Fantasy Authors Increasingly Call Out 'Unfaithful' TV Adaptations

He has control because he saw what they tried to do to his Emperors Soul novella a few years ago. Sanderson posted about it here on Listnook a year or two ago and I'll summarize. Emperors Soul for those who haven't read it is a psychological drama that takes place entirely in a prison cell between a prisoner and her captor. They are the only two characters of note. It got optioned for a possible movie and the screenwriters turned it into a monster hunting adventure with pirates. The only thing remaining from Sandersons story were the character names. It didn't picked up thankfully. Sanderson basically explained that every Hollywood screenwriter has their own stories they want to get on screen and often they will use other people's known works to get their own story out there which is what happened in this case. After this near debacle and the Wheel of Time blasphemy, Sanderson has been very careful about giving up control of any of his projects.

> hoping for the best! hoping for the most fidelity to sandersons books, or hoping for the best tv show? 

I mean since losing his editor it's fair to say his increased control over his books hasn't resulted in better books. He's not a screenwriter, I don't see why him being control means it'll definitely be good. I suppose we'll see.

This is a major test for the Sanderson framework. I have never read his works but love listening to his writing classes. For someone who is the closest thing to an authority/tastemaker in the literary world right now, I'd say there's a lot riding on him (for other creators) being able to execute a good version of his works

It’s the same thing that always happens. The director and writers and whomever else can’t get a job making what they want to make so they sign on to an established IP and turn that into what they originally wanted to make.

"What if we made a show that didn't appeal to fans OR the general public?"

Hiring people who were proud to say they not only didn't play the games but knew nothing about them...

[deleted]

The article does actually mention this, but they speculate it picks up more now because authors have their own plarforms. Sanderson has his own web presence, Jaffe streams, a lot of comic writers are on Twitter etc. The only show they mention that feels like a reach is the Last of Us, because while the show has dipped, Druckman hasn't said anything.

It wouldn’t be as funny listing him first but Moore is the top hater here

WWZ shares only the name with the book.

To be fair, some do it right. Stephen King likes the end of The Mist more then his own books ending.

One difference I have noticed is that current showrunners and writers seem to think saying they have zero experience with the source material is some of badge of honor or selling point. It has created a lot of friction between groups with these retelling/reimagining/remakes.

Well, GOT early seasons did set a high bar in terms of faithful adaptation. A shame most things that came afterward sucked. Everyone thought they’d drown in good fantasy adaptations, but you can probably count them on the fingers of one hand.

I love how we can just put "Alan Moore" and most of us understand why

Did Le Guin hate the Earth Sea anime? If I remember I thought she said it was an interesting film, but that it wasn't her story. Now the Earthsea live action series on the SciFi channel she definitely hated.

I will absolutely die on the hill that I don’t care if an adaptation is faithful or not, I only care if it’s actually good, The Shining being the perfect example. 

Alan Moore just hates. It’s in his blood

Rick Riordan hated the script for the first Percy Jackson movie and to this day refuses to watch either film. Though that didn't stop him from making a million changes to the new TV adaptation.

One counter point I find very interesting is that David Brin liked The Postman movie, despite substantial changes and him having no input on the movie at all.

Dahl also hated the change to the end of The Witches, but it tested better with audiences (11-year-old me was furious with the change as well).

Had me at Alan Moore.

Blows my mind that Ursula Leguin was alive to see the Earthsea anime. She’s like OG sci-fi.

MTV’s Dan Cortez.

hell hath no fury like Alan Moore.

Season 1 didn't "suck" but it also wasn't exactly great.

Controversial but having read the first book, the books are not that great either People love the Witcher because of the games

Nope, season 1 was garbage too. I was left in an almost literal torpor after watching the episode with the golden dragon. Just sat there for 5 mins in disbelief... Can't even remember what happened in the last two episodes. The only good thing about season 1 was that it was salvageable and the series could have gotten back on track if season 2 was solid. But they doubled down on the stupid... so... yeah.

Hes just gotta stick the landing and deliver on the first couple releases. I really hope he does.

Apple so far has a great track record in adapting sci-fi novels, in my opinion. Silo, Dark Matter, Foundation... all have been very good.

There's been good adaptations. The Expanse was a fantastic adaptation of the books, aided by the fact that the authors were heavily involved. They changed some things around, but most of those were either narrative driven (adding Earth's storyline to season 1; book 3 getting condensed into half a season) or caused by external factors with certain cast members.

Patrick McHale of Over the Garden Wall fame was attached for a while and even wrote the script for the show. When it was announced that they were parting ways on the project less than a year after it was first announced I knew it was never gonna happen and that was in 2021

Most adaptations that Stephen King is directly involved with are usually the weakest.

He’s just mad the games are more popular than the books and that he sold the rights for c**** because he never thought the games would be popular.

Lol, I was thinking the same thing. You know who doesn’t have this problem? Bill Watterson, because he has refused to license Calvin & Hobbes for anything, ever. Would he be 100x as wealthy if he had allowed it? Most likely, but he stood by his principles. I do feel for the authors working under conditions where they can’t retain the rights to their creations, like the ones working for major comic book or video game publishers. But again, that is a risk you have to accept for the trade-off of having access to those platforms and being able to make a living with your art.

That's a very inaccurate description of Sapkowski's approach to the games, or really anything around the Witcher that aren't his books. He famously doesn't give a shit. He has not played any of the games, hasn't seen any content from them, and doesn't intend to. Pretty much same can be said about the Netflix show. He keeps repeating he absolutely does not consider any adaptions to be in any way or form related to the books, which he considers a higher form of art. He was dismissive of gaming in general, and was annoyed the publisher put game art on his book covers (which is fair, makes them look like game novelizations). Don't get me wrong, Sapkowski tend to behave like a huge a******, but his beef with the games isn't that he doesn't like them specifically. Edit: to back this up, here are a few translated snippets from an interview with Sapkowski for the magazine Polityka in 2016: > I can’t say much about the game itself, as I’m not familiar with it – I don’t play games. However, the hype and sales figures speak for themselves; if it were a poor game, it wouldn’t have achieved such success. But whilst working towards its own success, the game has, unfortunately, done my books a disservice. Several publishers have used artwork from the game on the covers of my books. Many readers therefore classified the books as so-called ‘game-related’, i.e. written to tie in with the game. There are plenty of such books on the SF&F market. Seeing an image from the game on the cover of my book, many fans assumed that the game came first. And serious SF and fantasy fans despise such derivative books and do not buy them because – firstly – they are derivative and unoriginal. Secondly – they are completely irrelevant to those who do not play any games – and such people make up the vast majority of fans. > However, I wouldn’t want to give the impression that there is any kind of antagonism between myself and the game. The difficulties I have faced and continue to face because of the game – which I believe I have explained at length in my answer to the first question – are in no way the fault of the game itself. Indeed, paradoxically, it was none other than the high quality of the game’s graphics that prompted some of my publishers to adapt those graphics for their covers. > Finally – I do not begrudge the game its undoubted success; far from it. Nor am I afraid that the game will, as you put it, come to the fore, overshadowing and eclipsing me. Because that is simply impossible. It is my literary Witcher who is the only true and original one; all adaptations are merely more or less successful adaptations and are burdened with all the flaws of adaptation. There is only one original Witcher. Mine. And nothing will take him away from me.

I believe he actually doesn't, at the time when Witcher 1 was made, it was an extremely low expectations project and Sapkowski took a flat fee instead, thinking it would bomb. It did not.

They didn't even seem to be aware that it was based on a series of books. Then with season 3, they suddenly realized the books were important and frankly nailed it. I thoroughly enjoyed season 3. Sadly most of their potential audience had already tuned out.

It is insane to me that they made Rand a side character until Season 3. Whole world is revolving around him, almost literally. He is ultimate fantasy protagonist. He is a bard, swordmaster, king, wizard, and chosen one. Yes, WoT is an ensemble story but it is like 50% Rand, and 50% the rest. Even when he is not shown much in the story, like Book 3, it is all about him more than anything. I just can't wrap my head around it, like whole story is about Rand and his effect on the world and people. And you bury this guy behind a whole bunch of characters, take all his cool scenes and give them to others and still pretend like he is "special".

I was so excited for WoT and season 1 just butchered every character so i never touched it after that. Heard it was cancelled though. 

If show needs two whole seasons to stop being dogshit then show is simply dogshit

A "step up" from the 9th circle of hell only leaves you in the 8th. So yes, technically a step up. But even if it had been a meteoric rocket rise up in quality it wouldn't have mattered because the story had already been utterly ruined by then.

I feel so embarrassed that it represents the books so poorly. I heard season 3 was a step up but the first two were comically bad in their own right without even considering that they were terrible adaptations.

Not saying the reaction isn't a bit overblown but... the fact their PR team thought this was a good image to release to the public is kind of insane

The image just don't look great to be honest, but Jaffe has a bit of a reputation for being a curmudgeon with anything he didn't make.

Especially when the guy doing the complaining hasn’t worked on the franchise since God of War 2 in 2007, and strongly criticized God of War 4 when it came out. Seemingly this is a man who is upset he is no longer involved in the franchise and that Kratos has grown beyond a one dimensional character. He’s not someone to be taken seriously.

Decade? Time is in a free fall friend, he last worked on a God of War game 19 years ago.

Actual quote from someone running a major show about a significant change: "Creatively it made sense to us because we wanted it to happen."

To play devil's advocate, there's something to be said about Douglas Adams' thoughts on this though: Adaptations in a new medium should be different and bring something new to the experience. Every instance of Hitchhiker's Guide, whether it be the book, the radio play, the miniseries, or the movie, aren't carbon copies of one another. It makes them unique and interesting. If you like the book, why try to regurgitate the book? Enjoy the book. It will always be there. This is why things like The Boys, The Walking Dead, or Invincible (to a lesser degree) can be interesting for readers of the comics. It's more exciting to not know for certain where the story will go. Now, there's also something to be said about drastically changing characterizations or just... having far worse writing. Those are obviously bad things that seem to go hand in hand with moving away from the source material. But they don't have to. It just seems that more often than not these adaptations aren't placed in the right hands. The Shining is a great example of a fantastic movie that does its own thing using the book as a framework. Each has its own place in its respective category - a great novel and a great film. I know King hated the movie, but tons of people love both for different reasons. It comes down to whether the adaptation is well written.

The problem is any rules you make for what a adaptation should be don't matter if the end product is good.

They're different mediums, they don't translate perfectly. Films don't translate even translate to shows very well. GRR Martin said the Game of Thrones show merged a few characters and it worked for that, and there were some changes that he really liked, as in wish it was the book version, and some he didn't. But some of the time, it's more about drawing an audience than the actual material, they want to sell the film/show, so tying it to an existing IP, and you instantly have a market. It's also why remakes are so popular, it reduces the risk.

Blade Runner deviated heavily from the novel and the film is still really great. Adaptations should prioritize being good. Being accurate is not necessary.

It depends on the book. A lot of books provide narrative and perspectives of the characters depending on the POV. Game of Thrones did this a lot. But unless you're planning on peppering the entire show with voice-overs, you've gotta figure out a way to convey that information through other means. This means change in that regard is inevitable- and the way that change is executed can be elegant and effective, or incredibly clumsy, to the point of "As you know..."

Breaking: Novels aren't screenplays. You can't just stick a book in a machine and get a perfect movie out the other end. Adaptation is an art form.

That's what Brandon Sanderson is doing, but it took a lot of negotiations to find a studio willing to agree

Ah of course, easy peasy

Then the studios wont make it. They get pretty a*** if they cannot have control over the IP, so creators have a choice, keep their dignity and not have it made, or sell out and let others defile their works and turn the IP toxic to fans.