Legend of the Seeker. Let's talk about that for a minute.
I saw only the first ten minutes on the website, but that was enough. Within the *first minute* I could tell they'd already badly mangled the core of the story. The series opens in a strange place; in the book it opens with Richard being stung by a thing called a Snake Vine. Snake Vines grow only in very specific circumstances which I will not spoil, but the fact that they skipped this detail is telling. Things like core story structure apparently don't matter at all to whoever wrote the screenplay.
Anyway, we open with Kahlan fleeing from five men, not four; D'hara employs groups of assassins known as Quads in the books. As their name implies, there are four men to a Quad. Apparently that little piece of lore got chucked for some reason. But that was a comparatively minor detail to what they did next; we see Kahlan entrusted with the Book of Counted Shadows after a few seconds of cheesy fleeing scenes.
Err... that book was supposed to have been memorized, and then burned, by the story's protagonist, Richard. Was supposed to have been done years before the story opens. As a matter of fact, the fact that Richard has this important book memorized is key to the *entire series of books*, not just this first one.
I could go on. There were several other bastardizations of the original source material within this first ten minutes of show. I could take longer than ten minutes just listing all of the places they've gone wrong! Their casting was awful; we got to meet Richard and Kahlan in these first few minutes and neither one of the look or act anything like they should, the acting was very sub-par, the D'haran extra who dies before the end of the scene did a better job than our leading cast members... But, I want to deviate for a moment because there are a few things they did do right.
One would be their special effects. Their rendition of the boundary looks excellent, for instance. Very nice work, art team. Another strong point is the costuming. The appearance of the armor and clothes is very setting-appropriate. It looked different in my head, I might have done it all differently, but not bad there. (Not sure why Kahlan appears to be wearing a black dress under her white dress, but whatev.) Third is their cinematography; Sam Raimi again pleases us with rich colors, drastic camera angles and various other bits of film-shooting goodness.
It just feels like the good thing that almost was. With a different screenwriter and some better casting, we, the fans, may well have had gold on our hands. As it sits, the only people who I predict might enjoy this thing are people who aren't familiar at all with the books, which unfortunately leaves me and my friends completely out.
Good try, Mr. Raimi. Can't win 'em all I guess, better luck next time.
01 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree so whole heartily its just not funny. The series is as close to the books as Night of the Lepus is to "A Christmas Carol" if you just changed the names. I mean I understand television adaptations have to change some things in the interest of time and sometimes creativity, but this!!!
The only thing the series and books have in common are the names of the characters. Everything past that is someone else's poorly written collection of random thoughts. I think I'm kind of disappointed in Terry Goodkind. Having met him its hard to imagine him see that and saying, "Yea that looks great!". I'm feeling a little like he sold out, and didn't get very much for it to boot!
I like when you agree with me. It makes me feel special and important. :P
Anyway, yeah. This isn't the first time I've been disappointed by a book-to-film adaptation, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The only thing I can fathom is, Terry knew he wouldn't like said adaptation, whatever it ended up being, so he just went with whatever paid the highest dollar figure.
I imagine I'd do the same thing in his place. Nothing would ever come out from my fiction the way I see it in my head, not even if I myself wrote the screenplay. Maybe not even if I *directed* the thing. So, I might as well collect the best check from the highest bidder I can.
Look at Stephen King! He's been writing for decades now, he's had many, many movies made from his work, and they're just now starting to make films that he watches and goes, "Yeah, that's kinda like what I had in mind." Even at that, they still don't quite make it most of the time.
I'm not defending the show or the book. I'm not really familiar with either beyond what I've been told.
So, as an unbiased party, my take on it is this.
First, you must ask yourself: what's the purpose of turning a text into film?
There IS no real purpose.
Usually, it ends up being a director or actor is a fanboy of the written works and wants to shape it to his own tastes and vision. I think for a man or woman who does this to earn their daily bread, it's an understandable instinct.
That, or the fans beg for it, not knowing that their demands for canonical purity will be viciously ignored.
Or the author wants to make a quick spot of money. Goodkind finished his series, so why not cash in on the chance to make more money as his series enters its twilight years?
OR, even more likely, someone thinks it'd make a lot of money for everyone involved. Toys, games, even re-novelizations.
The problem is this: if a person was interested in the books, wouldn't they read the books? If you're going to adapt text, you can never expect the level of nuance and intangibility only literary works can offer.
They don't make these shows for the fans of the books, do they? They make them for the plebes who don't want to bother reading the books. That means they have to distill, simplify, visualize, and basically dumb everything down so that Joe Nascar and Trina Teenygirl can readily understand the themes and ideas being presented.
That's why I always cringe at these kinds of adaptations and don't expect much. I know the filmmaker doesn't have ME, the reader, in mind when he starts rolling film. A book-fan doesn't need to have the story transformed into a television program or a movie. They may want it, but they don't need it and they're going to watch it (at least at first) whether it's true-to-story or not. Snagging the other people is the key.
And if a person isn't willing to read a book or (gasp) a series of books, they probably don't want much depth.
See? *grin*
Oh, and King often likes what directors do with his work. Look it up. :)
Incidentally, I don't blame the fans for being upset.
I think it's shameful that this kind of dumbing down takes place. Unless the book is written like a dime-novel, I think it's abhorrent to expect so little of the viewers.
I watched the ten minutes and thought it was utter schlock. It hit upon almost every overplayed convention known to drama: tragic death of a minor character, passing on of an important item, fair maiden being pursued by a band of men, and then the plucky young hero trying to save her life.
If I had just seen it as a show and not known what it was? I'd have laughed and flipped the dial, thankee.
Post a Comment