this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
183 points (97.9% liked)
Science Fiction
13734 readers
90 users here now
Welcome to /c/ScienceFiction
December book club canceled. Short stories instead!
We are a community for discussing all things Science Fiction. We want this to be a place for members to discuss and share everything they love about Science Fiction, whether that be books, movies, TV shows and more. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow.
- Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.
- Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.
- Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed
- Put (Spoilers) in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers.
- Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I also loved the books and I think this might be the difference. It’s only very loosely based on the books. Those who seem to enjoy the show often haven’t read the books at all, or don’t have much of a connection with them.
I just wish Hollywood would stop butchering such amazing IP. They should create new IP if they have such disdain for the original content.
I read the books (the first one anyway) and it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the series significantly, IMO. I recognize that they're very different mediums and written in very different contexts, so it's fine for them both to be their own things.
An analogous case that I think is probably quite similar to this was "I, Robot." The short story collection was classic and I enjoyed much of them, and the Will Smith "adaptation" was extremely different. But The Will Smith movie's story was still an exploration of the Asimovian three laws and so IMO was worthy of being included in the "anthology." I thought it was a good movie.
Generally speaking, books make for poor movie scripts and vice versa. The best adaptations require a lot of changes. The only prominent counterexample that comes to mind is Lord of the Rings, and even that one garnered a lot of complaints about the bits that were cut or tweaked.
I don't quite understand why they do this with books. Maybe it's because they have to, since many names and pieces obviously refer to the book. Or maybe they do it to attract people who have read the books.
@pglpm @JasSmith I reckon it's three things:
It's not really free tho, since IP rights cost a ton of money. And honestly, adaptations that aren't true to the source don't tend to do well, at least not beyond the first product.
It used to be the case that studios could buy IP rights for peanuts and make a cheap knockoff, but that's not the case anymore.
@WhoRoger free was wrong phrasing. I meant that it was a way to sidestep the lack of familiarity that stops people from trying new media. People will give Spiderman xyzabc a shot rather than try out a completely unknown IP. In a congested streaming economy, that advantage is worth quite a bit.
Sure, but the costs of IP can significantly eat into the profits, and if the studio bungles the adaptation, then it's just wasted money.
Scifi is a particularly tricky genre to produce, there's almost no high-profile TV show that hasn't been botched, cancelled or otherwise messed with.
But scifi is still mostly for geeks and probably always will be, and they are a tricky audience that doesn't appreciate if their classic gets destroyed.
On the other hand, lots of completely original properties have become classics.
So I'd say in this environment, buying an expensive, geeky property and then not using it properly, simply doesn't even lead to easy money anymore.
So what's the point then, just to piss of people? Honestly it often feels like it.