TV news and trailers

Topic

Share and discuss news about TV stuff here.

Replies

I struggle to see how that could have been made better, yes.

1 user thanked author for this post.

garjones

Not sure about that myself. Feels like an episode of Neighbours.

Really it revives my concern that a lot of what made Sandman special was quite specific to comics, and bringing it to the screen is going to make it feel flat and banal.

Who knows though. The most recent trailer was better than I expected so I feel like it could go either way at this point.

Dave wrote:

Really it revives my concern that a lot of what made Sandman special was quite specific to comics, and bringing it to the screen is going to make it feel flat and banal.

It’s a possibility but I was genuinely moved by that and thought the performances were great.

I can see the issue, adaptation is a thing that is easier for some and I think some are more willing to compromise (albeit this scene, which is small and personal in the comic, and almost exactly the same, doesn’t need that much).

I tend to find live action has advantages when it comes to emotional resonance. It easier to laugh or be excited or scared by film than prose or comics. I adore the comics medium but no superhero fight on the page had ever mustered the same ‘fuck yeah’ response that the ‘portals’ Avengers scene did. I felt the core concept that this Death was not a skeletal grim reaper but warm and welcoming probably works better with a good actress.

Watchmen struggles because the density and detail can’t be emulated when someone else controls the pace. The same happens for a lot of work (like Azzarello and Brubaker as well as Moore) that play on juxtaposition of image and words, which Gaiman doesn’t do so much.

Gaiman has said they pulled back on the baby scene in the comic (it’s in there but shorter) because it seemed a bit much played out with actors. The risk more for me is the more existential and fantastical material can’t be emulated. The challenge is tweaking it just right to play to the right strengths. I expect I will like some bits in the TV version better and some worse.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Dave

I think the problem is that the trailer is presenting a very heartfelt, touching scene from a dramatic show, and it looks very interesting….but it’s not SANDMAN.

njerry wrote:

it’s not SANDMAN.

It is pretty close:

3 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Tobias Radesäter

See, for me that comparison shows how flat and visually uninteresting the clip looks compared to the comic. The interesting angles, composition and lighting of the comic hasn’t been translated to the screen.

You can have a script with people saying the same words, but dialogue is only a part of it. And what works on the comics page doesn’t always translate to other media – one of my problems with the audio adaptation of Sandman was that it all sounded so hoary and cliché even though it was often the same wording as in the comic.

I don’t want to slate the show too much in advance as it might end up being good, but almost everything I see from it suggests it’s not going to capture the qualities of the comic that made it so appealing.

It’s potentially tricky, Sandman has a very varied and expressive set of artists. I think there’s inevitably going to be an element of visual blandness in comparison.

Especially with Sam Keith and Kelly Jones.

I think it’s easier for example to keep the vision and tone of something like Preacher with Dillon’s clean lines and consistent style as sole artist (with a couple of guest artists in the specials).

I suspect, as with the general discussion we’re having elsewhere on comics adaptations, I can accept those variances more than others. It’s wholly subjective of course but that clip to me captured what was conveyed in the issue it is sourced from.  Even that certain aspects of it work better as the ability to see full facial expressions rather than a still image make Death’s warmth come through more.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Bruce, Dave

Yes, I can see Dave’s point of view, but if you get too hung up on capturing exact angles and compositions you end up with… Watchmen. I would rather have something that plays to the strength of the TV medium than something that tries to copy the strengths of the comic medium, and I think this clip does that.

DavidM wrote:

Yes, I can see Dave’s point of view, but if you get too hung up on capturing exact angles and compositions you end up with… Watchmen.

Oh I’m not suggesting it apes it entirely, just tries to capture a similar atmosphere. This clip feels like a daytime soap opera in the way it’s filmed, whereas the comic is a lot darker and more atmospheric.

Just the fact that they have bone-white skin (as opposed to normal human skin) in the comic adds as layer of otherwordlyness to it.

Dave wrote:

This clip feels like a daytime soap opera

I think that’s overly harsh, it is quite open and clean in comparison but it is very nicely filmed, far from the cheapness of daytime soaps. The original is a lot more claustrophobic in the apartment, maybe more reflective of a reclusive old man in his dying days.

I did get that was your point though, that it wasn’t the same atmosphere rather than demanding an exact recreation of the panels.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Looks like Channel 4 is bringing back the Big Breakfast permanently (or at least for a proper trial run) after that one-off revival last year. Thankfully, AJ Odudu has been replaced by Judi Love, it seems. And they’re using a different house (which is fine – Lockkeeper’s Cottages was largely unrecognisable for the special).

Tough times for Kelsey Grammer though, as he’s surely going to feel a hit from losing out on all those repeat fees C4 wracks up with their existing morning schedule.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bruce

Martin Smith wrote:

Tough times for Kelsey Grammer though, as he’s surely going to feel a hit from losing out on all those repeat fees C4 wracks up with their existing morning schedule.

I hear the blues a calling.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith

SNL Ending at Season 50 Sounds Right, Says Kenan Thompson

I don’t think SNL needs to end if/when Lorne leaves. For all it’s maligned (and did make some poor choices) the Ebersol years were fine – better than some of the Michaels years even. There are plenty of people who have come up through SNL that could take over for Lorne and carry it on.

That shit should’ve ended like 20 years ago…

I’m sure they’ll replace it with something equally as bad though, probably worse, so nothing to worry about I guess

6 users thanked author for this post.

Rocket, njerry, JRCarter, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Speaking of long-running comedy shows – Mock the Week is ending after the upcoming Series 21: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mock-the-week-to-end-on-bbc-two-after-17-years_uk_62e921a0e4b07f8376732f91

Host Dara O’Briain said: “That’s it folks, the UK has finally run out of news. The storylines were getting crazier and crazier – global pandemics, divorce from Europe, novelty short-term prime ministers. It couldn’t go on.

“And so, regretfully, we are closing the doors on Dara and Hugh’s Academy for Baby Comedians. We just couldn’t be more silly than the news was already.

“Huge thanks to all our guests over the years, so many of whom went on to huge successes of their own, and never write or call. It was a joy!”

2 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, Ben

Probably not before time. It had its moments but it’s grown a bit more tired and predictable over the years.

Not sure I would have ever bet on it being outlasted by HIGNFY though.

Martin Smith wrote:

I don’t think SNL needs to end if/when Lorne leaves. For all it’s maligned (and did make some poor choices) the Ebersol years were fine – better than some of the Michaels years even. There are plenty of people who have come up through SNL that could take over for Lorne and carry it on.

Michael’s leaving may be the best thing for the show. Get someone with a fresh perspective and shake things up.

I maintain SNL is a flawed concept which has endured despite that. Nobody copies the formula because it is too hard.

It is really telling because global TV gobbles up formulas, something is a hit and then is everywhere but never SNL.

I remember in the early 90s when Sky in the UK repeated the show from the start with all the classic 1970s cast it was what it has always been to me, very hit and miss. Some sketches hilarious and some pretty poor. Talent is not really the issue as all the through it had introduced great comedians, I think that’s the sole reason it has continued because it has the best talent in a highly populated country, but if I got asked post Michaels what to do with it I would just change the format and make it a lot shorter. It asks too much to be funny in every sketch with a superfast turnaround.

Hmm, perhaps replace it with a reboot of Noel’s House Party?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bruce

garjones wrote:

It is really telling because global TV gobbles up formulas, something is a hit and then is everywhere but never SNL.

Not strictly true. Saturday Live was pretty much SNL. There’s been reasonably successful branded versions in Germany and Italy previously and the Korean version has been running for 10 years now.

I’m fine with the format, it’s just that it’s only ever as good as the people writing and performing it. Even making the show shorter wouldn’t really improve it necessarily, as some of the best sketches have been the weird ones that turn up in the graveyard slot at the end of the show, where they tend to shove the experimental stuff.

If SNL needs improvements it’s from stopping performers from sticking around too long and not driving recurring sketches into the ground (which is nothing new, they’ve always done that as far back as Garret Morris’ News For The Hard Of Hearing interpreter)

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Rocket

Martin Smith wrote:

Saturday Live was pretty much SNL

Barely. I am aware of it as I watched it when it aired. Of course it was inspired by SNL, it has almost the same name, but it had more music and the sketch stuff was more akin to standup. Sketches had no sets but were done on a small stage with the audience in view, more like Live At The Apollo.

Most of the time the comedians didn’t work together as a cast like SNL (they did very occasionally appear together), they did their 5 minutes usually alone and there was no guest host but Ben Elton did all the opening monologues and links. Each series was only 10 episodes so it didn’t burn through material or have much topical content outside what Elton did with his Thatcher rants.

It was also shoved to a Friday slot on series 3 and then cancelled. That’s not a great endorsement of the format, which they tried again in the 90s and got cancelled again after one outing.

Martin Smith wrote:

Even making the show shorter wouldn’t really improve it necessarily, as some of the best sketches have been the weird ones that turn up in the graveyard slot at the end of the show, where they tend to shove the experimental stuff.

Doesn’t that suggest it would be better if they just went to that and cut out the ‘not best’ stuff that came before?

We’ll probably have to agree to disagree I suppose but sketch comedy is very difficult, the best examples tend to have short runs and repetition is a symptom of having to fill space.

 

SNL has always been more miss than hit. People tend to remember the few breakout hit skits and characters and forget the rest. Even the popular recuring skits and characters weren’t always great.

The vast majority of sketch comedies nowadays are 30-minute shows and probably have a better hit rate than SNL.

1 user thanked author for this post.

garjones

Todd wrote:

People tend to remember the few breakout hit skits and characters and forget the rest.

Yeah that’s a part of what I mean. Nostalgia has a very kind habit of erasing the shit from our memories and presenting it back as highlights reels of the good stuff. That’s why being presented first with the original SNL cast 13 or so years after they actually did it, in full episodes, exposed it wasn’t always that good. It was some great stuff in a lot of mediocrity.

SNL has always had good material and also some bad stuff and some in the middle, and it may have peaked some eras over others but to me the reason it has never been ‘all gold’ is the format demands too much material in too short a time.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I’d argue the same is true of Monty Python. I got s1 on DVD back around when those came out and a lot of it is just dreck. But we (collectively) only remember the good stuff.

And to be honest, that’s fine. Sure we’d all love a show that’s wall to wall brilliance, but that’s never going to happen. You just need to reach a decent hit rate and I think SNL generally does.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Bruce, Todd, DavidM, lorcan_nagle

This has the potential to put them on the same level as Netflix and be true competition for them.

Warner Bros. Discovery: HBO Max & Discovery+ Combined Streamer To Launch In U.S. In Summer 2023

Warner Bros. Discovery expects to launch its combined HBO Max/Discovery+ streaming service in the U.S. next summer.

JB Perrette, CEO and President, Global Streaming and Interactive at WBD, revealed the news on the company’s earnings call Thursday.

“Our primary focus for the rollout will be in the markets where HBO Max has already launched,” he said. “We plan to launch the service sequentially starting in the U.S. next summer. Latin America will follow later in the year. European markets with HBO Max will follow in early ‘24, with additional launches and key Asia Pacific territories and some new European markets coming later in 2024.”

Perrette added that as it gets more of the development work and testing done, it also will explore ways to accelerate this rollout.

“There’s much work to be done over the coming months,” he said, pointing to retooling the tech platform and migrating customers. “There’s lots to do, we’re determined to get it right, which will take a bit of time.”

Perrette said that it anticipates adding more than 40M subscribers by 2025, taking its total to about 130M global subs.

He said that the two services are “unique” and “complementary” but admitted that they are very different in terms of how subscribers engage with content.

Perrette pointed to HBO Max being more about appointment viewing with shows such as Succession and upcoming series House of the Dragon, while Discovery+ is more about “comfort viewing”, which drives subscriber retention.

“These are two critical and powerful components of a strong and sustainable subscription business,” he added. “Coupled with our world-class collection of globally recognized brands franchises and characters, it is truly an unprecedented combination in an already crowded market.”

Martin Smith wrote:

I’d argue the same is true of Monty Python. I got s1 on DVD back around when those came out and a lot of it is just dreck. But we (collectively) only remember the good stuff.

Comedy is hugely subjective which is a constant caveat, it’s a long time since I watched Monty Python in full and that may be the case but lots of short run sketch shows are funny all the way through.

All of us, including you, admit SNL isn’t.

It’s not exactly a stretch to conclude that a format that asks for more much more content in less time than any other one has that issue.

garjones wrote:

It’s not exactly a stretch to conclude that a format that asks for more much more content in less time than any other one has that issue.

Right, I’m not disputing that, I’m just saying it’s not a problem. The show has never really been about being the pinnacle of sketch comedy as an art-form. If it was it would hire the biggest stars available (as it did in 84 when it got Christopher Guest, Billy Crystal et al which still didn’t end up with a particularly better show than most other seasons) on a reduced episode count, with longer lead times, shot in proper sound stages, not have musical guests and be pre-recorded.

SNL has always been a) a variety show (mainly just music and comedy, but it has dabbled in magic and performance art at other times), b) about giving a platform to new and emerging talent, on and off the screen c) live “event” TV with the latter allowing it to be d) highly topical, both through Update and political sketches. There’s always going to give a significant hit and miss ratio on that. That’s just the nature of the game. Complaining that it isn’t uniformly brilliant is like going to McDonalds and complaining you’re not getting steak on silver service.

Martin Smith wrote:

Complaining that it isn’t uniformly brilliant is like going to McDonalds and complaining you’re not getting steak on silver service.

Sure…… and that’s why the format is flawed and not emulated. 😉

(with a caveat for South Korea).

Vince Gilligan Prepping New Series; ‘Better Call Saul’ Followup About To Hit TV Marketplace With A Bang – deadline.com

EXCLUSIVE: As Better Call Saul is coming to an end, series co-creator — and Breaking Bad creator — Vince Gilligan is ready for what comes next. And once again, for his next drama project he is going with a wholly original idea. No one would comment, but there is a lot of anticipation in the marketplace for the pitch, which is expected to come out in the next couple of weeks, with at least 8-9 networks and platforms lined up to hear it.

I hear the new project, which comes from Sony Pictures TV where Gilligan has been under an overall deal for a long time, is a departure from the world of drugs and crime he explored in Breaking Bad and its prequel, Better Call Saul, whose series finale airs Aug 15. Word is that the new show harkens back to Gilligan’s tenure on The X-Files. But don’t expect a sci-fi drama — when he was a writer-producer on The X-Files, Gilligan was known for focusing more on the human condition in his episodes, which is something he is said to also be doing in his new series, exploring similar themes of bending reality while holding a mirror to humanity.

Described as a blended, grounded genre drama, the new series also is being compared to The Twilight Zone. It is said to be set in our world while putting a tweak on it, focusing on people and exploring the human condition in an unexpected, surprising way.

Thought-provoking but not a morality tale, the new show is expected to carry the signature Gilligan tone that infuses drama with humor.

Like he often does with his original creations, Gilligan has written material that is accompanying the pitch, giving buyers a sense of what the new project would look like. I hear it is envisioned to play over a couple of seasons with an overreaching story arc.

One of the most celebrated TV creators of his generation, Gilligan created and executive produced AMC’s acclaimed Breaking Bad, which won two Emmys for Outstanding Drama Series. He is co-creator/executive producer, alongside Peter Gould, of the Breaking Bad prequel Better Call Saul, which also has been an awards juggernaut, amassing 46 Emmy nominations to date, seven of them this year, including Outstanding Drama Series. Gilligan also earned multiple Emmy nominations for his work on The X-Files. He is repped by CAA, Storied Media Group and Del Shaw Moonves Tanaka.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

The upcoming series of University Challenge will be Jeremy Paxman’s last.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62561558

To be honest, I’m surprised he’s carried on with this one. There were several moments in the last series where not only did he really seem worn out (which is a concern for his health, mainly), but there were points of confusion when it seemed like he’d finished a question, someone buzzed in and got it wrong and were given a penalty for interrupting, because there was another clause to the sentence that no-one had any way of knowing was coming (as much down to the writing of the questions, that, as it is Paxman’s slowing down). I know there’s this idea of carrying on in the face of an illness like this is the height of bravery and strong character, but I can’t imagine it’s done his health any favours and he’s earned the rest, frankly.

His replacement’s being announced  by the end of the week. I think it should be Samira Ahmed (and was pleasantly surprised to see in that article that she’s been on stand-by, presumably for it Paxman was too ill to record an episode in this past series) or maybe Rick Edwards. Not Kirsty Wark, who has been terrible on the charity specials and I really hope the people suggesting Bobby Seagull aren’t in the know, because that would be enough to stop me watching it.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, garjones

For non Brits here I would give some background that University Challenge is a quiz show on a level of difficulty you have never seen. They take the 4 best scholars from some of the best seats of learning in the world and you’ll take great cheer whenever you get an answer right.

It’s one of the quirks of the BBC that this show has run for decades, where most people in the street wouldn’t have a clue on any questions (except maybe when they drop in the odd pop culture questions). Like Martin though I really like it for that. It’s only ever had 2 presenters with very long tenures so it’ll be interesting who they use next. I think the theme for presenting is a rather no-nonsense approach, you don’t have to be as short as Paxman can be but you need a bit of that I think.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

Anyone looking forward to the GoT prequel “House of the Dragon” this Sunday?

Al-x wrote:

Anyone looking forward to the GoT prequel “House of the Dragon” this Sunday?

Yes definitely. I thought the trailer looked quite good.

I’m not optimistic, but I’ll give it a shot. The cast is great at least.

I’ll hold off and see what other people think. The end of GoT still stings.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x

Hey, at least you got an ending.

Unlike those waiting forever for – not even the last book – Winds of Winter.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith

Ben wrote:

Hey, at least you got an ending.

Unlike those waiting forever for – not even the last book – Winds of Winter.

Cracked posted this today: 4 Reasons They’re Never Finishing The ‘Game Of Thrones’ Books (Deal With It)

Only four? Cracked are slacking off.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, njerry, Dave

Ben wrote:

Only four? Cracked are slacking off.

There are more, but Cracked hasn’t finished writing them yet. They’ll be coming…soon…

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Sean Robinson

Al-x wrote:

Anyone looking forward to the GoT prequel “House of the Dragon” this Sunday?

Not “looking forward” to it per-se… shit I didn’t even know it was coming out this sunday… but I’ll check it out, sure. I’m at least expecting a decent amount of overall quality, whatever the fuck it ends up being

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Al-x

[Al-x]

Jon wrote:

Al-x wrote:

Anyone looking forward to the GoT prequel “House of the Dragon” this Sunday?

Not “looking forward” to it per-se… shit I didn’t even know it was coming out this sunday… but I’ll check it out, sure. I’m at least expecting a decent amount of overall quality, whatever the fuck it ends up being

They will have dragons. The audience loves  the CGI dragons.

Funny… Those two guys David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the showrunners of GoT, really exposed themselves as tracers (like Greg Land) of the GRRM books. Once the show went passed the books, they really didn’t have all that much to go by except a rough outline of the conclusion. it all came apart. They were seen as geniuses with a Star Wars trilogy deal, but then…

It all reminds a little of the Batman movie from 1989. The two producers Jon Peters and Pete Guber were also similarly exposed as not that great.

Anyway, I would hope that the showrunners of this prequel learned from how GoT ended.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by Al-x.

I’ve seen the previews but was surprised it is coming as soon as this weekend.

I’m a bit on the fence about it.

What stood Game of Thrones apart for me from other fantasy series is the scripts were so sharp. In the first season before they knew they had a big hit on their hands they skipped some budgetary challenges with battles by knocking out Tyrion but it remained great viewing as he’s such a great character.

This material has no direct source, more notes, and a different creative team. It looks amazing bur there is no hint from the trailers it is at all funny or insightful. We shall have to wait and see. I’ll definitely watch and give it a go, the impatience of the GoT ending is not really a factor but I want a lot more than a fantasy setting with special effects. I want primarliy characters I engage with, the actors are great, do they have the material to work off?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Al-x wrote:

Funny… Those two guys David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the showrunners of GoT, really exposed themselves as tracers (like Greg Land) of the GRRM books. Once the show went passed the books, they really didn’t have all that much to go by except a rough outline of the conclusion. it all came apart. They were seen as geniuses with a Star Wars trilogy deal, but then…

I don’t think comparing them to Greg Land is fair to those guys. They were extremely good at compressing and adapting these huge, sprawling, complex novels – making them fit a series model, picking the right characters, sharpening the dialogue… it was an absolutely incredible feat. It’s a shame they ran out of material to adapt when they did, because yes, doing all of the writing on their own wasn’t what they were so great at. But that’s not really a problem, just give them something great to adapt. Hell, I mean, where the Star Wars thing is concerned (it’s probably dead, right?), there’s shitloads of SW novels out there they could pick and choose from.

Not everybody has to create their stories from scratch. Being fantastic at adapting already written work to the screen is as great a skill really.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, njerry, Dave

paul f wrote:

I’m not optimistic, but I’ll give it a shot. The cast is great at least.

Yeah, same here. Like you and Gar, I’ll take a look, but I’m skeptical that it’ll keep my attention. The first seasons of GoT were absolutely spectacular, and I feel like that’s what it’ll take to bring me back to Westeros. If it’s just a decent fantasy show (which is what I’m kind of guessing right now), I’ll probably be gone after a few episodes.

Martin Smith wrote:

His replacement’s being announced  by the end of the week. I think it should be Samira Ahmed (and was pleasantly surprised to see in that article that she’s been on stand-by, presumably for it Paxman was too ill to record an episode in this past series) or maybe Rick Edwards. Not Kirsty Wark, who has been terrible on the charity specials and I really hope the people suggesting Bobby Seagull aren’t in the know, because that would be enough to stop me watching it.

It’s Amol Rajan.

Ugh, fuck that. I can’t stand that smug twat.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

garjones wrote:

This material has no direct source,

It’s based on the book Fire & Blood.

[Al-x]

Christian wrote:

Hell, I mean, where the Star Wars thing is concerned (it’s probably dead, right?), there’s shitloads of SW novels out there they could pick and choose from.

Groan…

Please, don’t remind me of what could have been done with movies 7-9 IF any at Disney even bothered to
adapt the Extended Universe novels and material… It was all right there in front of them ripe for the picking.

In that case, the two GoT showrunners would have been great at adapting from COMPLETED EU work.

But…
———————–

When GoT was really big, Bezos wanted the next big thing to be on Amazon.
So they got the rights to make a show of LoTR,

Now their LoTR show will most likely compete with the prequel now…

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by Al-x.

[Al-x]

Al-x wrote:

Christian wrote:

Hell, I mean, where the Star Wars thing is concerned (it’s probably dead, right?), there’s shitloads of SW novels out there they could pick and choose from.

Groan…

Please, don’t remind me of what could have been done with movies 7-9 IF any at Disney even bothered to
adapt the Extended Universe novels and material… It was all right there in front of them ripe for the picking.

In that case, the two GoT showrunners would have been great at adapting from COMPLETED EU work.

But…
———————–

When GoT was really big, Bezos wanted the next big thing to be on Amazon.
So they got the rights to make a show of LoTR,

Now their LoTR show will most likely compete with the prequel now…

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by Al-x.

The EU would have been a disaster to adapt. You either recast the main characters, which is going to piss off fans and alienate the casual audience (who don’t care about the EU), or you do the Thrawn trilogy 35 years after Jedi instead of 5 and expect people to accept the adventures of the increasingly ageing main characters (and in this version has Luke been alone until he meets Mara Jade? Do Han and Leia have kids?), or you do stories set 40 years after Star Wars but working under the assumption that people are at least aware of everything that happened in the novels in between.

Martin Smith wrote:

It’s based on the book Fire & Blood.

Yeah I did know that and could have worded it better but my understanding is this takes ideas from half of that book and wants to expand it into a multi-season show. It is a lot more like the Amazon LOTR show grabbing at bits and pieces of written material rather than a straight adaptation of a novel series.

Christian wrote:

It’s a shame they ran out of material to adapt when they did, because yes, doing all of the writing on their own wasn’t what they were so great at.

I still think the biggest failing was their impatience to move on to the next thing and truncate it. Their story choices were fine and in keeping with what went before, it was just weakened badly by sudden quicktime travel abrupt character turns. I think they could have stuck the landing with the same choices but better execution.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith, Dave

garjones wrote:

Martin Smith wrote:

It’s based on the book Fire & Blood.

Yeah I did know that and could have worded it better but my understanding is this takes ideas from half of that book and wants to expand it into a multi-season show. It is a lot more like the Amazon LOTR show grabbing at bits and pieces of written material rather than a straight adaptation of a novel series.

Yeah, Fire and Blood isn’t a novel, it’s a book of fake history, which is somehow a much more boring read than most books of real history.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Uncle Retrospective, Martin Smith

[Al-x]

lorcan_nagle wrote:

Al-x wrote:

Christian wrote:

Hell, I mean, where the Star Wars thing is concerned (it’s probably dead, right?), there’s shitloads of SW novels out there they could pick and choose from.

Groan…

Please, don’t remind me of what could have been done with movies 7-9 IF any at Disney even bothered to
adapt the Extended Universe novels and material… It was all right there in front of them ripe for the picking.

In that case, the two GoT showrunners would have been great at adapting from COMPLETED EU work.

But…
———————–

When GoT was really big, Bezos wanted the next big thing to be on Amazon.
So they got the rights to make a show of LoTR,

Now their LoTR show will most likely compete with the prequel now…

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by Al-x.

The EU would have been a disaster to adapt. You either recast the main characters, which is going to piss off fans and alienate the casual audience (who don’t care about the EU), or you do the Thrawn trilogy 35 years after Jedi instead of 5 and expect people to accept the adventures of the increasingly ageing main characters (and in this version has Luke been alone until he meets Mara Jade? Do Han and Leia have kids?), or you do stories set 40 years after Star Wars but working under the assumption that people are at least aware of everything that happened in the novels in between.

For all that I’m a big EU SW fan, a very faithful adaptation would be a mess.

Go the MCU route? That’s pretty much what they’ve been doing on TV.  There will be a TV Thrawn story of some kind.  And since 2014 the new material has used bits of the old, you just have to know where to look.  It’s akin to the comic inspiration for WandaVision, there’s no straight lines going clearly from A to B but the material is out there.

What’s quite funny in all of this is, once you have RoS in the picture, it becomes very clear that the Sequels are Dark Empire. Returned from the dead Emperor? Check. Galaxy Gun? See Starkiller Base. World Devastators? See the new Sith Star Destroyers. Eclipse Star Destroyer? See the Supremacy.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Reviews are out, based on Eps. 1-6, mostly seem underwhelmed.

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/house-of-the-dragon-review-1398441/

But the spinoff unfortunately proves a poor test case for the less-is-more theory when it comes to adaptations of George R.R. Martin’s books. A more streamlined show built around a character as rich as Tyrion, or Arya Stark, could perhaps work smashingly. House of the Dragon, unfortunately, is filled with characters and conflicts that would struggle to hold the audience’s interest if they were just one small element among the many of its parent series. As the only subjects, they’re almost uniformly dull, preventing House of the Dragon from justifying its existence as anything other than a calculated piece of brand extension for the newly-merged Warner Bros. Discovery.

https://www.empireonline.com/tv/reviews/house-of-the-dragon-season-1/

That is both an asset and a flaw. There is a focus to the storytelling that was never there in the original show: a single noble house, a single question being answered — Succession, if Logan Roy rode dragons — and it gives the series purpose and drive. It’s all heading in one direction: the Targaryen civil war, until now only recited as a dry fictional history in Martin’s Fire And Blood.

But that comes at the cost of texture. There are endless discussions of heirs, endless small council squabbles, endless meetings-that-could-have-been-ravens. The writing so far lacks the sparkle of Thrones’ most profound moments: there is no equivalent to the witty drinking-and-knowing-things of Tyrion, no petty scheming of Littlefinger’s level, no revealing character moments as startling as Robert and Cersei finally having an honest conversation.

“House of the Dragon,” set in the mythical world of George R.R. Martin’s fantasy novels nearly 200 years before the action of “Game of Thrones” (its source is his 2018 prequel novel “Fire & Blood”), is also a blend of soap opera and British-accented medieval fantasy, but the juice has been squeezed out of it. If you’re looking for a sober treatise on duty to kingdom and family and the mechanics of primogeniture — something more like “Game of Thrones” in its first season, before it leaned into the spectacle and the budgets got astronomical — you’re in luck. You may be less sanguine, though, when that’s still what you’re getting more than halfway into the season.

In fairness the original GoT was very much a slow-burn type of show with a larger story that didn’t come into focus for a while – lots of the characters and conflicts didn’t really get traction with me until very late into the first season or even later seasons altogether. It was a show that I had to come back to a second time because I didn’t find much to immediately hook me.

So I’d be willing to give this spinoff a bit more time than most other shows before deciding whether it’s going to be any good in the long-term.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Sean Robinson

Also, GoT’s first season was fairly small in scope, too… but I guess it’s inevtiable it’ll draw comparisons even though it’s not really fair. Eh, we’ll see… I’m neither rooting for or against it… either it’s good or not, but I’m also not going in with expectations that it’ll be as good as GoT’s best, ’cause that’d be silly…

I’m gonna treat this like Rings of Power… I’m a bigger fan of LOTR than GoT, but fantasy ain’t really my jam anyways, so I just hope to be pleasantly surprised by both.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Dave

Dave wrote:

In fairness the original GoT was very much a slow-burn type of show with a larger story that didn’t come into focus for a while – lots of the characters and conflicts didn’t really get traction with me until very late into the first season or even later seasons altogether. It was a show that I had to come back to a second time because I didn’t find much to immediately hook me.

So I’d be willing to give this spinoff a bit more time than most other shows before deciding whether it’s going to be any good in the long-term.

When you look back at the show as a whole, the first season was basically setting up all the pieces so the series could actually move forward beginning with Season 2. It’s possible that HotD could be the same way.

I’ll still watch it.

I know bugger all about GoT but on the Star Wars point, I think they should have recast the original characters for a sequel trilogy. The diehard fans would have been pissed off but they would always find something to be pissed off about (and would still buy a ticket regardless). The casual fans have way more interest in iconic characters like Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia (and the voice-only ones that are easier to keep around like Yoda, Chewbacca, Darth Vader and the droids). Finding out what happens next to them would, I’m sure, hold more interest with the world at large than trying to get over brand-new characters. Especially if it doesn’t involve having to see them as old, broken-down losers who die. Besides, we’ve already seen a whole bunch of classic characters be recast – Captain Kirk, Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, James Bond, even Obi-Wan Kenobi – without it being a major factor in how their movies perform. Plus, they could just recast without having to stick to the EU (Episode VII – Brexit!).

Oh, please – I have my criticisms of the sequels but Ep VII is nowhere near the perpetual disaster that is Brexit.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Ben wrote:

Oh, please – I have my criticisms of the sequels but Ep VII is nowhere near the perpetual disaster that is Brexit.

I agree. One of them was a nostalgic attempt to recapture past glories from decades ago, without really acknowledging that the world had moved on, cynically motivated for short-term financial gain by a bunch of people who (it eventually turned out) had no real plan for what they were doing and didn’t care if they wrecked the whole thing as long as they got their own way…

Oh, you can do your own punchline.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, DavidM, Todd

Ben wrote:

Ep VII is nowhere near the perpetual disaster that is Brexit.

True, but Brexit has the better Special Effects!!

The plot elements of House of the Dragon are not concerning me from the reviews Paul shared. As others have said Game of Thrones wasn’t that astonishing story-wise in the first 6 episodes.

My concern, taken from the trailers, is the comment about characters. It (and to be honest the LOTR thing too) looks very earnest. A lot of Jon Snows and not many Tyrions.

To be fair that is also something that takes time, Tyrion is one that grabs from his first appearance but it’s a fair while into the show where conversations between Arya and The Mountain get you really loving those characters. I just hope both shows aren’t too dry and like the ‘source books’ they are working off can be to read.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave

New trailer for Rings Of Power.

That’s a really shitty trailer… but the show itself looks okay. Visually, at least…

Yeah, I hope the showrunners understand how telling a story works better than whoever was responsible for creating that trailer.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson

Shocker: NBC May Bail on 10 pm Hour

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

It’s bizarre to me that US networks can just leave gaping holes in their schedules like that.

Lord of the Rings is costing Amazon $58 Million per episode?
How accurate could that possibly be? Thats way too much.

Amazon’s ‘Lord Of The Rings’ Prequel Series Reportedly Cost $58 Million Per Episode For Season 1

Sean Robinson wrote:

Lord of the Rings is costing Amazon $58 Million per episode?
How accurate could that possibly be? Thats way too much.

Amazon’s ‘Lord Of The Rings’ Prequel Series Reportedly Cost $58 Million Per Episode For Season 1

I don’t think that’s the actual cost per episode, they just took the total amount spent, including the ridiculous money paid for the rights, and divided it by the number of episodes.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson

paul f wrote:

I don’t think that’s the actual cost per episode, they just took the total amount spent, including the ridiculous money paid for the rights, and divided it by the number of episodes.

 

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, Sean Robinson

paul f wrote:

I don’t think that’s the actual cost per episode, they just took the total amount spent, including the ridiculous money paid for the rights, and divided it by the number of episodes.

Sounds like a pretty good way to calculate how much it cost per episode.

Dave wrote:

paul f wrote:

I don’t think that’s the actual cost per episode, they just took the total amount spent, including the ridiculous money paid for the rights, and divided it by the number of episodes.

Sounds like a pretty good way to calculate how much it cost per episode.

Not really. It cost $250M for the rights, so they’re just splitting that over eight episodes, adding $30M per episode to the cost. If it runs five seasons, it would only be $5M per episode. Which is still a ridiculous amount, but less so.

Yeah I get that, but it’s quite a big if. All the behind the scenes stuff I’ve heard for this make it sound like a disaster, and I’d be surprised if Amazon throw that amount of good money after bad. I think a second season to save face is probably likely, but I doubt it goes further than that.

Dave wrote:

Yeah I get that, but it’s quite a big if. All the behind the scenes stuff I’ve heard for this make it sound like a disaster, and I’d be surprised if Amazon throw that amount of good money after bad. I think a second season to save face is probably likely, but I doubt it goes further than that.

Season 2 was already confirmed; there was a lot of talk over them moving production from NZ to the UK.

Yeah, as things stand they’re planning to move ahead with it. I’m saying I think it would probably be too much to expect that they’ll cancel that at this stage even if the show under-performs.

paul f wrote:

there was a lot of talk over them moving production from NZ to the UK

Good move, because it’s really cheap to be in the UK at the moment.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Uncle Retrospective, Martin Smith, Todd

SNL: Melissa Villaseñor and Alex Moffat Among 3 More Cast Members Out Ahead of Season 48

2 users thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith, Todd

That’s a shame about Anthari. I thought he was pretty interesting. Villasenor and Moffat? Eh, they’ve had their time, I think.

39 years ago today, 'He-Man and the Masters of the Universe' premiered. pic.twitter.com/PcshZJrGPj

— Cartoon Crave (@thecartooncrave) September 5, 2022

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

I am once again hoping for a quality William Gibson adaptation

3 users thanked author for this post.

Uncle Retrospective, garjones

I can’t recall ever seeing a William Gibson adaptation. Are they generally good or bad?

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

DavidM wrote:

I can’t recall ever seeing a William Gibson adaptation. Are they generally good or bad?

There’s been three movies based on stories from Burning Chrome, and Johnny Mnemonic is the least-worst of them.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Todd, DavidM

https://screenrant.com/netflix-binge-model-release-change-weekly/?utm_content=buffer78a5d&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_source=SR-TW&utm_campaign=SR-TW

 

I won’t say ‘I told you so’ but Netflix’s insistence on the ‘dump’ model has very little upside. Nobody talks about it past week 1. To me splitting Stranger Things in two or dropping a bonus Sandman episode are really admissions this format does not work.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith

I really want this to be good as Quantum Leap is one of those shows that feels like it has such great potential to tell so many different stories. Let’s hope it can manage even a fraction of the charm the original had.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

lorcan_nagle wrote:

I am once again hoping for a quality William Gibson adaptation

Hey, cool! That does look pretty good, too.

Coincidentally, I am just reading Gibson’s sequel to the Peripheral, Agency. It’s great.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/paper-girls-canceled-amazon-prime-video-1235366865/amp/

Not much of a surprise. That first season was pretty mediocre. Disappointing to see these BKV adaptions being handled so badly though.

Dave wrote:

I really want this to be good as Quantum Leap is one of those shows that feels like it has such great potential to tell so many different stories. Let’s hope it can manage even a fraction of the charm the original had.

Warily looking forward to trying it out. The trailer gave me Picard vibes but the premise is so wide-open that there’s every chance they could make it work. I’m hoping they stick to an episodic structure for the most part.

Gotta say, if Al and Sam were a couple in the original series that would have worked really well.

saga wrote:

Gotta say, if Al and Sam were a couple in the original series that would have worked really well.

Ha! Yeah, that would’ve been great.

I have no interest in the Quantum Leap remake, but generally speaking, it’s nice to see a show working with self-contained episodes.

I know not everyone liked season 1, but I thought it was pretty good by the end. Looking forward to more.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, Christian, DavidM, lorcan_nagle, Todd

Yeah, I really enjoyed Avenue 5 and I’m very pleased it’s finally back.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, Todd, Dave

Yes, pleased to see that back. Definitely been long enough that I have to rewatch season 1 though.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, lorcan_nagle, Dave

I did love it, and am very happy to see a second season coming.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson

I really enjoyed it. I loved Hugh Laurie and his use of accents.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson

‘SNL’: After seven departures, meet the four new faces on tap for NBC’s 48th season

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2022/09/15/snl-new-seasons-premiere-date-and-cast-members/10389697002/

The trailer for the new FLETCH is not that great, but I like the tone of the show and the characterizations. Feels like it fits more with something like BURN NOTICE or even MAGNUM PI. That old lowlife detective type of show.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

The trailer for the new FLETCH is not that great, but I like the tone of the show and the characterizations. Feels like it fits more with something like BURN NOTICE or even MAGNUM PI. That old lowlife detective type of show.

It’s a movie.

1 user thanked author for this post.