- Joined
- Jun 7, 2015
- Messages
- 21,962
- Reaction score
- 11,989
I'm not arguing which is better.More often than not, the source material is better than whatever some random hollywood writer comes up with.
Case in point, GoT was one of the best shows ever when they were faithful to the books, but it all came crashing down when the showrunners had to write their own material.
If you wanna gamble a couple billions that your writers are better than Tolkien, be my guest. Lets see if this shit is not cancelled after yet another trash season.
Which is better doesn't mean shit to someone that hasn't read the book. And the degree in which it matters to people that have read the books is going to depend on the quality of the show and their fanaticism.
What works in books doesn't always translate over to film. It's not as simple as just transferring the book story over to film.
It's not even guaranteed that people will like it better just because it is source accurate--plenty of shitty things are popular, and plenty of good things aren't as popular as they should be.
The problem with GoT was shitty writing. It would've been better had it stuck closer to the source, but it also would've been better if it had had better writers. The latter is the more important.
There's always going to be choices that have to be made on what to cut and add when you're making adaptations anyways. Plenty of stuff in GRRM's books just wouldn't work for a 10 episode season that is meant to maximize viewership.