New series: GoT, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, The Witcher & The Dark Tower - Myth-Weavers

Notices


General Discussion

All-purpose section for discussions that donít clearly belong in any of the other categories.


New series: GoT, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, The Witcher & The Dark Tower

   
View Poll Results
Which series are you most looking forward to?
The Witcher 4 22.22%
Lord of the Rings 3 16.67%
Wheel of time 7 38.89%
The Dark Tower 0 0%
Game of Thrones Prequel 4 22.22%


New series: GoT, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, The Witcher & The Dark Tower

There is basically a fantasy television arms race taking shape.


-Are you looking forward to any of these series? Which one do you want to see most?
-Which ones do you think will flop?
-How is Amazon going to do producing 3 new big budget series based on beloved fantasy novels?
-Are we entering a golden age of fantasy TV, or is the plunge this into mediocrity?

Between all of these and 70 episodes of Rick and Morty being ordered, I'm going to be really busy over the next couple of years.

We already know that one of the GoT series has a pilot being made right now...but they are going way back, as in the mythic age of GoT series...so it will have more in common with Lord of the rings than the dark fantasy present version. Not sure if it will have the same appeal, but guess we will see.

The Witcher could go good or bad. From some fans of the book, Gerard in the Witcher games is more pulp action hero than his book counterpart. So while I don't doubt the desire to make a faithful original representation of the books, I don't want it to become a snorefest.

LoTr amazon series is about young aragorn...so it could have a lot of potential for adventures, but at the same time, I remember shows like young hercules...and maybe we don't need it.

Personally I dislike spinoffs, defined as any work not written by the original author or under his supervision, on principal. So my default stance about all this is that it's going to suck, be bad and generally taint the franchises its linked to. And I shall remain by this stance until or unless proven wrong.

This is especially true for the LOTR one. You just can't expect some random TV writers to have the same sort of literally genius as Tolkien. You just can't. Therefore what ever they produce simply has to be sub par compared to the original material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PPQ_Purple View Post
Personally I dislike spinoffs, defined as any work not written by the original author or under his supervision, on principal. So my default stance about all this is that it's going to suck, be bad and generally taint the franchises its linked to. And I shall remain by this stance until or unless proven wrong.

This is especially true for the LOTR one. You just can't expect some random TV writers to have the same sort of literally genius as Tolkien. You just can't. Therefore what ever they produce simply has to be sub par compared to the original material.
Fair enough, and I agree on some points, but I don't think anyone should expect the series to be on a Tolkien level of brilliance.

Take the LoTR film trilogy for example. Was Tolkien directly involved? No.
Were the films cinematic masterpieces in their own right? Yes (and many would agree)

Even though the Hobbit films were terrible, they can never 'taint' Tolkien's original works. I think if folks go into watching an adaptation looking for the exact same thing they got from the books is asking to be letdown. It's a completely different medium, organized by different people. It's really a standalone work.

Sometimes a creators direct involvement makes adaptations worse. Like anything George Lucas did after Empire, or Stephen King; (who I'm a big fan of) his involvement with many projects seems to correlate with bad results on screen

In the case of the GoT spinoff and Witcher adaptations, their creators are directly involved.

Speaking of the the Witcher, I don't think it will be snorefest. It was already adapted for Polish TV back in the 90s and despite the poor state of special effects at the time, it was fun to watch and kept me interested. From what those who read the books say, it's a pretty faithful adaptation, unlike the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenogenesis View Post
Fair enough, and I agree on some points, but I don't think anyone should expect the series to be on a Tolkien level of brilliance.
Obviously not, but there needs to be a consistent level of quality that is above your average fantasy series else it is disrespectful to the original and will be called out as such. And that will lead to a bad reputation which is bad for the whole franchise.

So it does not need to be fantastic but it does need to be good, and consistently so.

Quote:
Take the LoTR film trilogy for example. Was Tolkien directly involved? No.
Were the films cinematic masterpieces in their own right? Yes (and many would agree)
The original LOTR movies might not have been directed by him but they followed the story reasonably close barring some sad exclusions and changes, none of which were particularly welcome. But that's what made them good. They followed a good story.

With the hobbit, and I deliberately spell that with a lower case letter to point out my dislike, they took a great book that's easily on the level of LOTR and turned it into a slapstick comedy stupid thing for 5 year olds by deviating too much from the story.

If the core work is good, stick to it. Don't deviate beyond the minimum required to accommodate the requirements of the medium.

Quote:
Even though the Hobbit films were terrible, they can never 'taint' Tolkien's original works. I think if folks go into watching an adaptation looking for the exact same thing they got from the books is asking to be letdown. It's a completely different medium, organized by different people. It's really a standalone work.
That's not how it works and you know it. Works don't exist in a vacuum but form a franchise centered around the name and recognizable points. And the reputation of said franchise rises and falls with the quality of what ever came out latest. And reputation is everything.

A good adaptation of a bad work won't make the work any better. But it will rise interest in it, upping sales and leading to more adaptations down the line. Some of which might also be good.

A bad adaptation of a good work meanwhile has the opposite effect. It will dissuade people from the original shrinking its popularity and leading to fewer adaptations and spinoffs and less good content overall.


To give a topic related example. Imagine a world where the hobbit movies came out before the LOTR ones and where you have not read any of the related books previously.

If your only exposure to Tolkien and his works had been those hobbit movies would you ever pick up the book? And would you have even gone to see LOTR? Or would you have dismissed it all as dumb hobbit spinoffs?

This has happened to franchises. And it can happen again. Especially so in fantasy and Science Fiction which are always fickle and riding on fan popularity.

Quote:
In the case of the GoT spinoff and Witcher adaptations, their creators are directly involved.

Sometimes a creators direct involvement makes adaptations worse. Like anything George Lucas did after Empire, or Stephen King; (who I'm a big fan of) his involvement with many projects seems to correlate with bad results on screen
I am not saying author involvement is a cureall. But in general consulting the author on matters of storytelling allows at the very least a consistency in the quality of that aspect. And when it comes to adaptations that's the most important thing.

A badly executed adaptation that retains the core good story will draw people to that good story. A bad adaptation that changed a good story to be bad won't. And a bad adaptation that has nothing to do with the original works at all will just kill off interest for that universe.

Quote:
Speaking of the the Witcher, I don't think it will be snorefest. It was already adapted for Polish TV back in the 90s and despite the poor state of special effects at the time, it was fun to watch and kept me interested. From what those who read the books say, it's a pretty faithful adaptation, unlike the game.
I can't comment on either of those as I am not a fan due to lack of exposure.


Bottom line though whether we like it or not fantasy is blowing on a bubble. And sooner or later that bubble is going to pop. It's what happened to pulp SF back in the day. It happened to WW2 movies. It happened to comic book movies. And because these things tend to be cyclical some of those have since come back into favor again. But sooner or later, and I fear sooner this cycle will end and people will move on to something else shiny and fantasy is going to climb back into the niche it always was.

And a badly executed high profile and budget series adaptation is a very good way to pop that bubble.

I may be wrong about this, but isn't Aragorn, like, fifty when Lord of the Rings happens? If they lean into that it could be interesting. What I really want, and what we'll probably never get, is something in the First Age or Fourth Age. But a man can dream.

Personally I just want Martin to finish the next book! Still waiting......

GRRM is never finishing that damn book. I'll let The Ringer do the explaining for me: https://www.theringer.com/game-of-th...inter-timeline

Quote:
Originally Posted by readyplayer View Post
@Raveled Aragorn is around 90 years old or maybe a little younger at the beginning of LotR.
Wild. Yeah, young Aragorn meeting, like, Denethor's grandfather would be a fun thing to see.







 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2018-08-14 09:00:07am local time
Myth-Weavers Status