Why book adaptations suck
The Wheel of Time on Amazon has been cancelled after three seasons. This is something I've of mixed feelings about because I'm a big fan of the Robert Jordan series. I felt the series was too short at eight episodes a season, that a lot of unnecessary plot changes were made, and that characters were unrecognizable. The seasons gradually got better but, by that point, it is something that the viewership was uninterested in following.
I already expressed a much harsher opinion on the handling of The Witcher by Netflix (link: https://www.epicindie.net/indie-writing/top-ten-worst-decisions-by-netflix-regarding-the-witcher?rq=Witcher). But, essentially, the two series were similar in that they made virtually the exact same sort of mistakes. Tightly woven plots in the books became impossible to replicate on screen because of "small" changes. Like, you know, having Yennefer and Ciri hate each other or a question of whether the Dragon Reborn might be a girl.
But I'm not here to complain about either series. This is actually an essay about why it seems impossible fo writers not to go on wild tangents that make series impossible to take seriously as adaptations. Why Halo took two seasons to actually get to the Halo and was more interested in the rebels against Earth (who were wiped out before the games began) than the aliens. Why the Sword of Shanarra was full of MTV-esque drama. Why The Rings of Power was...whatever the Rings of Power is.
It's possible to do a faithful adaptation of the story and make adjustments from the page to the screen. We see The Expanse managed to thread the needle with only a few slight bumps. Fallout managed to keep the tone and themes of the game even if it was divisive in a few of its choices (and Fallout fans hate everything). The Last of Us' first season was something that kept to the game enough that it introduced a whole new audience to Joel and Ellie. But why does this go wrong so much? Is it budget? The medium? Well, as the title suggests, there's a very interesting thought by Brandon Sanderson.
I have a fun story here. Early in my career, someone optioned the rights to make one of my stories (the Emperor's Soul) into a film. I was ecstatic, as it's not a story that at the time had gotten a lot of attention from Hollywood. I met with the writer, who had a good pedigree, and who seemed extremely excited about the project; turned out, he'd been the one to persuade the production company to go for the option. All seemed really promising.
A year or so later, I read his script and it was one of the most bizarre experiences of my life. The character names were, largely, the same, though nothing that happened to them was remotely similar to the story. Emperor's Soul is a small-scale character drama that takes place largely in one room, with discussions of the nature of art between two characters who approach the idea differently.
The screenplay detailed an expansive fantasy epic with a new love interest for the main character (a pirate captain.) They globe-trotted, they fought monsters, they explored a world largely unrelated to mine, save for a few words here and there. It was then that I realized what was going on.
Hollywood doesn't buy spec scripts (original ideas) from screenwriters very often, and they NEVER buy spec scripts that are epic fantasy. Those are too big, too expensive, and too daunting: they are the sorts of stories where the producers and executives need the proof of an established book series to justify the production.
So this writer never had a chance to tell his own epic fantasy story, though he wanted to. Instead, he found a popularish story that nobody had snatched up, and used it as a means to tell the story he'd always wanted to tell, because he'd never otherwise have a chance of getting it made.
I'm convinced this is part of the issue with some of these adaptations; screenwriters and directors are creative, and want to tell their own stories, but it's almost impossible to get those made in things like the fantasy genre unless you're a huge established name like Cameron. I'm not saying they all do this deliberately, as that screenwriter did for my work, but I think it's an unconscious influence. They want to tell their stories, and this is the allowed method, so when given the chance at freedom they go off the rails, and the execs don't know the genre or property well enough to understand why this can lead to disaster.
Anyway, sorry for the novel length post in a meme thread. I just find the entire situation to be fascinating.
That's an interesting answer and I think it's one that probably contains a lot of truth. A huge number of these writers aren't fans of the original work but want to get their work on screen. They aren't going to be greenlit without a massive fanbase of their own, though. They're essentially running a Trojan Horse that they can take advantage of for their own benefit.
Not cool.
What is the cure for this hubris? Well, there is none and fans aren't innocent of this entirely. The Dresden Files TV show was something Jim Butcher absolutely loved. Fans, however, couldn't accept it wouldn't be an adaptation of the books but an episodic series inspired by them. But are they wrong to? After all, if you see ketchup marked hot sauce, maybe you expect to find hot sauce. However, in reality there's probably not anything that could be done. Nothing is going to stop producers and writers from being full of hubris and thinking, "Maybe I could do it better."
But Hollywood shouldn't be surprised when we don't tune in after the first few episodes.
