NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I watched an episode of "The Dresden Files" on Hulu.com, mainly because I love the books. The TV show sucks! The only thing the books and the TV show have in common is that they both have a character name Harry Dresden who lives in Chicago. Why do TV producer or movie producer always have to take a good book, and twist it into something crappy? Stephen King makes good horror books, but most of the movies suck.

What do the TV/Movie producer hope to accomplish by taking a liberal definition of "based off of"? Just once, I'd like to see a TV show or a movie that stays true to the book or story that they're based off of.

Anyone else a Dresden Files fan?

This sounds like I Am Legend. The only thing the book and movie had in common was the title.

Never seen the show. Besides, the name´s cool and then they´ll bring it to Spain and call it ¨Los Folios de Dresden¨ and it´ll lose all it´s momentum.:(

Never seen the show. Besides, the name´s cool and then they´ll bring it to Spain and call it ¨Los Folios de Dresden¨ and it´ll lose all it´s momentum.:(

It's canceled, so I doubt they'll take it to Spain.

It's canceled, so I doubt they'll take it to Spain.

They did it with The X-files. (Los archivos X). OMG!:(

I'm yet to see a program follow the book correctly.

do you think that the show sucked because it departed from the books, or did it suck on the merits?

also, your thread title reminds me of something totally unrelated. a prof of mine mentioned to me that 'based off of' looked nonsensical to him, because it implies being off-base rather than 'based on'. i hadn't really thought about it before, but i wondered if maybe it was a regional thing. i use both freely.

do you think that the show sucked because it departed from the books, or did it suck on the merits?

If it's not broken, don't fix it. The Dresden Files as portrayed in the books was awesome, there was no reason for the TV producer to mess with it.

do you think that the show sucked because it departed from the books, or did it suck on the merits?

also, your thread title reminds me of something totally unrelated. a prof of mine mentioned to me that 'based off of' looked nonsensical to him, because it implies being off-base rather than 'based on'. i hadn't really thought about it before, but i wondered if maybe it was a regional thing. i use both freely.

Soviets, you are a genius and don't know it!


Based off of means: Off base version of

Based on means: Similar to the original version

do you think that the show sucked because it departed from the books, or did it suck on the merits?

I think it would have been a good show if they'd called it something like "Wizard PI".

What do the TV/Movie producer hope to accomplish by taking a liberal definition of "based off of"?

It's a copyright thing. If you have a story you want to tell in a tv show or movie that slightly resembles a book, you could get dinged on intellectual property laws.

Easier to call it "based off of" something similar, title it appropriately, pay your royalties, and not fear a derivative works suit.

If it's not broken, don't fix it. The Dresden Files as portrayed in the books was awesome, there was no reason for the TV producer to mess with it.

based on...what, your opinion?

based on...what, your opinion?

Considering the fact that more than a few fans of the books stopped watching when we figured out it was related in name only and it's now canceled due to a lack of ratings it seems a pretty good assumption.

If you aren't making an effort to stick to the source material, change the title and say it was "Inspired by _____". "Based on ____" means you are basically trying to retell the same story.

The same rule applies when remaking an old franchise, with one exception - reboots and reimaginings. At this point, hewing to the original matters less than making it good - particularly if the original had some notable flaws.

They did it with The X-files. (Los archivos X). OMG!:(

Thank god, they didn't do that in Finland! Man, it would have sucked.

Thank god, they didn't do that in Finland! Man, it would have sucked.

It sucked indeed.:(

What do the TV/Movie producer hope to accomplish by taking a liberal definition of "based off of"? Just once, I'd like to see a TV show or a movie that stays true to the book or story that they're based off of.

Usually the producer is trying to overcome difficulties in translating the story from page to screen, which are often more serious than fans of the original source acknowledge. There are plenty of movies that don't take the difference in medium into account and suffer because of it. (The Chris Columbus Harry Potter films come to mind.)

I haven't seen the TV version because I thought the first book was meh, but I'd venture that bad TV can be bad TV even if it sticks closely to the source material.

To further the above point, there are sturctural and narrative norms that don't always translate well into the next medium. While this is particularly difficult in film, where at least it shares with the novel a closed narrative, it is even more difficult in translating a novel (even a series of novels) into a serial television show. The 'mystery' arcs have to be more compact, and even moreso than in movies where audiences are accustom to if not always aware of the three act structure, television is confined to a certain breakdown to accomidate commercial interruption. This is beyond just finding places in the narrative to stop for two minutes, but to hang the audience between them. Ever watch a show and forget what it was during the commercial? That's when they fail, especially in 200 channel ready remote world.

Additionally, the developers of a show have to make a balancing act-they are looking to elements of the source material that might appeal to a larger audience that will sustain them through the show while eliminating what might have a difficult 'overcome'-the natural tenancy for someone to resist a show. Often it's the consideration that what the hardcore fanboy might like might also turn away the larger audience.

Finally, what 'makes a story work' is a difference of opinion. With the occasional exception of things like Micheal Bay who only agreed to do Transformers because it would be a good franchise, generally speaking the people adapting the work like it-they just might not like it for the same reasons that you do, or find the same things interesting that you do. To their read of the material they have found what was important.

It is important to remember that you will starve in the larger industry trying to appease fanboys because fanboys exist almost solely to be disappointed with anything a hair's breadth outside of what they have determined to be the cannon.

Funny, this just came up with Catch-22. Last night, even.

There are plenty of movies that don't take the difference in medium into account and suffer because of it. (The Chris Columbus Harry Potter films come to mind.)


How did the two best films of the series suffer for not taking into account these alleged differences?

To further the above point, there are sturctural and narrative norms that don't always translate well into the next medium.

Bob had a body, Murphy wasn't blond (but another character that was supposed to be brunet was blond), and Harry's VW Beetle was a Jeep. How did this result from not translating well from the medium? Hell, I'm surprised Mister wasn't a dog.

Bob had a body, Murphy wasn't blond (but another character that was supposed to be brunet was blond), and Harry's VW Beetle was a Jeep. How did this result from not translating well from the medium? Hell, I'm surprised Mister wasn't a dog.

Not knowing the books and having only watched a fraction of the show-Bob having a body is a lot easier to convey in a visual medium that doesn't have the luxury of lengthy descriptive text, not to mention 'invisible' characters never stop looking like extra cheesy early TV special effects. The hair color of characters is rarely seen as crucial to the overall take of the story and is a decision that can easily be left to a stylist as to what ends up looking better given the design, Jeep probably put up money that Volkswagen did not and while they do evoke different 'sub cultures' the Jeep and the VW Beetle are both 'quirky' cars that aren't likely to make a significant difference.

(Also, I should add that Volkswagen is very protective of its brand, approaching Disney levels-only out done by Mini, really)

Not knowing the books and having only watched a fraction of the show-Bob having a body is a lot easier to convey in a visual medium that doesn't have the luxury of lengthy descriptive text, not to mention 'invisible' characters never stop looking like extra cheesy early TV special effects. The hair color of characters is rarely seen as crucial to the overall take of the story and is a decision that can easily be left to a stylist as to what ends up looking better given the design, Jeep probably put up money that Volkswagen did not and while they do evoke different 'sub cultures' the Jeep and the VW Beetle are both 'quirky' cars that aren't likely to make a significant difference.

(Also, I should add that Volkswagen is very protective of its brand, approaching Disney levels-only out done by Mini, really)

From Wikipedia:

Several major changes were made for the series, including:

* Harry's "Blue Beetle" Volkswagen has been replaced with a Korean-war era Jeep.
* One of Harry's trademarks in the books was a black duster, replaced in the series by a leather jacket.
* While Bob exists as a disembodied voice emanating from a skull in the books, he can appear in a (spectral) human form that emerges from the skull in the series. He is also the ghost of a human wizard, rather than a spirit of air and intellect as in the books.
* Murphy's name was changed from Karrin to Connie to avoid confusion with real-life Chicago police officer Karyn Murphy. Her character history was also altered significantly, including a daughter, Anna, who does not exist in the books, and changing Murphy's ethnicity from Irish to Hispanic.
* Bianca, the Red Court vampire who runs a Chicago brothel, was changed significantly. In the books she is a vicious predator who wants nothing so much as Harry's slow death. In the television series she becomes a much more sympathetic figure who has saved Harry's life in the past and even been his lover on occasion. It is also implied that she has experienced some tragedy in her past. Bianca runs a club instead of a brothel.
* The side effect of a wizard's power that interferes with modern technology is not used consistently. Harry's office and apartment appear to have working electricity. Harry is seen using a small camera in episode 9 "The Other Dick." It is unclear whether this camera was digital or not. The camera could have been either a Minox C or digital variant.
* In addition, many of his magical items are constructed using mundane, modern items - for example, a drumstick for a wand and a hockey stick for a wizard's staff.

...

Uh...are you asking me to explain all of that...or showing me you can copy things from Wikipedia...just doing some complaining...why are you quoting me and copy pasting wiki?

...

Uh...are you asking me to explain all of that...or showing me you can copy things from Wikipedia...just doing some complaining...why are you quoting me and copy pasting wiki?

To show you that TV producers just don't change things because it doesn't translate well from one medium to the next. All of the things Wikipedia has listed can be translated very well from the book to the TV show.

What do the TV/Movie producer hope to accomplish by taking a liberal definition of "based off of"? Just once, I'd like to see a TV show or a movie that stays true to the book or story that they're based off of.
Movies and books are two seperate media. There's certain things you can do in one that aren't possible in the other, or that you have to consider in one that you didn't need to care about in the other.

A good example is "The Judge and his Hangman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_richter_und_sein_henker)" by Dürenmatt. He wrote the book and changed key elements of the plot when he co-wrote the script for the movie. Both are great.

It's canceled, so I doubt they'll take it to Spain.Getting canceled didn't stop either "John Doe" or "Kidnapped" from airing in Germany.

This sounds like I Am Legend. The only thing the book and movie had in common was the title.
god yes. The book was awesome. Richard Matheson is one of 20th Century's great horror writers and the makers took his classic story and wiped their arse on it.
It could have been so good if they'd stuck to the novella.

His other stories are well worth reading. If you see "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson in your bookstore with Will Smith on the cover, don't be put off. It's actually the original story + several other awesome short stories.

From Wikipedia:

Several major changes were made for the series, including:
...

those sound like some inexcuseable, concept-destroying mutilations there.


what i like is the statement from the author (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,1906.msg36645.html#msg36645) excerpted immediately after the part you quoted:
Well. I think I'm coming to the conclusion now that no matter how many times I say something, it won't get through to everyone, but I'll give it one more shot before I quit.

The show is not the books. It is not meant to follow the same story. It is meant as an alternate world, where the overall background and story-world is similar, but not all the same things happen. The show is not attempting to recreate the books on a chapter-by-chapter or even story-by-story basis.

So, once again, let me stress the fact that I would not hold my breath waiting for them to duplicate the books. That isn't the goal of the folks working on the show, and as long as folks persist in judging the show against a standard of "how well does it clone the book," those folks are going to be continually disappointed.

Watch the show for what it is, guys. I think I'll stop playing this same song from here on out.

Jim

i don't know, that sounds like a healthier position to me

To show you that TV producers just don't change things because it doesn't translate well from one medium to the next. All of the things Wikipedia has listed can be translated very well from the book to the TV show.

those sound like some inexcuseable, concept-destroying mutilations there.


what i like is the statement from the author (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,1906.msg36645.html#msg36645) excerpted immediately after the part you quoted:


i don't know, that sounds like a healthier position to me
I think that the author has effectively summed up things, and between him and what we see hear, my point about fan boys has been proven. As to this 'damning' list...
From Wikipedia:

Several major changes were made for the series, including:

* Harry's "Blue Beetle" Volkswagen has been replaced with a Korean-war era Jeep.
Does this really make that much of a difference? I get it, the "Blue Beetle" is a dated reference to a super hero-here's the thing-I already mentioned that VW is very protective about its brand, especially when it comes to the Beetle because it's 'rehung' its image on it, so it's entirely possible that they didn't want it as the Beetle isn't something that is easily 'greeked' (brand identity is removed). A military jeep is an equally quirky car to drive and much more filmable because of its open cockpit design. Even moreso than a convertible Beetle, the Jeep is easy to see in and around, easy to light, and the people in it are more visible. And while it may seem insignifigant, 2-3 seconds is an eternity in film and if you could cut a few by having a vehicle that's easy to jump in and out of, you'll take it.

* One of Harry's trademarks in the books was a black duster, replaced in the series by a leather jacket.
Again, how much difference does this really make? It's a costuming choice that could happen because the actor simply looked better in the leather jacket, or the duster was a difficult thing to mic (as someone who does that, I can say that it can be, the more fabric you have flapping around the more noise you have to cancel out-sure people have done it, but when you're trying to do a series and you have to make a decision that will possibly make your already tight shoot days more difficult, maybe you make the change.)

* While Bob exists as a disembodied voice emanating from a skull in the books, he can appear in a (spectral) human form that emerges from the skull in the series. He is also the ghost of a human wizard, rather than a spirit of air and intellect as in the books.
I already discussed why he is a body, the context of his existence was probably thought to be too difficult to convey in a show that already required a lot of exposition to create the reality of the show without the book's advantage of lengthy narrative prose that this characterization was easier to convey to the audience.
* Murphy's name was changed from Karrin to Connie to avoid confusion with real-life Chicago police officer Karyn Murphy. Her character history was also altered significantly, including a daughter, Anna, who does not exist in the books, and changing Murphy's ethnicity from Irish to Hispanic.
Name change already explained, the actress they had was Hispanic, and the daughter was likely added to give the character some personal development that is necessary in a series that plays every week that wouldn't be in a book. Subplots have a different life in serial television than they do in a series of books.
* Bianca, the Red Court vampire who runs a Chicago brothel, was changed significantly. In the books she is a vicious predator who wants nothing so much as Harry's slow death. In the television series she becomes a much more sympathetic figure who has saved Harry's life in the past and even been his lover on occasion. It is also implied that she has experienced some tragedy in her past. Bianca runs a club instead of a brothel.
I don't really have to go into why it's a club instead of a brothel, do I? Again, the demands of serial television might have driven this decision. If it is to be a recurring character openly antagonistic week after week doesn't actually allow the character much room to grow and the interactions would become threadbare quickly-what would be comical as it happens in the occasional novel would become hackneyed week after week in a TV series.
* The side effect of a wizard's power that interferes with modern technology is not used consistently. Harry's office and apartment appear to have working electricity. Harry is seen using a small camera in episode 9 "The Other Dick." It is unclear whether this camera was digital or not. The camera could have been either a Minox C or digital variant.
Anything from lighting issues to serving the story they have-keeping in mind that they have 40 minutes to tell each story, not 200 pages, and have to trim cumbersome things like dealing with an overbearing element.
* In addition, many of his magical items are constructed using mundane, modern items - for example, a drumstick for a wand and a hockey stick for a wizard's staff.
Frankly, I thought the hockey stick was one of the more clever elements of the show and find it disappointing that it's not part of the books. This is definately an issue of appearance. The show already has a certain degree of 'overcome,' perhaps there was a concern for the average viewer to look at a guy running around with an actual wizard staff and instead of thinking the character is 'cool' thought he looked like someone whose mom dropped him off at Tremendouscon and got lost.

So yes, Virginia, there are translation and production reasons that decisions are made. Further, hardly anything on this list seems all that earthshattering that it destroys the very concept of the book-seriously, his car and jacket? Hair color? Big deal. The character changes seem to be made for accessibility and to facilitate weekly development over the occasional novel. I say this again, fanboys exist to be disappointed.

Considering the fact that more than a few fans of the books stopped watching when we figured out it was related in name only and it's now canceled due to a lack of ratings it seems a pretty good assumption.

yes, i'm sure that was what was at root in it's cancellation. a loss of a small percentage of fanboys of the novels took down a tv show. i mean, that happens all the time, right?

i would guess that it fell to the same mysterious marketing forces that lots of shows fall too, with the sci-fi channel twist of that money being reallocated to making yet another made-for-a-single-showing tv 'movie' for terrible sci-fi saturdays

So, I watched an episode of "The Dresden Files" on Hulu.com, mainly because I love the books. The TV show sucks! The only thing the books and the TV show have in common is that they both have a character name Harry Dresden who lives in Chicago. Why do TV producer or movie producer always have to take a good book, and twist it into something crappy? Stephen King makes good horror books, but most of the movies suck.

What do the TV/Movie producer hope to accomplish by taking a liberal definition of "based off of"? Just once, I'd like to see a TV show or a movie that stays true to the book or story that they're based off of.

Anyone else a Dresden Files fan?

As a fan of Jim Butcher's work, particularly his Dresden Files books, I LIKED THE TV SERIES.

Yes, it wasn't a carbon copy of the novels. So fucking what? It wasn't intended to be. I thought it was: (1) generally true to the spirit of the books, (2) good on its own merits, and (3) interesting in part precisely because it wasn't exactly the same as the books. (Apparently Jim Butcher felt the same way.)

How did the two best films of the series suffer for not taking into account these alleged differences?

Eh. I don't want to threadjack this discussion, so if you loved the movies, then great. I thought that the first two movies tried too hard to strike a balance between showing the details written about in the books and developing the plot/characters, with the result that I came away humming the scenery.

So, I watched an episode of "The Dresden Files" on Hulu.com, mainly because I love the books. The TV show sucks! The only thing the books and the TV show have in common is that they both have a character name Harry Dresden who lives in Chicago. Why do TV producer or movie producer always have to take a good book, and twist it into something crappy? Stephen King makes good horror books, but most of the movies suck.

What do the TV/Movie producer hope to accomplish by taking a liberal definition of "based off of"? Just once, I'd like to see a TV show or a movie that stays true to the book or story that they're based off of.

Anyone else a Dresden Files fan?
How precisely are they to take something fictional, which you've imagined in one way, and recreate it?

How precisely are they to take something fictional, which you've imagined in one way, and recreate it?

I dunno, maybe if they read a few Dresden files books, take a few notes. They could at least get the character right?