I think season 2 will be more of the same. They started filming before the show did well as Amazon picked up for a season 2 months before 1 even aired. As a fan of the books I won't even be watching season 2 however, I think they ruined a very well story. I get that they asked for 10 and got 8 but it was the condensing that was the problem it was what they added, took away, and changed.
They could have got rid of the whole episode with Lan and Morianne in the White Tower and instead gave Rand, Mat, and Thom an entire episode. They could have focused on Perrin more by introducing a character from the book who has his gift, ect...
That's the thing, I'm sort of torn ...
The show doesn't give enough time to the main characters of the book. And it certainly doesn't give us enough time with Rand, Matt and Perrin to really want them to succeed. However, I love the extra stuff like Lan and Moraine in the tower as it really fleshes them out.
I wonder if part of fleshing out Morraine has anything to do with Rosamund Pike being one of the producers? I lover her acting but I wonder if she wanted the show to be more "ensemble" and that's what we got?
The very first press for The Amazon show: The story follows Moiraine, a member of the shadowy and influential all-female organization called the Aes Sedai as she embarks on a dangerous journey with five young men and women. Moiraine interest in these five lies in the fact she believes one of them might be the reincarnation of an incredibly powerful individual, whom prophecies say will either save humanity or destroy it.
Now I think she did a pretty good job as Morraine... but it was evident from the first PR that they had changed the focus of the show. I mean, even the big finale episode they have that made up scene with Nynaeve and Egwen against the trollocs.. that was supposed to be a big reveal of how powerful Rand was.
Now what is interesting is that Morraine is almost non-existent in Book 2. I think she has 1 chapter or something. So this tells me that... as far as season 1 got from the source material... season 2 is going to go much further adrift.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
No dis, but this sounds like a personal issue between you and King. The few King books and short stories I have read, I enjoyed.
I will say, when I watch the movie, and then read the book, if it was done well, I can see how the Movie augments the book experience.
Case in point, when I read First Blood, after watching the Movie, I could see how Stallone owned the Character of Johnny Rambo, and Brian Dennehy truly owned the role of the Sheriff Teasle, in many way, the book filled in all the missing gaps that movie left out, but the Movie also brought the characters to much fuller life, so it was a far more enjoyable notion to read the book after the movie, as the two augmented each other.
Then you have things like Warm Bodies, where the Movie was in fact a better telling of the story than the book was, and reading the book was a complete let down.
To each their own that one.. hit or miss I guess.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
No dis, but this sounds like a personal issue between you and King. The few King books and short stories I have read, I enjoyed.
I will say, when I watch the movie, and then read the book, if it was done well, I can see how the Movie augments the book experience.
Case in point, when I read First Blood, after watching the Movie, I could see how Stallone owned the Character of Johnny Rambo, and Brian Dennehy truly owned the role of the Sheriff Teasle, in many way, the book filled in all the missing gaps that movie left out, but the Movie also brought the characters to much fuller life, so it was a far more enjoyable notion to read the book after the movie, as the two augmented each other.
Then you have things like Warm Bodies, where the Movie was in fact a better telling of the story than the book was, and reading the book was a complete let down.
To each their own that one.. hit or miss I guess.
Well The Dark Tower book is not just a good book, but also vastly superior to the movie. I Stand Alone is also a very good book, but there is something about the movie that just gets to me.
In my opinion, in general, written word is still the best medium of storytelling. So I agree with your initial statement. But I think in some adaptations sometimes they change story for the better. I think The Shining is one of those examples.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
I must say that the LotR extended edition by Peter Jackson did a hell of a job keeping with the books.
I don’t believe that version will ever be done better if ever done again at all.
I think it’s Timeless.
The Hobbit on the other hand…
Breaking the hobbit into 3 movies was just a exercize in milking an IP for more milk than it ever had in it.
And a big FU to Amazon Prime that has the first 2 Hobbit movies included but you need to pay extra to watch the 3rd one. Oddly fitting that they are also trying to milk it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
I agree but to this day I still want to have a lobstrosity BBQ with friends
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
Don’t bother with the remake. It’s so bad I couldn’t even finish it.
edit: scratch that, you should watch it so you can see how bad it is
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
Don’t bother with the remake. It’s so bad I couldn’t even finish it.
edit: scratch that, you should watch it so you can see how bad it is
Wow.. as the mini series was, IMHO, pretty bad vs how well the book gripped the situation.. I shudder to think how bad the new remake would be.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
You can't blame Stephen King for the world's modern publishing trend for word bloat. What next, shall will blame Agatha Christie for the popularisation of the paperback novel as The Mysterious Affair At Styles was one of the first ten books Penguin published as paperbacks and it became a roaring success?
Yes he is an offender for excessive padding, but still great works of fiction. The fault for this lays at the door of publishing houses.
I think season 2 will be more of the same. They started filming before the show did well as Amazon picked up for a season 2 months before 1 even aired. As a fan of the books I won't even be watching season 2 however, I think they ruined a very well story. I get that they asked for 10 and got 8 but it was the condensing that was the problem it was what they added, took away, and changed.
They could have got rid of the whole episode with Lan and Morianne in the White Tower and instead gave Rand, Mat, and Thom an entire episode. They could have focused on Perrin more by introducing a character from the book who has his gift, ect...
That's the thing, I'm sort of torn ...
The show doesn't give enough time to the main characters of the book. And it certainly doesn't give us enough time with Rand, Matt and Perrin to really want them to succeed. However, I love the extra stuff like Lan and Moraine in the tower as it really fleshes them out.
I wonder if part of fleshing out Morraine has anything to do with Rosamund Pike being one of the producers? I lover her acting but I wonder if she wanted the show to be more "ensemble" and that's what we got?
The very first press for The Amazon show: The story follows Moiraine, a member of the shadowy and influential all-female organization called the Aes Sedai as she embarks on a dangerous journey with five young men and women. Moiraine interest in these five lies in the fact she believes one of them might be the reincarnation of an incredibly powerful individual, whom prophecies say will either save humanity or destroy it.
Now I think she did a pretty good job as Morraine... but it was evident from the first PR that they had changed the focus of the show. I mean, even the big finale episode they have that made up scene with Nynaeve and Egwen against the trollocs.. that was supposed to be a big reveal of how powerful Rand was.
Now what is interesting is that Morraine is almost non-existent in Book 2. I think she has 1 chapter or something. So this tells me that... as far as season 1 got from the source material... season 2 is going to go much further adrift.
I am afraid that these days the entertainment media is too concerned with the story it wants to tell, rather than the story the author wrote. These sort of alterations have always been with us but they have now pushed into every new treatment and are becoming more sweeping each year. If like me you are something of an IP purist the situation is getting rather ridiculous. I can't comment on the show you are talking about mind you, but I would be quite surprised if sweeping changes had not been made.
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
I remember Stephen King once said in an interview about how the hell he writes so much, that he writes 2000 words per day no matter what. Well, I guess if you'd want to turn into a printing machine, that works, and he is a hell of a beast when it comes down to it. But then again it would turn into what you just described.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
You can't blame Stephen King for the world's modern publishing trend for word bloat. What next, shall will blame Agatha Christie for the popularisation of the paperback novel as The Mysterious Affair At Styles was one of the first ten books Penguin published as paperbacks and it became a roaring success?
Yes he is an offender for excessive padding, but still great works of fiction. The fault for this lays at the door of publishing houses.
Please blame Umberto Eco, please.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
You can't blame Stephen King for the world's modern publishing trend for word bloat. What next, shall will blame Agatha Christie for the popularisation of the paperback novel as The Mysterious Affair At Styles was one of the first ten books Penguin published as paperbacks and it became a roaring success?
Yes he is an offender for excessive padding, but still great works of fiction. The fault for this lays at the door of publishing houses.
Please blame Umberto Eco, please.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I will give you that he meanders but where he goes is nearly always a joy.
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
You can't blame Stephen King for the world's modern publishing trend for word bloat. What next, shall will blame Agatha Christie for the popularisation of the paperback novel as The Mysterious Affair At Styles was one of the first ten books Penguin published as paperbacks and it became a roaring success?
Yes he is an offender for excessive padding, but still great works of fiction. The fault for this lays at the door of publishing houses.
Please blame Umberto Eco, please.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I will give you that he meanders but where he goes is nearly always a joy.
Eco’s meandering reaches levels of a masturbatory display of knowledge. His works would be half their size if he wasn’t so eager to show off to his readers. The worst part? He doesn’t need it, he can bloody write.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
You can't blame Stephen King for the world's modern publishing trend for word bloat. What next, shall will blame Agatha Christie for the popularisation of the paperback novel as The Mysterious Affair At Styles was one of the first ten books Penguin published as paperbacks and it became a roaring success?
Yes he is an offender for excessive padding, but still great works of fiction. The fault for this lays at the door of publishing houses.
I don't blame him for the trend, but I think he exemplifies it and has been a trendsetter in this regard which is why I refer to it by his name. For decades now he's done that and it really makes reading some of his stuff a drag. He's rich and popular enough that he could buck that trend if he wanted to whereas lesser know and struggling authors may not have much of a choice if their publisher pressures them.
Is it really padding or is this how he wants to write?
I mean, Charles Dickens was padding as he got paid for each submission. Had it just been for the story I bet he would have written less.
To that point, are Wagner's operas "padded" because they are about 4 hours each?
Is my awesome Skyrim mod padded as it has over 112 separate maps? Nay I say nay (see link in below!)
I think people's attention spans have been affected over the years so that they can't just "be" in a work but need it to move along at a certain pace.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Is it really padding or is this how he wants to write?
I mean, Charles Dickens was padding as he got paid for each submission. Had it just been for the story I bet he would have written less.
To that point, are Wagner's operas "padded" because they are about 4 hours each?
Is my awesome Skyrim mod padded as it has over 112 separate maps? Nay I say nay (see link in below!)
I think people's attention spans have been affected over the years so that they can't just "be" in a work but need it to move along at a certain pace.
Is every lengthy narrative padded? No. I'm not even saying Stephen King pads his works. I'm saying he goes on and on and on including minutiae and tangents that make reading through an otherwise engaging narrative a slog. As a pure guess I'd say that's just how he writes, but it's still a problem for me because I think it detracts.
Are there Dickens novels that get sloggy because he goes on and on?
Does your Skyrim mod have any pacing problem points because of the length and map breadth?
Do Wanger's operas sometimes get tedious, sleepy, or hard to concentrate on because they could have been more succinct or possibly broken into 2 parts?
I think attention spans and humanity in general haven't changed that much over the centuries because people have been criticizing these issues for as long as they have been around.
Strangely enough I don't recall Doctor Who being mentioned yet so here goes. In the world of campy action sci-fi it's right on up there on the popularity list. I'm curious what opinions posters have of the franchise.
Personally it's hit and miss for me. Much of the classics don't resonate with me, but like the modern series I think it really depends on the writers.
My favorite Doctor is Tenet and I loved the Bad Wolf storyline, but I think Matt Smith (my second favorite) has the best storyline of all. Both I think made the best Doctors (and had great assistants) but it was their writers that made them look so good.
I think Capaldi and Whittaker are excellent actors that got hamstrung with a horrible writing staff. It isn't just that the narratives didn't resonate with me, but I don't think the writers wrote The Doctor to fit those actors very well at all. That's unfortunate.
While Doctor Who is often very campy it also has some great stories and explores interesting personal and interpersonal themes. The science is light (that's probably being kind) and is more pure fantasy with a coat of "sciency" looking paint.
Another issue I have with the series is the BBC itself which shamelessly markets any and all of their IPs for what seems like a quick buck (see the EVE crossover for example). They seem primarily invested in Doctor Who as a ratings, advertising, and merchandising machine rather than a beloved IP to explore. So, Doctor Who as an IP with stories to tell hasn't been given the respectful treatment it deserves by the BBC and as a result has suffered a bit for that.
Best new Dr would be Tennent, the series is so long with so many leads, seconds and writers it would be amazing if it was not hit and miss. I would have put Capaldi as my second favourite but half way through he/they changed his personality. The series needed a "no nonsense" Doctor and that's what we got, but half way through he changed into another Mr. Nice Guy. Best new companion Amy Pond, worst was Rory Williams who seemed to have only been there to make her look even better.
Strangely enough I don't recall Doctor Who being mentioned yet so here goes. In the world of campy action sci-fi it's right on up there on the popularity list. I'm curious what opinions posters have of the franchise.
Personally it's hit and miss for me. Much of the classics don't resonate with me, but like the modern series I think it really depends on the writers.
My favorite Doctor is Tenet and I loved the Bad Wolf storyline, but I think Matt Smith (my second favorite) has the best storyline of all. Both I think made the best Doctors (and had great assistants) but it was their writers that made them look so good.
I think Capaldi and Whittaker are excellent actors that got hamstrung with a horrible writing staff. It isn't just that the narratives didn't resonate with me, but I don't think the writers wrote The Doctor to fit those actors very well at all. That's unfortunate.
While Doctor Who is often very campy it also has some great stories and explores interesting personal and interpersonal themes. The science is light (that's probably being kind) and is more pure fantasy with a coat of "sciency" looking paint.
Another issue I have with the series is the BBC itself which shamelessly markets any and all of their IPs for what seems like a quick buck (see the EVE crossover for example). They seem primarily invested in Doctor Who as a ratings, advertising, and merchandising machine rather than a beloved IP to explore. So, Doctor Who as an IP with stories to tell hasn't been given the respectful treatment it deserves by the BBC and as a result has suffered a bit for that.
I find this agreeable. Though personally, I think modern Who died with the Ponds. That's roughly when writers changed and the inherent energy of the show largely left. Moffatt didn't have quite the same spirit, and the show suffered, but it was still watchable if inferior under the rest of Smith and Capaldi. Then they changed writers again, and Chibnall proved to be a thoroughly joyless hack that ruined Whittaker's run.
Personally, I think the talent of the actors is largely irrelevant for DW because of how camp it is. A comically bad actor in the role can lend it just as much fun as a great one. But the show can't endure bad or, more importantly, unimaginative writing, as it thrives on the exploration of wild new plotlines in brave new worlds.
Is it really padding or is this how he wants to write?
I mean, Charles Dickens was padding as he got paid for each submission. Had it just been for the story I bet he would have written less.
To that point, are Wagner's operas "padded" because they are about 4 hours each?
Is my awesome Skyrim mod padded as it has over 112 separate maps? Nay I say nay (see link in below!)
I think people's attention spans have been affected over the years so that they can't just "be" in a work but need it to move along at a certain pace.
Is every lengthy narrative padded? No. I'm not even saying Stephen King pads his works. I'm saying he goes on and on and on including minutiae and tangents that make reading through an otherwise engaging narrative a slog. As a pure guess I'd say that's just how he writes, but it's still a problem for me because I think it detracts.
Are there Dickens novels that get sloggy because he goes on and on?
Does your Skyrim mod have any pacing problem points because of the length and map breadth?
Do Wanger's operas sometimes get tedious, sleepy, or hard to concentrate on because they could have been more succinct or possibly broken into 2 parts?
I think attention spans and humanity in general haven't changed that much over the centuries because people have been criticizing these issues for as long as they have been around.
I think Scot probably has the right of it.
I watch movies where I love the pacing and then I read reviews where people claim that the movie takes forever to get started. My thought is "what's the friggin' hurry?"
I don't agree about attention spans. While no one likes a poorly paced anything, works fo music and theater and even movies have trended shorter and shorter as time has gone on. Heck, When looking at a final time for my musical I saw an article from a theatrical agency I'm working with indicating that the trend is 30 minutes shorter than what has going before.
But I do think that what I find interesting and compelling might not be what others find compelling. Heck, on my mod page under "let me dissuade you" I come out and say that the mod is meant to be lengthy and not a quick slog.
I don't find Stephen king's work padded. Heck, I don't, for the most part, find robert jordan's work padded and love all the additional characters and subplots.
give me moar!
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I did enjoy watching The Lord of The Rings even with it's discrepancies. The basis of the story was there
I never watched a movie that truly captured the depth of the book it was based on.
This is why, if I can, I never read the book the first, I watch the movie first, then I read the book.
'The Prestige' has done a pretty good job. Then there are movies that are better than the books. For instance 'The Shining', movie is a masterpiece while the book is Stephen King. I can think of more Stephen King stuff; The Shawshank Redemption, Stand by Me, The Green Mile, The Dead Zone, The Mist, and Misery. All of which I believe movies are better than the books.
Scot mentioned word bloat in modern fiction. I like to refer to that as Stephen King syndrome. Part way through most of his novels there is this long dry spot where he goes on and on into minutiae.
Gunslinger is a good example. At some point you begin wondering what he's talking about, where he's going with it, and why he's getting sidetracked into these seemingly irrelevant details. Then you may be tempted to give him the benefit and think it will all tie together soon. Then 250 pages later you're going bloody hell he just on and on and on.
Pet Semetary was as good as the movie but the movie was also excellent. Shawshank was an awesome movie, but the cast also made that show. The classic "The Stand" miniseries was excellent too. I'd like watch the modern remake at some point.
You can't blame Stephen King for the world's modern publishing trend for word bloat. What next, shall will blame Agatha Christie for the popularisation of the paperback novel as The Mysterious Affair At Styles was one of the first ten books Penguin published as paperbacks and it became a roaring success?
Yes he is an offender for excessive padding, but still great works of fiction. The fault for this lays at the door of publishing houses.
I don't blame him for the trend, but I think he exemplifies it and has been a trendsetter in this regard which is why I refer to it by his name. For decades now he's done that and it really makes reading some of his stuff a drag. He's rich and popular enough that he could buck that trend if he wanted to whereas lesser know and struggling authors may not have much of a choice if their publisher pressures them.
I suspect that editors are very reluctant to actually edit Stephen King. He could publish his childhood crayon scribbles and it would sell. Talked to a NYT bestselling author once, and he decried losing his original editor, who would ride him hard. Said the new editors were too circumspect, too respectful, too fearful, to make hard editing passes.
I quit reading King decades ago, mostly due to his uninteresting bloat.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Anyone ever read Jack Whyte's take on King Arthur?
I love his rendition, it makes it believable, sword and all
Yeah I read it. It was excellent and stripped of magic woo.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I wonder if part of fleshing out Morraine has anything to do with Rosamund Pike being one of the producers? I lover her acting but I wonder if she wanted the show to be more "ensemble" and that's what we got?
I noticed that, too! I've wondered how that item has "nudged" the show here or there
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Comments
The story follows Moiraine, a member of the shadowy and influential all-female organization called the Aes Sedai as she embarks on a dangerous journey with five young men and women. Moiraine interest in these five lies in the fact she believes one of them might be the reincarnation of an incredibly powerful individual, whom prophecies say will either save humanity or destroy it.
Now I think she did a pretty good job as Morraine... but it was evident from the first PR that they had changed the focus of the show. I mean, even the big finale episode they have that made up scene with Nynaeve and Egwen against the trollocs.. that was supposed to be a big reveal of how powerful Rand was.
Now what is interesting is that Morraine is almost non-existent in Book 2. I think she has 1 chapter or something. So this tells me that... as far as season 1 got from the source material... season 2 is going to go much further adrift.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I will say, when I watch the movie, and then read the book, if it was done well, I can see how the Movie augments the book experience.
Case in point, when I read First Blood, after watching the Movie, I could see how Stallone owned the Character of Johnny Rambo, and Brian Dennehy truly owned the role of the Sheriff Teasle, in many way, the book filled in all the missing gaps that movie left out, but the Movie also brought the characters to much fuller life, so it was a far more enjoyable notion to read the book after the movie, as the two augmented each other.
Then you have things like Warm Bodies, where the Movie was in fact a better telling of the story than the book was, and reading the book was a complete let down.
To each their own that one.. hit or miss I guess.
In my opinion, in general, written word is still the best medium of storytelling. So I agree with your initial statement. But I think in some adaptations sometimes they change story for the better. I think The Shining is one of those examples.
I don’t believe that version will ever be done better if ever done again at all.
The Hobbit on the other hand…
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
And a big FU to Amazon Prime that has the first 2 Hobbit movies included but you need to pay extra to watch the 3rd one. Oddly fitting that they are also trying to milk it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
edit: scratch that, you should watch it so you can see how bad it is
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Yes he is an offender for excessive padding, but still great works of fiction. The fault for this lays at the door of publishing houses.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I mean, Charles Dickens was padding as he got paid for each submission. Had it just been for the story I bet he would have written less.
To that point, are Wagner's operas "padded" because they are about 4 hours each?
Is my awesome Skyrim mod padded as it has over 112 separate maps? Nay I say nay (see link in below!)
I think people's attention spans have been affected over the years so that they can't just "be" in a work but need it to move along at a certain pace.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Best new Dr would be Tennent, the series is so long with so many leads, seconds and writers it would be amazing if it was not hit and miss. I would have put Capaldi as my second favourite but half way through he/they changed his personality. The series needed a "no nonsense" Doctor and that's what we got, but half way through he changed into another Mr. Nice Guy. Best new companion Amy Pond, worst was Rory Williams who seemed to have only been there to make her look even better.
Personally, I think the talent of the actors is largely irrelevant for DW because of how camp it is. A comically bad actor in the role can lend it just as much fun as a great one. But the show can't endure bad or, more importantly, unimaginative writing, as it thrives on the exploration of wild new plotlines in brave new worlds.
I watch movies where I love the pacing and then I read reviews where people claim that the movie takes forever to get started. My thought is "what's the friggin' hurry?"
I don't agree about attention spans. While no one likes a poorly paced anything, works fo music and theater and even movies have trended shorter and shorter as time has gone on. Heck, When looking at a final time for my musical I saw an article from a theatrical agency I'm working with indicating that the trend is 30 minutes shorter than what has going before.
But I do think that what I find interesting and compelling might not be what others find compelling. Heck, on my mod page under "let me dissuade you" I come out and say that the mod is meant to be lengthy and not a quick slog.
I don't find Stephen king's work padded. Heck, I don't, for the most part, find robert jordan's work padded and love all the additional characters and subplots.
give me moar!
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I quit reading King decades ago, mostly due to his uninteresting bloat.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I love his rendition, it makes it believable, sword and all
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I noticed that, too! I've wondered how that item has "nudged" the show here or there
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR