AND I do feel hollywood likes to really beat something until it's dead ☠

[@tabbycat2497]

You do such a great job of articulating precise distinctions! Thanks for another thought-provoking video.

[@crowonthepowerlines]

Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide series is a great example of thoughtful adaptation that respects the source material while adding to it (except the movie). I love the radio play and the miniseries almost as much as the novels.

[@berlineczka]

The Expanse is another example.

[@clownpendotfart]

Wasn't Douglas Adams writing both the radio & book series?

[@mercilessidioms]

@@clownpendotfart And the BBC TV series. The radio show was first, in 1978, followed by the novel in 1979, and the BBC show in 1981. One can see his original ideas evolving over the course of the three. So it's less of a chain of adaptations there than an exploration by the writer and other artists.

[@dovegrey275]

I would love to see a video from you about books that have aged great. I loved what you mentioned about Octavia Butler and Terry Prachett at the end.

[@jcwoodman5285]

I think a HUGE problem over say the last 10 years or so have been the 2 writers strikes in that period. It really harms the continuity of vision for the project when dozens of writers plus show runners start making 'adjustments'...

[@Bookborn]

oooh this is an interesting element to inject into questions of newer adaptations. How did the writer's strike affect stories?

[@nattphilia]

This is a corporate executive in disguise

[@jcwoodman5285]

@@nattphilia 😂 I support the union

[@nattphilia]

@@jcwoodman5285 but it’s also a HUGE problem? Hmmmmmm

[@jcwoodman5285]

@@nattphilia well it's certainly disruptive to production but I'd put forward if you pay your writing talent in some reasonable ratio to what you're paying the talent mouthing those writings MAYBE you can avoid said production schedule mayhem AND deliver a better product😕

[@Wouter_K]

Hi, what an awesome video. I love how you can formulate your thoughts so concise that from the introduction you already pose very clear and challenging thoughts and questions. I'd like to share some observations regarding the difference between adaptations of classics and fantasy. First, I feel that from the examples you give many adaptations of classics are explicitly inspired by or based on X rather than carrying the name of the original work, while the trend in fantasy adaptations is to name the adaptation exactly like the series. It would stand to reason in my opinion that deviating from the source material garners more backlash. Second, I feel that many of the classics you took for this analysis are romantic stories. In my perception, in both the public response to such movies as well as the reviews of romantic books (inside and outside the fantasy genre), the people who enjoy media for the romance are generally more forgiving towards plot holes, deviations or for that matter rehashing something in a slightly different way (as long as there is an interesting romance dynamic to discuss and enjoy). While I find those who are fans of the more nerdy stuff are much more picky about inconsistencies and deviations in plot, themes even dialogue. So I'd hypothesize that consumers of the different genres also have different reasons for liking them. (which leads me to the hypothesis that adaptations of the more literary and thematic classics have been under similar scrutiny as fantasy adaptations over the years.

[@noone-ld7pt]

Really liked your take on the Andor vs RoP comparison; I absolutely loved how Andor explored the established Star Wars universe through a completely new lense. And it didn't feel like a rewrite at all to me but more of a new perspective on what that kind of world might look like for someone who doesn't have force powers, lightsabers or indestructible armor. A bunch of droids or clones might look like silly target practice to a Jedi, but for a guy like Andor they are walking death, and so the darker tone makes complete sense imo. When it comes to the WoT adaptation I feel like it was leaning heavily in the RoP direction (at least the first season); Perrin having wife that just defined the fridging trope, Lan who's known for his emotionless demeanor just goes and has a big old cry, the completely out of the blue Egwene love triangle, and not to mention them making up new characters in a series that literally has 2787 named characters to work with... It all just felt like the story was being completely rewritten and not adapted. Like you said; the WoT fandom knew there was going to be necessary changes and most were actually surprisingly fine with the idea of that, the problem was when those changes were so fundamental that it didn't feel like I was watching the same characters and story anymore. I'd like to bring up another example of this; the Witcher Netflix adaptation. With how morally grey and dark that universe is, combined with an A-list actor that understood and even loved the source material, it had so much going for it. But suddenly Yennefer is gonna sell Ciri to a demon to get magic back, Vesemir is trying to forcefully turn her into a witcher, and Eskel is just a completely different person. And even through all this I still found myself enjoying the scenes where it just felt right, the banter with Jaskier, the lessons with Ciri. Is it so much to ask that they just keep the: 1. Core characters 2. Their relationships to one another 3. Key storybeats consistent with the source material? And if they can't, then do it like Andor and follow different characters and tell a new story in that world. (Sorry got a bit long, but we fantasy readers aren't afraid of a few extra paragraphs are we?)

[@Bookborn]

Yes, what a perfect way to say it - it was using an established world through a new lens, the key being NEW, and not rewriting established characters. I haven't seen the Withcher, but it seems all the complaints are similar to what you said - they changed the core aspects of the characters. There are plenty of adaptations that have scenes that aren't from the book that I just LOVE because they stay true to a character - I think more than individual scenes, staying true to characters and themes are whats more important. As a concrete example: even though I have complicated feelings towards the HP movies (I was too big of a fan, nothing would've pleased me, this is a me-problem), there's a scene I LOVE in the fifth movie. When they are fighting at the end in the Department of Mysteries, Sirius yells out "Good one James!" to harry. It's SUCH a good scene that is SO indicitive of a lot of Sirius's character, that I actually FORGET it's not in the book, and every time I reread, I'm waiting for it. I WISH it was in the book! Sanderson once said on a livestream a long time ago that he wrote two scripts for MIstborn: one that was as faithful to the book as possible scene-for-scene, and one that didn't have a SINGLE scene that was in the book. iirc, he said it was an exercise to see what the right balance was. And I think that's so interesting - there is probably a world where you could have almost no recreations of scenes from books, but if you keep the core themes and characters, it works better...

[@bruncla2303]

i think the witcher example is even more baffling bcs it has so many modern themes lurking in the background u dont have to change anything to make it resonate with modern audience. There are powerful women that fought for their power to carve their space despite men oppresion ( strong feminist theme), u have interracial conflict that is nuanced, u see class struggle etc. And they screwed that up bcs the book center male protagonist ( at the begining) and women dont have as much screen time and it looks like the showrunner just plainly lied that they love and respect the source material. i think key for the showrunner is not necesarilly being fan of the material but they need to understand the themes of the material whoch in case of witcher and WOT they dont. in case of ROP i think they are just bad writers

[@noone-ld7pt]

@@Bookborn Having complicated feelings towards the HP adaptations is definitely not just a you problem, I don't think anything could've quite lived up to my expectations either! But my god did you hit the nail on the head with the Sirius scene! It's such a perfect and truthful depiction of the characters and relationship that I hadn't even realised it's not actually in the book! And that's an incredibly interesting approach from Sanderson, thanks for sharing! That gives me even more hope that an eventual mistborn adaptation might actually live up to the books. It shows that he's really thought deeply about and understands the crux of adaptation! Oh how I hope we get to hang out with Vin and Kelsier again in a new medium! Thanks so much for the response btw. Absolutely love interacting with other fantasy nerds!

[@noone-ld7pt]

@@bruncla2303 I agree! The Witcher had everything going for it and it's absolutely baffling how the showrunner was allowed to screw the characters and core story up beyond recognition. When it comes to the WoT adaptation I feel like season 2 took a significant step in the right direction and even improved on some aspects, the depiction of the Forsaken stood out to me in particular. But the first season was so riddled with unforgivable decisions that I, as a superfan, even struggled getting excited for the second one.

[@bruncla2303]

@@noone-ld7pt maybe i give it a try bcs i saw only s02e01 and didnt see much improvement from first season so i didnt finish it

[@aliciasorenson3807]

To be fair, you didn't clarify in your question that you didn't want to talk about hair and fashion😜 I really love Bernadette Banner's channel about historical fashion. It's so enjoyable as well as educational. I particularly have enjoyed her videos where her and other historical clothing experts dissect the fashion of every "historical" sometimes slash fantasy (that's supposed to have a historical base) shows and movies, explaining what the costume designers did right and wrong. Super interesting to me!

[@berlineczka]

There is also Abby Cox and Karolina Żebrowska. With Bernadette they are the holy trinity of fashion history on KZbin.

[@Bookborn]

I'm obsessed with Karolina Zebrowska!

[@aliciasorenson3807]

@Bookborn I'll check out her if you check out Bernadette. Jk, it doesn't matter, but you'd probably like her! Pretty positive she's a type 4, too!

[@zionssuburb]

This is a great topic and you cover it well as always. It reminds me of several thoughts about the Wheel of Time - I noticed that WOT is stuck in what I lablel 'Trauma Porn' - everything has to be about the trauma that explains characters. 10 years ago, 20 years ago it wouldn't even be a on the table as being important to the storyline...

[@aussiization]

Loved this video! Great discussion on adaptations :)

[@nachofilament294]

Wheel of Time in the 90s probably would have ended up like a Hercules/Xena-type show. I remember Sword of Truth having a TV adaptation that was Hercules/Xena style (may have even been by the same people/studio), but by the time that came out that whole style of TV show was very passé.

[@LarthV]

Who, by the way, can absolutely serve as _very_ bad adaptions, Hercules in particular. I mean, seriously, is there really anything remotely similar between the series and the myths, besides the names and the strength aspect? It still serves as my personal rock bottom of adaptions...

[@robertneal4244]

I have a multi-layered reason for my fantasy passions. It is my favorite genre and I read and re-read on a regular basis. I try to study sources beyond the initial books when available. I am a historian and enjoy the historical influences on the material. I am a role-player and many of my characters and NPCs are related to or inspired by characters in these novels. Lastly, I love the lessons many of the books try to teach and have attempted to live my life in a better manner because of them. Also, since you mentioned him near the end of your video, Sir Terry Pratchett is my favorite author...period.

[@h4xx0rren3]

I just wrote a novel myself and published via Amazon that tries to look at modern ideas and changes in storytelling. Its a dystopia, not fantasy (although I intend on writing fantasy), but it looks at what a dystopia might look like with nowadays ideas. Anyway, was just reminded by the comments about changing times and how, while it is current right now, it might not in only a decade or so. Great video btw, really good points!

[@eazymethod01]

Trends change and that in itself means they can be “false.” Things that are timeless remain fresh. There are timeless principles in LOTR. Much modern art lacks timelessness.

[@MrJero85]

​@eazymethod01 The Lord of the Rings is not timeless. It's clear when it was written, and if anything is something of a throwback to books Tolkien read growing up. Besides, most good books aren't timeless. Pride and Prejudice isn't timeless, the whole plot only makes sense in a very particular time and place. In fact that's what makes it interesting to read. You get to look into another world radically unlike our own.

[@eazymethod01]

@@MrJero85 There are things that are timeless because of their principles or values. The things that change are by definition, not true. Most trends are exactly that, trends, they are intended to make an additional buck or stir the pot but then fade away. That's why there is a strong core of quality in any genre, and then a 50-80% that's mediocre and doesn't age well. And trust me, there isn't some sort of societal "progress" that's happening, sometimes bad ideas catch on, stick and build, but they will eventually collapse because their foundation is wrong or the seed of its collapse is in the idea itself. A scifi novel might be dated because of the technology or assumptions about technology in it, but that's not the element in a work that gives it a timeless quality. I'm hinting at higher/universal ideas.

[@MrJero85]

​@@eazymethod01 "Timeless classic" is just a marketing term.

[@ianfrazier9896]

Love this video! The final note on Andor is interesting. I’d say it’s your only example that simply ISN’T an adaptation. It’s an entirely new story set in that same universe (with, as you said, a very small amount of character overlap). So we don’t project “adaptation expectations” onto it as an audience, and accept that it comes to the table with very different themes because it’s fundamentally a new story, not an adaptation of the Skywalker saga. Whereas Rings of Power is presented as an adaptation….but it doesn’t have the rights to the source material, so it ends up being some weird hybrid of Andor-style “new story with new characters in the same world” and actual adaptation of bits of the Silmarillion…and unfortunately failing at both imo.

[@GRB-tj6uj]

And Star Wars has always been a franchise without a singular tone. It contains both children's cartoons and Anakin slaughtering the younglings. That makes it easier to fit in a show that has a different approach. Because it is kinda weird that Star War Rebels and Andor technically exist in the same universe.

[@Mightyjordy]

Wait, Clueless is an adaptation???

[@Bookborn]

I mean...very loosely lol! But yes, it's based on Emma! Sort of how 10 Things I Hate About You is a shakespeare "adaptation".

[@Mightyjordy]

@@Bookborn 10 things I hate about you is a Shakespeare adaptation????

[@Zando91]

@@Mightyjordyyes, it’s a loose adaptation of the Taming of the Shrew. Julia Stiles was also in another adaptation of Shakespeare. Her movie O is based on Othello.

[@berlineczka]

It was a whole phase in the cinema. It started with Romeo+Juliet with DiCaprio and Danes in the main roles. Then we had some 20+ movies that were modern retellings of classic novels or plays. Lots of modernised Shakespeare but not limited to that.

[@Bookborn]

@@berlineczka It was def a trend for a while in the 90s and early 00s. Although, Dicaprio and Danes was kind of interesting because it was definitly more clearly Romeo and Juliet, while the ones that came after were much further removed.

[@misternegative4918]

A big issue I have with these adaptations is that I just don’t care about an adaptation that’s set in the same world, but is a story made up for the show. I also don’t care or want a remake of of adaptations that were already great, making a new Harry Potter adaptation is ridiculous to me. The Percy Jackson one makes sense because the first one was bad, but now this new one isn’t that good either. I’d much rather see them adapting different fantasy or sci-fi books. I hate that they don’t take risks and just want to rehash what has already worked. There’s too many great fantasy books to just adapt the same 5 over and over again.

[@enlighten92]

House of the Dragon is based on a particular section of GRRM's Fire and Blood, a bloody and brutal civil war between the rival branches of House Targaryan. The show, especially Season 2, completely changed the characters from the book and removed all interesting medieval characteristics and replaced them with modern sensibilities. It was heartbreaking as a book fan. The show also whitewashed the women considerably. They literally cannot do any evil or have any selfish thoughts and desires. I know you're a fan of Cersei; GOT did a fantastic job of bringing Cersei to screen. HoTD could never portray a character like Cersei. She would have been significantly morphed into someone else.

[@eazymethod01]

Season 2 House was such a disappointment.

[@alwayschooseorange]

Love this. I spend a lot of time ruminating on adaptations as well. An adaptation I think about often is Miyazaki's version of Howl's Moving Castle because he took the tiny sliver of the book that hinted at a war (it was mentioned once or twice in passing if I'm remembering correctly) and honed in on it to make his larger commentary on warfare/pacifism. He took that film in a different direction than the book but didn't ignore the themes Diana Wynne Jones focused on. IMO he did a masterful job and finding that balance between honoring the source material and examining it from a different angle to create something new out of it.

[@gib6099]

Loved this discussion in your video and the comments. I'd argue that the form affects the adaptation is much as the decade. For instance, TV with character arcs over a season and over a series can tackle nuances better than movies with ~120 minutes. For Rings of Power (which I may be alone in loving), Galadriel being a bad-ass warrior who makes mistakes and gets fooled by Sauron is an interesting arc over however many seasons they eke out. In the movies, she gets so little screen time, it required a Kate Blanchette to bring a lot to the character that wasn’t written in the script (or the book). Tolkien didn’t write many women in Middle Earth, and none as leads. Also, the movies devoted a lot of time to large-scale battles, and when you have a lot of choreography, you have less time for character. I'd also argue that the LOTR as a franchise was more Manachean (stark good/evil with little gray), whereas Tolkien was more Augustinian (redemption possible as well as temptation). Although TV shows get canceled way too quickly, they have more of an opportunity IMHO if they have the budget. Missing from your comparison were: Percy Jackson (aged up for movies, just right for TV), His Dark Materials/Golden Compass (brilliant television and dodgy movie with its moments). Even within the comicsverse, TV offers more nuance, such as Wanda Vision, and Loki vs. the MCU Avengers films. Your point about Andor is great-and yet Obi-Wan was decently received, the Acolyte (all new characters, new timeline) was not, and the Mandalorian (all new characters placed into the timeline easy to follow) is one of the biggest TV hits of recent years. Bobafet tanked, but I think for a lot of reasons that aren't strictly adaptation. Thanks for another insightful, thought-provoking video!

[@DB-zp9un]

Always fun when I catch a brand new video!

[@chucklitka2503]

One factor that I am certain you have mentioned in the past, is that the movies and TV shows aim for a larger market than fans of the source material, and feel it necessary to appeal to the tastes and concerns of that wider market.

[@Bookborn]

Yes, and this definitely complicates it for SURE. Sometimes I think we over simplify and treat our audience too dumbly. At other times, I understand how medium changes and general population require some changes.

[@pjalexander_author]

Very true, and that also has the perverse effect of making audiences dumber. If only we could try to elevate our culture... nah :P

[@khanvolution9272]

You've made some excellent points about the longevity of genre adaptations which I don't think is talked about enough. You're absolutely right in thinking that fantasy adaptations have a more singular life span than other genres, which is why us fantasy fans feel so betrayed when one of them is done so poorly. In regard to shows like Wheel of Time, Rings of Power, and Star Wars; studios will do anything that gives them more money, they are all driven for that one purpose so I think they truly believe that the themes and modern concepts they insert will attract a greater audience, and so they hire writers and directors to fit that model. It's a clear depiction of how disconnected they are from the respective source materials fan bases. I think based on the reception that they are seeing now will shift them hopefully towards making more accurate adaptations, but unfortunately for us, it had to come at the cost of making poor adaptations of some of these classics. Great video once again, loved it! :)

[@oudviola]

Great discussion. You didn't mention it but zombies are certainly a modern theme that would not be expected in Austen or Tolstoy's time (don't forget Android Karenina!)

[@ascorvinus]

Another interesting comparison would be Star Trek TNG to Star Trek Picard. Both very much of their time, both very much demonstrating the importance of quality writing. TNG has good episodes and bad, but the difference in quality between the first two seasons of Picard and the third is one of the starkest I’ve ever seen.

[@ProgressingImperfectly]

This is a really important angle to consider when examining adaptations. I never considered it before, but everything you said resonates. There are certainly other issues with the new Star Wars trilogy (like how the lack of an overarching plan for the three movies), but much of the outrage is rooted in fundamental shifts in beloved characters. Making Luke or Leia morally grey fundamentally changes who they are as characters. Andor was excellent, but it was a new story with new characters.

[@MoRPho151]

Your analysis is very interesting because it points out a thing that is: nowadays our thinking shapes the way adaptations are done, and some of those adaptations fit better those beliefs. Dune is an excellent example. People overall like it, and the current time is best than the 70’s to portray fanaticism and the subversion of the chosen savior. Adaptations that suffer more of being substantially changed are the classicals, because they come from another time and society. Also, for me other thing that affects is corporate entertainment. They constantly put writers that do the bare minimum.

[@t3tsuyaguy1]

I think a more nuanced portrayal of Sauron can work, just as showing Galadriels more firey and angry youth could work. I think the problem with ROP is execution and marketing.

[@giants8585]

I started watching the Lord of the Rings for the first time last night! With all the talk about Rings of Power I decided to finally watch it cuz it’s free on Amazon prime. I got into fantasy very late compared to most fans of the genre. I read the books a little over a year but now I’m finally giving the movies a chance. Even though they are 23 years old the movie is still great for newcomers!

[@Alejojojo6]

And how where they??

[@giants8585]

@@Alejojojo6 I still have an hour left. Watching the extended cut. I am surprised at how much I’m enjoying it. As for the books The Fellowship of the Ring was a 5 star read. Pretty sure I rated the rest of the books 4 stars. Thats not a knock on them, I really liked the series. The Hobbit also. Because I read them in my mid 30s, I don’t have the same rose colored view of them as many others . And I had read about 10 other fantasy series prior to reading those. Still really liked the series and the more and more I read I see Tolkien’s fingerprints all over modern fantasy, so I appreciate it also.

[@AlexCrean]

Another trend I’ve noticed in modern cinema that is different from the one I discussed in my other comment is the impulse to make everything in cinema these days meta and insincere and kind of winking at the audience while making fun of itself.. this works a lot better with something like Deadpool or even other Marvel comics properties than it does with something like LotR or Star Wars which takes itself much more seriously. I’m interested to see how Marvel handles this on a property like X-Men, which they have coming down the pike and which IMO does a lot better when it resists the urge to make fun of itself and make meta jokes to the audience. That IP is really powerful when done right but that involves taking itself seriously (as evidenced by how favorably received the X-Men ‘97 release was received by the fandom this year) I think this insincerity also exists on the writing-team/production-team levels of a lot of the productions that are (or should be) intended to be taking themselves seriously.. like how Henry Cavil left Netflix’s The Witcher series because the production team didn’t have a respect for the IP for example, or Disney Star Wars’ continual mocking use of the phrase “space wizards with laser swords” LotR is a VERY sincere IP and it felt like a lot of the sentiments of people involved in making it had the vibe of like “this is a story about elves, but you can’t believe they have different skin color.. go touch some grass NERD!!” A LOT of the sci-fi and Fantasy IP getting produced in Hollywood feels like it’s made by people who themselves don’t love the source material or the kind of people they envision while generalizing who they imagine is a part of the fan base and the quality of the output in the past 10 years feels like it reflects that vibe. It has felt like Hollywood is continually mocking people who like the things I like, which has been a rough road as a fan of this kind of material.

[@Peregrin3]

I think it is a bit more complicated with the grey aspect of things. Like in Lord of the Rings things can get really dark, especially in books like the Children of Hurin which could give the Game of Thrones a run for it's money. I think there is a lot more grey in the Lord of the Rings then people think, just look at Denathor (the book version). The real difference between Lord of the Rings and something like Game of Thrones is that in LotR there is grey but there is also clear Black and White also, while in GoT there is no Black and White at all, only an unending morass of grey, which can come off as Nihilistic.

[@tomigun5180]

Grey is just another word for evil.

[@Peregrin3]

@@tomigun5180 Not necessarily, grey means it's morally complex or uncertain. For example Fighting in a war to prevent evil, Is it a good or evil thing to kill to save innocents or is it good or evil to do nothing? Morally grey means there is a question on the morality of an action. The problem is when stories portray everything as morally grey. Some things are clearly black or white. For example there is absolutely no situation where abusing a Child sexually is anything but evil, there is nothing grey about it at all.

[@tomigun5180]

@@Peregrin3 Fighting evil, even in war, is obviously good, not grey. LotR is a good example for that. Or the Hungarians' freedom fights against the Austrian House of Habsburg. Doing nothing is sometimes evil, because it causes more suffering. To understand this, you need to know first, what moral is, how and why it came to be, what's the purpose of it, and what it says in the given situation.

[@Peregrin3]

@@tomigun5180 Sometimes what is or isn't evil isn't that straight forwards. People are complicated and in a war for example both sides might have very good reasons. I used to be a lot more black or white about everything but with time I've gained a more cautious approach. If you break down everything to their most basic form then yes every morale dilemma likely has a right or wrong answer but they might not be obvious. For me morally grey just means the answer isn't obvious not that it doesn't exist. Which is one reason I didn't like Games of Thrones much because in it morally grey means there is no black and white at all which makes it incredibly nihilistic.

[@tomigun5180]

@@Peregrin3 ok, I can accept this explanation.

[@Mikelo220]

Great video, and as usual you are so well spoken

[@mrsdorough81]

Love this video and your nuanced views! 💚

[@primeus70]

Can i ask what microphone you use? And do you process it yourself?

[@Garaphon]

I grew up on the animated LotR movies by Rankin and Bass ❤

[@allenbird]

I like to think one of the beginnings of fantasy was Beowulf. Not as epic as lord of the rings, but at least an indication that fantasy has been in the populace mindset throughout history, if not always expressed due to many cultural factors. Especially when the idea of magic and fantastical creatures and stories were viewed as evil without consideration. In saying this, Cultural aspects definitely have always affected the original writing of even The Lord of the Rings, so adaptations, as a form of interpretation, take those elements and translate them in a different way.

[@Bookborn]

In my history of fantasy video I talk specifically how beowulf is the start of western fantasy lol but the genre was not defined at that point.

[@allenbird]

@Bookborn ill be watching that next. Thanks!

[@MrJero85]

When was magic ever considered to be always evil?

[@allenbird]

@@MrJero85 witch trials

[@MrJero85]

@@allenbird The witch trials are too big a topic for a KZbin comment, but early modern Europe wasn't really anti-magic. The popular narratives about the period aren't accurate. Witchcraft was considered "bad magic" but there was plenty of "good magic" around at the same time. I mean every single noble court had an alchemist/astrologer. And plenty of miracles weren't considered bad. Quite the opposite. The topic is very complicated and most of the popular conceptions aren't in line with what was actually happening at the time.

[@Evil_Peter]

This was an interesting video and it's almost odd to think how one adaptation can do something different and it works, and another does it and it just feels like they are disrespectful and ruining the point. It doesn't even seem like it holds up to look for whether the creators respect the material as even there it's inconsistent with the results. I liked when you said that Andor was the best since the original... six movies, as I laughed and said "so close" as I think it's way better than the prequels (as is Rogue One, although I originally went into that one being very negatively predisposed). The prequel and sequel trilogies in Star Wars are also interesting facettes of building on existing work. The prequels try to enhance the original trilogy but I think the execution is relatively poor and not even Lucas fully respected what he did before as he created plenty of inconsistencies. Still I can appreciate them for being Star Wars and for the story they are trying to tell, contrary to the sequel trilogy which I think is more competently made but at its core just feels like it's there to destroy what came before. The triumph of the rebels, Luke's victory over the dark side (both internal and external), Anakin's sacrifice, etc, all turned out to be pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme.

[@angelikapotree2741]

Witcher fan here, books were big part of my teens years so when I heard they were adapted I was so happy. Casting was almost perfect, not totally on board with Anya but I got Henry as lead so I was all in. Anyone who watched the show or just read news headlines know what shitshow it turned out to be. All while witcher had all fashionable tropes as girl who was a key of everything, a powerful female witches etc. AND THEY STILL SCREWED IT UP DUE TO EGO I will not mention all other canalized IP... special mention to The Watch based on Pratchett this was just a very low blow but at this time i am against all adaptation of things i like...

[@tibs7777]

In the early parts of this video I definitely thought Romeo & Juliet with Leo would get a mention. I don’t have any thoughts as I haven’t seen it or read Shakespeare, but it seemed a strong example of the theme from what I know.

[@ShayGamerD3]

I agree with your takes: yeah, current times were always affecting adaptations, and yes, it doesn't make them inherently bad. What makes a movie or a show bad, is bad writing, mostly, all other problems we can usually forgive (so cheap-looking costumes in Rings of Power, resulting most likely from 3D printing, similarly in Wheel of Time, I could overlook, if writing was better). Political messaging can be done right or bad as well (e.g., I don't think Villeneuve's Dune goes far enough, and repeats many problems of the original, still, it's perhaps done better than political messaging in Rings of Power). As for the first part of your video, the interesting curiosity is recent Korean adaptation of the "Little Women", a K-Drama from 2022. It's a modernized and loosely based on the original, however, it shows how different cultures, specifically Korean (or East Asian in general), deal with exactly the same problems. The series garnered a critical acclaim, and it is generally considered as very good. It is available on Netflix, if you're interested.

[@joshuabarry6083]

Its interesting that most people you talked to liked the Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice; almost everyone I know despises it when contrasted with the BBC version. Admittedly I am an Australian English Major, but still.

[@pjalexander_author]

Awesome deep dive. Love it 😍

[@diepie5144]

A lot of the strong, negative, responses to fantasy adaptations (compared to other genres) is that in fantasy, part of the point of reading/writing (watching/producing) is the worldbuilding. How people interact with the magic, culture, geography, etc., is often the most interesting part about many of these stories. That's why uproar around fantasy adaptations tends to be more focused on aesthetics or worldbuilding details. These are often the first things revealed when marketing these movies, and I would guess that sitting through an entire movie/series before making a judgement, tends to mellow them out. I also wanted to add a bit about Frank Herbert, the author of Dune. His inspiration for Dune comes from journalistic work he had done on the ecology of deserts, combined with Lawrence of Arabia and the early Muslim conquests. Except that he was an anarchist (I've heard him described as a libertarian, but I feel that's more anachronistic than true. I don't think he trusted the free market much, either), and viewed both Lawrence of Arabia and the early Muslim conquests as tragedies. He wrote about the evil of trusting "a hero", who creates institutions that outlast their death, and that these institutions inevitably cause more harm than good once the "hero" is gone. It's a unique perspective, especially considering how "chosen one" narratives wouldn't peak in popularity until long after his death, which makes it feel even more timeless. As "chosen one" narratives and knowledge of Islam and Arab culture become have become more commonplace, I totally agree that the trends of today are pushing Dune upward.

[@michaelbodell7740]

I think it is only partially the show runners/producers that are modernized, but also partially the audience itself that is modernized. A work of art is always a conversation between the artist and the audience and the expectations and experiences and understanding that the audience brings to something will influence the themes of the piece even to the point that the author may not have felt that themselves. Some examples that got a multiple adaptations include Golden Compass, Percy Jackson, Frankenstein, etc. A lot of shows that are being remade also have that like an obvious sci-fi example would be Battlestar Galactica that was certainly influenced (positively) by its time. You can also have adaptations that intentionally subvert the source material well, like Starship Troopers. You can also have book adaptations to consider as a number of books rework classic fairy tales or actual history or what not as another example of current times or views influencing the original source material.

[@NevsBookChannel]

Re Star Wars, although the original trilogy was very black and white, we also have the prequels and the clone wars cartoons which had heavy involvement from George Lucas, so Andor isn’t too much of a stretch from any of that

[@ravenwilder4099]

Thing with Jane Austen adaptations is, the original books are public domain. ANYONE can make an adaptation of them, so if someone makes a bad adaptation, it does nothing to prevent someone else from making their own.

[@elliotjmorales]

You hit the nail on the head

[@joseramos-kv4pk]

An old example it was the 1973 three musketeers that at the time had a huge cast, modern spin and it was a sucess, but in the 80s people already preferred to watch the 1948 again.

[@jeanbutinfrench]

I will say, current sensibilities do affect adaptations in a negative way (although not always). i was compelled by GRRM’s deleted blog about house of the dragon, he pointed a small change in the season premiere that removes motivation and consequences (what makes his writing great) and how it weakens the story, but the irony is that the show made way more egregious changes afterwards mostly dealing with not giving negative traits to females characters and making the protagonists true enemies, which was the whole thesis of his book, two ambitious women against each other. considering how house of the dragon is not as crass as game of thrones it would be interesting if you watched it after fire and blood and compared them, season one was a near perfect adaptation (when it comes to being true to the story) yet season 2 undid everything it built (sorry for going on another george rant).

[@Bookborn]

I've spoken on it a lot so I'm probably sounding like a broken record, but one of the worst things to happen to the "strong female character" is the removal of flaws. I wish more writers understood that flaws are what make characters interesting.

[@jeanbutinfrench]

@@Bookbornyes, it’s ironically so sexist, specially from a grrm adaptation, I honestly consider season 2 vandalism of his art.

[@eazymethod01]

​@@Bookborn The reason flaws exist in GRRM novels is because he is telling a story and the reason the flaws are absent in other works is there's an agenda. I actually love the female characters in GRRM because they are both real and varied!

[@genghisgalahad8465]

I only understood Pride & Prejudice upon seeing the BBC miniseries with Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle so much that even with the excellent cast and director of the Knightly iteration, I realize for my taste, that the latter did the story characters almost an injustice in giving the Cliff Notes, nay, the lesser e-version of Cillf Notes, of the story and character motivations.

[@jordanford9320]

A good example of change thematically and because it was a different format of television, was avatar The last Airbender series and then Avatar The last Airbender the Netflix show A lot of us that are fans of the original series understood that they were going to have to change some things going from an hour-long drama from a 30-minute kids show, but they completely missed the plot. They took away characterization traits from a character. Saka made him less of a sexist but the whole point of him being that way was to show his growth and overcoming that. There are other examples, but that's the one that sticks out to me the most.

[@lindybjork2712]

I'm happy you talked about Jane Austen. I agree the 1995 BBC mini series is the best Pride and Prejudice. The 2005 movie I kind of disliked it the last time I watched it. I still haven't watched the new Persuasion. I was going to wait until after a reread of the book.

[@TurquoiseStar17]

The last modern adaptation to really impress me was probably the 2019 reboot of "Are You Afraid of the Dark?" (my 90's childhood introduction to horror along with Goosebumps). Why I think it worked? The showrunners also grew up with the original show and worked with one of the original creators/writers. They didn't try to outdo it, keeping the spirit intact.

[@GideonsRecruit]

I think the fantasy genre, more than other genres, lets us have our own happy place (or unhappy one in some stories) where we can escape from our world. Lore and worldbuilding along with the characters in these stories give us a pocket universe to forget about real-world current events. When adaptations remind us of our home world with modern sentiments or themes, it tends to ruffle feathers.

[@phen0menos]

One fantasy series that got multiple adaptations was His Dark Materials, which got an adaptation of the first book in 2007 and then a TV adaptation of the whole trilogy in 2019-22. Interestingly I would say that the movie was a closer match to the novel from an aesthetic standpoint, but the show was much more successful in adapting the themes of the books. The reason this happened (in my opinion) is that the movie was made at the height of Harry Potter's success (much like the Percy Jackson movies, another fantasy series that got similarly re-adapted) and the movie executives, in trying to reach the broadest possible audience, removed many of the explicit religious references from the book. The church became "The Magisterium" for example (which has religious connotations but is a less common word than "church" and wasn't explicitly shown to be a Christian organisation). Thanks to current-era trends the show, by contrast, had no problem with being explicitly political and adapting the themes as they are presented in the book, which is not subtle at all in its religious commentary.

[@jorgerapalo2673]

My wife and I have been commenting on this subject precisely this week. We just watched a new staging of a play that was originally written (and staged over here) in the 80s. A lot of the humor was originally based upon exploiting stereotypical attitudes that do not match our current social understanding. The new staging changed many of these problematic elements with the unfortunate collateral results that it is no longer as funny, as the changes did not find equally successful modern equivalents, a crucial character was basically diminished and made a lot less important (which was unnecessary in my opinion) and the overall pace of the play suffered becoming slower and less dynamic. Another case to consider, the martial arts tv series WARRIOR, which takes place in the past, has tried to make its action scenes more dynamic by using fight choreography that incorporates a lot of the modern understanding of how fights work, but which do not reflect the way the Chinese martial arts of that period would have been performed, resulting in a very anachronistic depiction which feels wrong to my purist eyes.

[@emilygildea]

The key issue with Netflix’s Persuasion adaption is that it used the basic plot of the book, but changed many characters too much, mostly notably Anne. That movie’s Anne is not Anne Elliot of the book. I wouldn’t call it an adaptation so much as a film loosely based on the book.

[@dannyt4663]

I've pondered this a ton because I've reflected on my own intense frustration over such "meh" adaptions (Amazon being the main culprit), when other platforms like HBO seem to have a consistently higher bar of quality. I just have such a hard time understanding why HBO's limited series are made with so much more skill - I'm able to "believe" I'm watching real events unfold, while with Amazon I can never shake the feeling that I'm watching actors wearing costumes, saying written lines, and moving about a fake, constructed space. I suspect this partly has to do with how Salke, and corporate executives more broadly, evaluate talent and influence a production. It feels like we need an auteur revolution in the streaming space, more showrunners who aren't beholden to what non-creative, profit-minded executives *think* a series should be based on marketing metrics. This is why poor fantasy adaptions are offensive to me. I know how great the IP could be, and it feels like the fanbase is being hijacked as a launching pad for something soulless. I feel like my love and passion for the books was used to fuel something inert, silly, and unrecognizable. HBO writer's rooms also get more time to develop, and they have decades-old relationships with talent/production assets due to WB's history as a studio. I'm not in the industry myself so I don't know this for fact, but I've heard that Amazon has to pay a premium for top talent because they have a reputation as a disorganized studio with many competing voices. This makes sense to me, it shows up in the product over and over again. I don't think it should be a surprise that Amazon's best received adaption recently was Fallout, a Nolan/Joy production with Todd Howard involved - it's almost like combining proven experience with someone who understands the *soul* of an IP is a recipe for success.

[@sveinunglidsheim5828]

"Do current trends make adaptations bad?" Answer: Yes.

[@GreavesEc]

Craziest tonal difference for me is between the BBC Narnia miniseries and the early 2000s movies. Nothing beats the original for me as far as the feelings of magic and awe, whereas the movies feel like generic action fantasy.

[@andreassundberg9426]

I think it all boils down to the writing. The trends can affect the quality of the movie but that doesn't have to be for the worse. Even the Lord of the rings changed things like Aragorn being more in conflict of being the king, or Arwyn having more things to do (even if it still isn't much). People complain that Galadriel is a Mary sue in Rings of power but so is Gandalf and definitely Legolas in Return of the king. The difference between Lord of the rings and Rings of power is that one has good writing and one doesn't. The Days of future past movie is very different from the comics but people doesn't care because it is a good movie. Changes are only noticed if a movie is bad. Of course I don't think they should do changes just because they can. But some changes aren't always bad.

[@danbongard3226]

Is it accurate to call Galadriel a Mary Sue? She's good at beating people up, but that's pretty much the beginning and end of her skill set. She couldn't be less effective at her stated goal of "stopping Sauron" if it turned out she was a secret agent of Morgoth this whole time.

[@andreassundberg9426]

@@danbongard3226 I agree. She is not a Mary Sue but I have heard people say she is because she could take down a troll by herself...

[@ThumbMerrilin]

There's another factor in a fandom's tolerance for changing trends and themes in modern adaptations, and that's the sheer quality of the writing. Making a great show in its own right forgives a lot of minor sins. Andor is quite different, thematically, to OG Star Wars but that's OK because it is quality writing for adults. The end result was a high quality show in its own right. Wheel of Time has the problem that not only did it abandon core themes of the books, and change well known characters and story beats, but the writing was awful, which resulted in an awful show for many of us. I think many fans can forgive a lot of changes, potentially even a new story laid over the beloved original, if the new story is high quality, intelligent, entertaining, well written, and can stand on its own merits. When it fails at that fans will tend to pile on, painstakingly cataloguing all the various faults and shortcomings of the adaptation, including things (casting, costuming, sets, effects, minor lore changes) they might otherwise have forgiven if the story and characters were engaging and entertaining.

[@enlighten92]

Although villains are increasingly portrayed as Grey characters, Dune movies were a refreshing change for me. I absolutely loved the portrayal of Baron Harkonnen . He's just pure evil but still intriguing and believable. I love villains like Joffrey Baratheon and Ramsay Snow ( who might be my all time favorite villain across fiction) who are evil but still believable. There is humanity even in these kind of characters. At least GRRM puts enough details for the astute reader to understand why they are the way they are. It all depends on what the story requires for maximum impact. Judging by RoP's reception, Grey Sauron just isn't working because it may be a forced take on him. There is a way to get the viewers to know how a mad dog becomes a mad dog. Grey villains can seem preachy in a narrative sense.

[@danbongard3226]

The problem with taking the "this is how Sauron becomes evil" approach is that the show is set thousands of years after it already happened. So the basic premise only works for people who don't give a shit about the source material.

[@quickpawmaud]

Last of Us and Fallout shows are great adaptations. Never thought video games would get good adaptations. Both shows have a couple problems like Last of Us cut my favorite part of the game and changed it to be a flash back for a character who dies instead as well as they made Ellie a psycho for some reason. Overall though it is a great show.

[@mxvega1097]

Films often mix three worlds of taste, fashion and era - with wild cards. 1) socio-political or cultural trends, and films can be of them, or lag them, hit the zeitgeist or miss terribly 2) filmic trends, mechanics, and tech 3) the happenstance of leading film-makers - George Lucas, Peter Jackson, Denis Villeneuve, who in many cases are way ahead of the zeitgeist and/or set it. Where films are almost inevitably going to date is going after a theme, trend, or style which disappears during development and production - Marvel quippy humor was tired and lame by Thor Ragnarok, being "the next GOT" is hazardous, the Marvels and Madame Web were at least 5 years past expiry date for their style, WOT was - ok, I don't have words for that. Someone who worked on Mortal Engines told me the entire team was convinced it was going to be awesome, then it wasn't, leading to the reflection that even seasoned professionals can do their best with a story and production and still have no idea if it will strike the audience in the way they intend.

[@Malefic_Cinephile]

I think an interesting case study is the stage adaptation of Wicked, which was released a little under a decade after the book was published. While the idea of making grey characters was sort of inherent to Maguire's work, seeing the movie adaptation 20+ years later strikes me as peak saturation. But it's odd because Wicked inadvertently started a trend that, I think, makes the movie seem dull now because of the various copycats since the stage musical. In other words: moral ambiguity, lavish art production, revamped world building, and the idea to expand more on the story--which is why the movie is a Part 1.

[@Link-we8so]

Rings of power kinda felt like one episode of story stretched into a season for me. I think going more grey with the story could have easily worked if it had an interesting plot. Or characters that people could relate too in some way. Dang i had blocked the horse riding beach scene from memory and now its back lol I guess since we are here now what was the point of that scene?

[@patchup]

"Presentism" has taken hold in academics and it seems to also be prevalent in tv & movie writing now. I think many people that complain don't care about costume. Many don't care about gender. They care about the core worldbuilding aka lore and the existing characters. We expect changes but we see purposeful destruction of characters and lore for some agenda that is not faithful to the story at all. You hit the nail on the head with Andor. The writers kept the world building at a distance and didn't try to modernize it and left the characters we know, alone. This is how you insert your theme into an well known franchise. Star wars, Star Trek, and LotR are franchises that generations have known and loved. People out there have absorbed the worlds, know the made up languages, know all the rare facts about this and that. You don't go into this type of fanbase and wipe it all away. My favorite Pride and Prejudice is the 1980 BBC series that was a decade before the Collin Firth version. Staring Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul. It seems much closer to the book and feels more like theater actors on tv rather than movie actors on tv. I do also like the Keira Knightly. The older ones have their charm but I don't rewatch those.

[@gordonhunt5967]

Excellent analysis!!!

[@praetorxyn]

If you had to put the blame on one thing, it's writers / show runners thinking they can write a better story than . They can't, and it's always worse. One of the few things I agree with GRRM about these days, and it's very ironic considering his historic harping about Scarlet O'Hara's kids and "the show is the show, the book is the book." Wheel of Time was worse for existing after Game of Thrones made everyone want to copy Game of Thrones, but even in the absence of that, it would have still been shit because of the above.

[@savelala]

Harry Potter adaptation can be a success regardless of the time it is made. This is because books and films give us the feeling of timelessness, since even though we know it takes place in the 90s, they don't necessarily remind us of it all the time. In the case of fantasies in general, they are usually not set in our real world, but in a fictional medieval world, which tends to make the adaptation the same as the book because there is a certain time. I personally wouldn't mind a trend change in Harry Potter because of these timeless factors that give freedom for (good) changes. However, as an avid fan of the books, trying to modernize Hogwarts or the wizarding world (which is an old aesthetic) would be horrible. Changing asoiaf adaptations doesn't bother me if the changes are in relation to the characters' ages, after all it would be disgusting to adapt certain aspects of the books. But changing everything is the problem. Changing the positive aspects of the original story is the problem. I'm scared of what they're going to do with the Harry Potter series.

[@aldan7812]

I honestly think it all comes back to a competency issue - some of these show runners and writers are just no where near as good as they believe themselves to be at their job. Because it CAN be done, you can have some 'modernisation' to the adaptation as long as it's not with the core mechanics of the story. And it just seems to me a lot of these people don't have the competency to identify what the core mechanics of a story are. Id you take RoP - the entire basis for the conflict in Middle Earth is the discord of Melkor. You can't have this 'everyone has their truths and they're valid' idea and still tell the same story. Melkors truth sucked, and Saurons truth sucked. If it didn't, there would be no discord and no conflict. That's the base mechanic of the story. If you don't understand that, you have no business telling the story. WoT suffers from the same thing, you can't have a possibility of a female Dragon, it removes one of the core mechanics for the conflict in the story. And you can't remove the push and pull of the male/female dichotomy in all cultures and settings, right down to the magic system that powers the world. And if you don't understand that, then your reading comprehension doesn't pass a grade 6 standard. You can make changes around the edges sure, and we've seen that done really well - however modernising characters you do at great risk because in Fantasy we are already building a picture in our mind for the character.. you can't supplant that and expect fans to update their minds eye. This is what makes girl-boss Galadriel so functionally stupid for that setting. Also not everyone agrees with what 'modernisation' is, or the message such a thing is trying to convey so to inject it into someone elses work, is obviously going to raise the hackles of a percentage of people. And how you handle this, would be key. And the way it IS handled, is disingenuous at best.

[@tylernosleep]

I highly suggest watching the Dune miniseries. While extremely dated visually and hit or miss performances, it is still the best adaptation of the book in my opinion. Had high hopes with Villeneuve’s adaptation and really enjoyed part one, some changes in part two were a bit of a let down for me. Still curious how he handles Messiah.

[@crylorenzo]

Is there an age when you would recommend showing Fellowship to kids? I have 3 kids and I'm looking forward to showing them.

[@Bookborn]

We just showed our 9.5 year old. He LOVED fellowship, but struggled with Two Towers - lots of exposition and stuff he didn't quite understand, so we are holding off on the rest. AKA...I think Fellowship is easier for a younger audience, but if you want to show all three at once, I'd wait until 12 maybe? Depends on the kid though. I wouldn't show my daughter Fellowship at 9.5 (she's 5 right now) because shes wayy more sensitive to scary things.

[@crylorenzo]

@@Bookborn Thanks! That makes a lot of sense! My oldest is 7 so I still have a few more years to wait then :( Maybe I can try telling bits as bedtime stories in the meantime...

[@unsightedmelodies6801]

Wonderful video but I have to disagree with you a bit about the themes of the Harry Potter movies and books being the same because the popularity of both series just kept growing directors started to be more concerned about putting their own stamp on whatever book they add under their belt. Examples of this would be Movie 4 and Movie 6, with six being a magical rom-com whereas it's book had themes of the past affecting the present knowing your enemy and was a setup to a final installment with a lot of important information. Splitting the 7th book into two films was a direct consequence of ignoring these themes.

[@JervisGermane]

I encourage you to watch the Dune miniseries. In my opinion, it's the best version, even if it's visually a lot flatter with less subtle CGI.

[@donaldcatanzaro5318]

As far as fantasy adaptations I think you could have mentioned the Magicians (Lev Grossman) as well as Chronicles of Narnia (CS Lewis) which has been adapted in radio, TV and film multiple times on the 'good side' while a not so great fantasy adaption is Elfstones of Shannara (Terry Brooks). Honestly the issue with Brooks and Jordan is that the actual storytelling was more derivative of better writers (Tolkein) thus adaptations are going to suffer.

[@magister343]

Rings of Power would be a lot better (but probably still not good) if they had Morfydd Clark playing Celebrian instead of her mother Galadriel. I believe we actually know more about what Arwen's mom was doing in this age than what her grandmom was doing, even though she is never seen in the original books or movies as she fled to Valinor after experiencing serious trauma thousands of years earlier.

[@MrMusicalgenius121]

The reason you see less fantasy adaptations than the classics is simply down to copyright. Most of the classics have been out long enough so there isnt any copyright for filmakers to deal with, fantasy isnt there yet, so any adaptation will need to pay whoever owns the copyright to those books

[@randomriftvideos]

It's so hard to decouple my Fandom feeling and analysis of trends affecting IP. Seeing the question through the lens of Jane Austin works helped me do that. I don't think trends make IP bad I think it's studios. I like seeing stories told second and third times and be able to compare and contrast what the cast and crew emphasize. I just hate when studios are more concerned with profit than good stories. I think profits and good stories can pull in the same direction, but usually I think the profit is the bigger motivator.

[@Bookborn]

ABSOLUTELY. I know my fandom feelings are so wrapped up in everything, even when I try to remove myself. I'm more and more convinced that when you get someone with a specific vision - and the money makers don't try to influence it, but let the creator create - you *tend* to get better stuff. I have no proof for it, I just think some of hte adaptations I've liked the least lately had a lot of cooks in the kitchen. Then again, I disliked the star wars sequels and they had one cook so what do I know lmao

[@randomriftvideos]

@Bookborn I remember watching an interview with JJ Abhrams talking about episode 8. I'm extremely paraphrasing here, but after reading what Rian Johnsons plan for the movie was he said something along the lines of "well that's not where I was going to take things, but okay sounds great." Episode 7 8 9 of Star Wars killed the last hope I had for my childhood fandom. I say that the cosmere is my only fandom left that hasnt been ruined by commercialization. I know sanderson keeps inching closer to adaptation, and it scares me sump'n fierce.