It is very common to have a conversation with someone about television shows. It is even more common to discuss how quickly you finish a season of a show, especially with streaming options. 'I finished watching the latest season in a day and a half.' is a sentence that I'm sure most people have said. The question I have is how long are these seasons that people are watching? Is it a twenty four episode season that they are watching in one day? How long are the episodes? Because if you are watching a forty five minute long episode and if a season you are watching is twenty four episodes, damn that's a lot to take in during a short stretch of time. Don't get me wrong, I binge watch here and there, but it's three or four episodes and I am done. My brain reaches capacity for information.
And there are exceptions. I binged my way through the first three
season of 'Fear the Walking Dead' at a rapid rate. Mainly to get caught up because the
most recent season is airing. Well, right now they're on a mid-season
break (which is dumb, why does that exist?), but I am all caught up.
I am currently watching season two of 'Jessica Jones' on Netflix. It is thirteen episodes long. A season you could watch in an entire weekend if you chose to. I'm watching a two or three episodes at a time for a couple of reasons. I enjoy the show so I want to stretch out the experience as long as possible. I also want to ensure that I don't get to a boredom moment where I mentally check out on an episode and then miss something that is happening. Streaming services make it too easy to watch the next and the next and the next episode. It takes control to turn the t.v. off.
Another show that I watched is 'Arrow'. It has been a while since I watched it after I finished the second season. I like to jump around after I finish a season of something just to watch a new show and keep it fresh. The problem with 'Arrow' is that the seasons are twenty some episodes long. It is very daunting when you are starting off a season, especially when the episodes are forty five minutes long. I like to finish watching a season of whatever it is that I am watching before moving on to the next show, so I have been very hesitant in starting the next season.
A third example of a show I have watched is 'Frontier' (another Netflix original). Two seasons have been released and each season is six episodes long. That is almost too short of a season. The nice thing about such a short season is that there are no throw away episodes. No episodes that are around just to make sure that the season quota is met. Each of the six episodes is carefully laid out and builds up the next one. The problem is that you want the season to keep going. You want to find out what happens next.
Three different shows, three different season lengths. So which one is right? They're all right in their own way. The main difference between the shows is that one (Arrow) is on t.v. while the others are exclusively on a streaming service. With 'Arrow' the season is as long as it is, I'm assuming, because it is needed to fill the time slot and to earn money for the t.v. channel. That is the nice thing about the streaming shows, it can be as long or short as the creators want. The better the show, the longer the next season could be or the more seasons there can be. I think that twelve episodes per season is just the right amount. It gives time to develop both characters and story line without having to have an episode or two where you're wondering why it is even in the season. Most shows have an episode like that. You finish watching it and are left wondering why you even spent the time watching it.
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label television. Show all posts
02 July 2018
20 June 2018
Slow Burn
I just recently finished watching 'The Terror' from AMC. It was a ten part mini-series about an English expedition to find the Northwest Passage. It was really well done. The acting, the sets, the writing, everything. As I was making my way through it there was something about it that kept me from getting really into it. About half way through the series it dawned on me. Nothing was really happening. I mean, there was stuff going on, but it wasn't engaging. It's like a movie that people say is almost perfect in every movie making technical way, but it's boring. Like a Stanley Kubrick film. Not the good ones. Like Barry Lydon.
The show did not pick up steam as far as plot points and action until episode eight. The last two and a half episodes were amazing too. By that point you're invested in the show, but you start to wonder why. I almost gave up on the show. I was giving it to the halfway point before making my decision as to whether or not to keep watching. And then they threw in a huge plot point and hooked me. All I kept thinking was 'why wait this long?'. I understand that they need to have some episodes to set up character dynamics and story line, but it just felt like it took too long. Is this just part of the new television and movie watching era? If we do not have something resembling instant gratification in something we are watching, do we just give up on it?
I don't think that this is a new phenomenon. How many times have we heard people talk about shows where you need to get past the first season before the show starts to get better? Or the first movie in a trilogy isn't that great, but the second and third ones are higher quality. I've had that problem with books too. 'Oh, just get past the first one hundred pages, it gets better.' WHAT?! You need to hook the audience not make them wonder if they should be flossing their teeth instead.
The show did not pick up steam as far as plot points and action until episode eight. The last two and a half episodes were amazing too. By that point you're invested in the show, but you start to wonder why. I almost gave up on the show. I was giving it to the halfway point before making my decision as to whether or not to keep watching. And then they threw in a huge plot point and hooked me. All I kept thinking was 'why wait this long?'. I understand that they need to have some episodes to set up character dynamics and story line, but it just felt like it took too long. Is this just part of the new television and movie watching era? If we do not have something resembling instant gratification in something we are watching, do we just give up on it?
I don't think that this is a new phenomenon. How many times have we heard people talk about shows where you need to get past the first season before the show starts to get better? Or the first movie in a trilogy isn't that great, but the second and third ones are higher quality. I've had that problem with books too. 'Oh, just get past the first one hundred pages, it gets better.' WHAT?! You need to hook the audience not make them wonder if they should be flossing their teeth instead.
10 January 2018
Reboots
I fail to understand where the need to reboot or rehash old television shows. I also feel this way about movies. I mean, how many times are we going to see Spider Man redone? You can only retell a story so many times before it just loses it's appeal. I like to see expanding or continuing stories, but not for shows that have been off air for fifteen years.
Off the top of my head, here's a list of shows that at one time were off air but now are back on or coming back on:
That is why seeing original content from streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime) is great right now. Especially because they can have better content and aren't restricted by the censors of network television channels. Television executives are handcuffed by censors which might be why they just keep re-upping these shows. Don't get me wrong, I watch both streaming shows and television shows. It's just that television shows don't have anything new. No new subjects to cover. No new styles of shows. How many cop/fire/ambulance shows do we actually need? How many hospital shows do we need?
Off the top of my head, here's a list of shows that at one time were off air but now are back on or coming back on:
- Hawaii Five-O
- SWAT
- Will & Grace
- Rosanne
- The X-Files
- Mad About You
That is why seeing original content from streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime) is great right now. Especially because they can have better content and aren't restricted by the censors of network television channels. Television executives are handcuffed by censors which might be why they just keep re-upping these shows. Don't get me wrong, I watch both streaming shows and television shows. It's just that television shows don't have anything new. No new subjects to cover. No new styles of shows. How many cop/fire/ambulance shows do we actually need? How many hospital shows do we need?
08 March 2016
Binge Worthy?
With the rise of streaming services, binge watching has become very popular. And with Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu starting to put out original content, you no longer have to wait an entire week for the next episode. You can watch an entirely new season in just a few days. Past seasons are readily available and you can watch a favorite episode from the first season that was four years ago. All at the touch of a few buttons. And it's ruining how we watch everything.
We live in a need it now world. We don't want to wait in line at the store, so we have self checkouts because everyone thinks they can do it themselves better than the cashier. We have smart phones and can access the Internet, social media, and email any time we want instead of turning on the computer when you get home. Hell, I even wrote part of this on my phone thanks to an app. So once streaming services started producing their own content and releasing it all at once, there was no longer a seven day wait for the next episode. Binge watching a new season became normal. Sitting down over the course of a weekend to watch all the new episodes is now typical behavior. I just don't see how people can do that. I don't understand how they can keep focused for four or five hours at a time to watch a handful of episodes all at once. To be honest, I have done this once. When Netflix released 'Wet Hot American Summer: First Day' we sat down and watched all the episodes. It's a little different with thirty minute episodes, which is what it was. And it was funny and you didn't really have to pay attention to small details or conversations. Just recently, the new season of 'House of Cards' was released and people were on social media talking about the entire season just a few days after it came out. Full disclosure: I haven't watched any of that show, so I don't know how intense or detailed it is. But still, that has to be tough.
There are shows that I want to watch over a two or three day span. When 'Daredevil' comes out at the end of the month, I might be tempted. I watched the first season an episode at a time over a few weeks time frame. Holding onto the old ways of waiting I guess. What I have found is that I'm good for two new episodes of dramas or shows that are an hour long. I have trouble keeping focused after two new episodes. I get thinking about stuff I could be doing other than watching a show. Plus, it's going to be there the next day. But again, with a thirty minute comedy, that's different. Maybe because it is so short, you feel that it's only an hour if you watch two and you still have the drive to watch more. Right now, I'm in the midst of the second season of 'Arrow'. It's good, and as I watch the episodes, I want to watch more than two because character development and action sequences are starting to pick up. But I've tried watching a third episode. What ends up happening, if I can get through it, is that I forget what happened. So I end up re-watching the episode.
There is also the fact that after watching television shows for so long the traditional way, you are use to waiting to see what happens. You are use to having time to digest what has happened. One of the drawbacks to binge watching is you don't get that downtime to think about what is happening to the characters or what might happen in the next episode. You get that instant gratification, but the anticipation of the new episode is gone. Watching shows like '24' and 'The Walking Dead' they leave you reeling with cliff hangers or character injury/death that you have to deal with for an entire week (or more) before you find out what happened. I mean, how intense was it wondering what happened to Glenn for those two weeks Walking Dead fans? How long did you mourn President David Palmer, Tony, and Michelle 24 fans? It was great. That is the allure of television. The waiting and the anticipation of the next episode.
Some years in the future, the not too distant future the way technology develops, we will look at waiting seven days for the next episode as just plain crazy. Even now, it's starting to become a relic. With on demand television, you can miss an episode or two and still catch up on it. You can wait until the weekend and catch up on all the shows you would have to plan your evenings around. Is it only a matter of time before cable and network channels stop broadcasting new episodes on a weekly basis? At what point will we start to see whole seasons of sitcoms being released all at once? It doesn't feel like it's that far away. When that happens, that might just be the death of the television station. Or at the very least, the death of the television station as we know it. It will become something else. Something new. And what that is I am interested to see.
There are shows that I want to watch over a two or three day span. When 'Daredevil' comes out at the end of the month, I might be tempted. I watched the first season an episode at a time over a few weeks time frame. Holding onto the old ways of waiting I guess. What I have found is that I'm good for two new episodes of dramas or shows that are an hour long. I have trouble keeping focused after two new episodes. I get thinking about stuff I could be doing other than watching a show. Plus, it's going to be there the next day. But again, with a thirty minute comedy, that's different. Maybe because it is so short, you feel that it's only an hour if you watch two and you still have the drive to watch more. Right now, I'm in the midst of the second season of 'Arrow'. It's good, and as I watch the episodes, I want to watch more than two because character development and action sequences are starting to pick up. But I've tried watching a third episode. What ends up happening, if I can get through it, is that I forget what happened. So I end up re-watching the episode.
There is also the fact that after watching television shows for so long the traditional way, you are use to waiting to see what happens. You are use to having time to digest what has happened. One of the drawbacks to binge watching is you don't get that downtime to think about what is happening to the characters or what might happen in the next episode. You get that instant gratification, but the anticipation of the new episode is gone. Watching shows like '24' and 'The Walking Dead' they leave you reeling with cliff hangers or character injury/death that you have to deal with for an entire week (or more) before you find out what happened. I mean, how intense was it wondering what happened to Glenn for those two weeks Walking Dead fans? How long did you mourn President David Palmer, Tony, and Michelle 24 fans? It was great. That is the allure of television. The waiting and the anticipation of the next episode.
Some years in the future, the not too distant future the way technology develops, we will look at waiting seven days for the next episode as just plain crazy. Even now, it's starting to become a relic. With on demand television, you can miss an episode or two and still catch up on it. You can wait until the weekend and catch up on all the shows you would have to plan your evenings around. Is it only a matter of time before cable and network channels stop broadcasting new episodes on a weekly basis? At what point will we start to see whole seasons of sitcoms being released all at once? It doesn't feel like it's that far away. When that happens, that might just be the death of the television station. Or at the very least, the death of the television station as we know it. It will become something else. Something new. And what that is I am interested to see.
02 May 2014
Boob Tube Post. Hehehe....boob.
Everyone has their show that they absolutely cannot miss. Same bat-time, same bat-channel, you block out the real world. With the invention of the DVR, we have been able to not necessarily sit down at the same time each week, but you still set time aside to watch shows. And with Netflix, you can go on binges of shows you were late finding out about to catch up on past seasons. Below is a list of a handful of shows that I have enjoyed watching. Some of them are still on, some have been off air for quite some time.
'Warehouse 13'. This show is on theSci-Fi Channel Sci-Fi SyFy channel since 2009 and this is the final season. This is a fun show with some serious undertones. Some might call it a 'dramity'. I like it because of the historical references. A little corny, but what do you expect from a channel called SyFy? They have done pretty well for such an absurd concept of a show. They know their limitations and don't try to do too much. This is a binge-worthy show. In fact, that is how I started watching it. It's on Netflix and I sat down on a day off and watched six or seven episodes in a row. I got hooked quick.
'24'. This was a show that overstayed it's welcome. This is coming from someone who had to sit down and watch every. single. episode. And not the next day, or a week later. That night. My brother and I called/texted back and forth during episodes. This was one of those shows that I blocked off an hour of my day to sit down and watch. It was tense and had great twists throughout the season, but the last two or three seasons were near unwatchable. Very heavy handed when it came to politics, but I still watched because I was invested in the show and characters. And don't get me wrong, when the new season starts on Monday, I will be watching.
'Lost'. Yes, I got caught up in the show that went from 'people trapped on an island after a crash' to 'what the fuck is going on' in the span of half a season. I liked it. I even enjoyed the series finale. That's right, I said it. Bring on the haters. Most of the later seasons were trying to be too cryptic and many people gave up on the show. There were times when I wanted to do the same thing. But I also wanted to know how it ended. They did a great job of not answering questions to keep the viewers coming back. This show tried to do and be much more than it really was. By the way, did we ever find out how the polar bear got to the island in the South Pacific?
'The Walking Dead'. Why did I start watching this show? For the zombies. Who didn't start watching this show for that? Why do I still watch this show? For the characters and story line. It sounds pretentious, and it kind of is, but the zombies and all the gore that go along with it are just a byproduct of what is really going on. I have been interested in zombies and always have fun with the 'what would you do in the zombie apocalypse' type scenarios. Whenever I come across people that don't want to watch this show because of all the gore, I tell them to try and get past it and watch it for the storyline. It is so much better than the gore. Also, read the graphic novels. Holy shit, they are so good.
'Mad Men'. Nothing exciting ever happens in this show. There are no explosions, no terrorist plots, no crazy character they bring in to try and revamp interest. This is a show that is well written, well acted, and well developed. If you want to watch a drama series, this is it. None of that NCIS, CSI bullshit. Those shows are awful. AWFUL! This is a show that is in it's last season. It could probably be carried on for several more years, but they are being smart and ending it before it outlives itself. This season is being split into two half seasons which I cannot stand. More and more shows are starting to do this 'mid-season finale' bullshit and it needs to stop. This show is one of those shows you enjoy watching and when it's all over, you are glad you did just because of how well it was done. If my writing doesn't convince you, maybe a list of all the awards it has won/been nominated for will.
'Gilmore Girls'. Want to know where Melissa McCarthy came from? Watch this show. This is a show that I had never heard of and just started watching it one day with my wife. It has one of the best deadpan characters of all time in Luke Danes. Plus, I think that it is safe to say, that no one in the post-Grunge era wore flannel better than Luke did. There are so many pop culture and history references throughout the entire series, you could make up a drinking game and die from it halfway through the first season. Which is what made it a good show. The writing. Amy-Sherman Palladino wrote the bulk of the show and is very gifted. Is it cheesy at times? Yes. Is it over the top? Yes. Is it still fun to watch? Yes. They even had Madeline Albright on for a cameo. And Norman Mailer. Come on now.
There are also some shows that I tried to get into, but wasn't able. I was told that some shows, like 'The Americans' and 'Breaking Bad' got some much better as the show went on. Well, those are two shows I tried to watch. And just couldn't. I got halfway through 'The Americans' before giving up on it. I tried watching 'Breaking Bad'. Twice. And I'm sure that the shows are great, hell Bryan Cranston won awards for his efforts. Other shows, like 'Vikings', are on the same time other shows that I have been watching for years are on. You cannot always win with television.
32/120
'Warehouse 13'. This show is on the
'24'. This was a show that overstayed it's welcome. This is coming from someone who had to sit down and watch every. single. episode. And not the next day, or a week later. That night. My brother and I called/texted back and forth during episodes. This was one of those shows that I blocked off an hour of my day to sit down and watch. It was tense and had great twists throughout the season, but the last two or three seasons were near unwatchable. Very heavy handed when it came to politics, but I still watched because I was invested in the show and characters. And don't get me wrong, when the new season starts on Monday, I will be watching.
'Lost'. Yes, I got caught up in the show that went from 'people trapped on an island after a crash' to 'what the fuck is going on' in the span of half a season. I liked it. I even enjoyed the series finale. That's right, I said it. Bring on the haters. Most of the later seasons were trying to be too cryptic and many people gave up on the show. There were times when I wanted to do the same thing. But I also wanted to know how it ended. They did a great job of not answering questions to keep the viewers coming back. This show tried to do and be much more than it really was. By the way, did we ever find out how the polar bear got to the island in the South Pacific?
'The Walking Dead'. Why did I start watching this show? For the zombies. Who didn't start watching this show for that? Why do I still watch this show? For the characters and story line. It sounds pretentious, and it kind of is, but the zombies and all the gore that go along with it are just a byproduct of what is really going on. I have been interested in zombies and always have fun with the 'what would you do in the zombie apocalypse' type scenarios. Whenever I come across people that don't want to watch this show because of all the gore, I tell them to try and get past it and watch it for the storyline. It is so much better than the gore. Also, read the graphic novels. Holy shit, they are so good.
'Mad Men'. Nothing exciting ever happens in this show. There are no explosions, no terrorist plots, no crazy character they bring in to try and revamp interest. This is a show that is well written, well acted, and well developed. If you want to watch a drama series, this is it. None of that NCIS, CSI bullshit. Those shows are awful. AWFUL! This is a show that is in it's last season. It could probably be carried on for several more years, but they are being smart and ending it before it outlives itself. This season is being split into two half seasons which I cannot stand. More and more shows are starting to do this 'mid-season finale' bullshit and it needs to stop. This show is one of those shows you enjoy watching and when it's all over, you are glad you did just because of how well it was done. If my writing doesn't convince you, maybe a list of all the awards it has won/been nominated for will.
'Gilmore Girls'. Want to know where Melissa McCarthy came from? Watch this show. This is a show that I had never heard of and just started watching it one day with my wife. It has one of the best deadpan characters of all time in Luke Danes. Plus, I think that it is safe to say, that no one in the post-Grunge era wore flannel better than Luke did. There are so many pop culture and history references throughout the entire series, you could make up a drinking game and die from it halfway through the first season. Which is what made it a good show. The writing. Amy-Sherman Palladino wrote the bulk of the show and is very gifted. Is it cheesy at times? Yes. Is it over the top? Yes. Is it still fun to watch? Yes. They even had Madeline Albright on for a cameo. And Norman Mailer. Come on now.
There are also some shows that I tried to get into, but wasn't able. I was told that some shows, like 'The Americans' and 'Breaking Bad' got some much better as the show went on. Well, those are two shows I tried to watch. And just couldn't. I got halfway through 'The Americans' before giving up on it. I tried watching 'Breaking Bad'. Twice. And I'm sure that the shows are great, hell Bryan Cranston won awards for his efforts. Other shows, like 'Vikings', are on the same time other shows that I have been watching for years are on. You cannot always win with television.
32/120
16 April 2014
How I Met Your Adequate Finale
A couple of weeks ago, the television show 'How I Met Your Mother' ended. For nine seasons, this was one of the best shows on television as far as comedies go. It has brought plenty of phrases and actions into everyday life. It was well written, well acted, and heartfelt on many levels. Most people that watched, I'm sure, see at least a little bit of themselves in one or two of the characters. I refuse to watch the episodes that deal with Marshall's dad dying. Mainly because I'm a softy, but who wants to see that especially in a sitcom? They mixed everyday events and life changing events with great running gags to keep the show interesting. I think with the start of those episodes, 'HIMYM' took a turn. Instead of being a straight up comedy, it delved into a bit of drama as well. Which was fine because it did not forget what it was all the time. There were funny episodes along with serious ones. Which brings me to the series finale. Oh, and if for some reason it's sitting in your DVR cache, first off shame on you for waiting this long, and secondly, spoilers ahead.
I always said that the last line in the show should have been, 'And that, kids, is how I met your mother.' It would have been perfect. I mean, it's the title of the show. It would have ended on a happy little note all wrapped up with a bow. I don't think anyone would have cared if they didn't dig into what happened after they met. They got married, they had a couple of kids, they still lived in New York. A happy sitcom ending. But then again, life doesn't always happen that way, does it? There were rumors going around before the series finale that the creators were going to kill off the mother in the last episode. And they did. She died of a disease that they never specified in the show. But whatever. Afterwards, the main character, Ted, ends up going after Robin whom he has pined after on and off throughout the series run. It was a meh ending. I wasn't fully impressed with it.
One reason that killing off the mother didn't bother me was because there was no connection to the character. If they had introduced her the season before, I may feel differently about it. There was no connection or growth of the character. They give you a handful of episodes to get to know the character before offing her in the series finale. If they had introduced the character in the previous season, the viewers of the show would have been more invested and would have felt more. That's my opinion anyway.
Another dramatic factor that they brought, especially in the series finale, was the drifting apart of the five main characters. I absolutely loved this aspect of the episode. While it's tough to think about, you aren't going to be close with your friends your entire life. As life happens, people come in and come out. Yes, you will still kind of keep in touch with your friends from your late 20s to early 30s, but what happens when one or two move to a different part of the country. You aren't going to have that same bond you once did.
Overall, I enjoyed the final season and the finale. It was funny and real at the same time. Television shows that have a set time for the series to run, I'm sure, have a tough time writing how the show will end. Look at shows like 'Lost', 'The Sopranos', and 'Dexter'. They ended and were ripped for how they finished the show. It's got to be tough and you are not going to make everyone happy. On some level, the story writers have to be doing it for themselves. I can hear them sitting around the table saying 'yeah, fuck the fans, let's do this for us.' The only question I have for them is: 'Where did the pineapple come from?'
29/120
I always said that the last line in the show should have been, 'And that, kids, is how I met your mother.' It would have been perfect. I mean, it's the title of the show. It would have ended on a happy little note all wrapped up with a bow. I don't think anyone would have cared if they didn't dig into what happened after they met. They got married, they had a couple of kids, they still lived in New York. A happy sitcom ending. But then again, life doesn't always happen that way, does it? There were rumors going around before the series finale that the creators were going to kill off the mother in the last episode. And they did. She died of a disease that they never specified in the show. But whatever. Afterwards, the main character, Ted, ends up going after Robin whom he has pined after on and off throughout the series run. It was a meh ending. I wasn't fully impressed with it.
One reason that killing off the mother didn't bother me was because there was no connection to the character. If they had introduced her the season before, I may feel differently about it. There was no connection or growth of the character. They give you a handful of episodes to get to know the character before offing her in the series finale. If they had introduced the character in the previous season, the viewers of the show would have been more invested and would have felt more. That's my opinion anyway.
Another dramatic factor that they brought, especially in the series finale, was the drifting apart of the five main characters. I absolutely loved this aspect of the episode. While it's tough to think about, you aren't going to be close with your friends your entire life. As life happens, people come in and come out. Yes, you will still kind of keep in touch with your friends from your late 20s to early 30s, but what happens when one or two move to a different part of the country. You aren't going to have that same bond you once did.
Overall, I enjoyed the final season and the finale. It was funny and real at the same time. Television shows that have a set time for the series to run, I'm sure, have a tough time writing how the show will end. Look at shows like 'Lost', 'The Sopranos', and 'Dexter'. They ended and were ripped for how they finished the show. It's got to be tough and you are not going to make everyone happy. On some level, the story writers have to be doing it for themselves. I can hear them sitting around the table saying 'yeah, fuck the fans, let's do this for us.' The only question I have for them is: 'Where did the pineapple come from?'
29/120
05 December 2013
Source Material
I finished reading the 'Walking Dead' graphic novels earlier this month. Well, not all of them. There have been a handful that have been published since I got the set I have. Either way, they are straight up amazing! The first graphic novels I have ever really wanted. I wanted them because of the television show. I wanted to see the similarities and the differences. I read 'The Watchmen' after seeing the movie and enjoyed it as well. Graphic novels are basically grown up comic books that make you sound not like a little kid when talking about them. But here's the thing with graphic novels or any other written material, they can go a bit further than you can with a television show or movie. That's the nice thing. The Walking Dead is so much darker as a graphic novel set than the show ever will be. And I love it. But here's the thing, because you can't be as dark on television or movies, the show/movie developers have to make changes. Which can be a good thing, but also a bad thing. And it's up to those who have read the original source material on whether or not to make a big deal about it.
The first time I remember finding out a book and movie had different things happen was with 'Jurassic Park'. I saw the movie when it came out a couple of times because it was only two dollars back then. Yeah. TWO DOLLARS! I loved the movie and even today it is still entertaining. I read the book a few years later and was dismayed at the differences. I just didn't understand why the book and movie differed. Over the years, I have come to the decision that the book was better than the movie, but when I first read the book I was a little pissed about it. I didn't quite understand that the book came out before the movie. How do you fully explain source materials to an eleven year old and how a movie and book can have different events happen in them?
During the seasons of The Walking Dead, I have had these thoughts go through my head like 'Well that's different from the books.' or 'That didn't happen to that character, it happened to someone else!'. Sometimes the changes are irritating and other times I look at them as they are for the best for the characters or story lines. There are two major differences from the books to the show that always sit in my mind and both have major impacts. Don't worry, these aren't major spoilers. The first is that the character Daryl from the show doesn't even exist in the books. At all. In the show he is a major character in the main group and has become a fan favorite. He is an overall badass. The other difference is that the character of Rick is disfigured in the books. It is a major setback for him but so far in the show it hasn't happened (and who knows if it will!). I like these differences from the books and show, but have read rumblings about the disappointment of others on the internet. I say who cares? The main story is still going and that is what should really matter.
As long as the main story is intact, than who cares about some of the details? I have learned to enjoy some of the changes from original material to new a format. If anything, it can make for a great conversation. You can talk about the similarities and differences and how that helps or hinders the overall plot. Original material can be hard to transition from book to screen. With books, there can be great narration for pages and pages (see Hemingway, Ernest or McCarthy, Cormac) that just flat out cannot be made on the screen. Beauty can be captured on the screen, but not all the time. At times, it is best left on the pages.
The first time I remember finding out a book and movie had different things happen was with 'Jurassic Park'. I saw the movie when it came out a couple of times because it was only two dollars back then. Yeah. TWO DOLLARS! I loved the movie and even today it is still entertaining. I read the book a few years later and was dismayed at the differences. I just didn't understand why the book and movie differed. Over the years, I have come to the decision that the book was better than the movie, but when I first read the book I was a little pissed about it. I didn't quite understand that the book came out before the movie. How do you fully explain source materials to an eleven year old and how a movie and book can have different events happen in them?
During the seasons of The Walking Dead, I have had these thoughts go through my head like 'Well that's different from the books.' or 'That didn't happen to that character, it happened to someone else!'. Sometimes the changes are irritating and other times I look at them as they are for the best for the characters or story lines. There are two major differences from the books to the show that always sit in my mind and both have major impacts. Don't worry, these aren't major spoilers. The first is that the character Daryl from the show doesn't even exist in the books. At all. In the show he is a major character in the main group and has become a fan favorite. He is an overall badass. The other difference is that the character of Rick is disfigured in the books. It is a major setback for him but so far in the show it hasn't happened (and who knows if it will!). I like these differences from the books and show, but have read rumblings about the disappointment of others on the internet. I say who cares? The main story is still going and that is what should really matter.
As long as the main story is intact, than who cares about some of the details? I have learned to enjoy some of the changes from original material to new a format. If anything, it can make for a great conversation. You can talk about the similarities and differences and how that helps or hinders the overall plot. Original material can be hard to transition from book to screen. With books, there can be great narration for pages and pages (see Hemingway, Ernest or McCarthy, Cormac) that just flat out cannot be made on the screen. Beauty can be captured on the screen, but not all the time. At times, it is best left on the pages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)