.jpg)
Posts
Patinagreen writes about one of the favorite fan topics of discussion : The Sookieverse on screen and in the pages.
Book to Film? Book to TV Series? Movie to TV Series? Adaptation has been on my mind lately.
I just read the first book in the Sookie Stackhouse Series by Charlaine Harris. The first thing I thought? This author is *country*. I say that with all of the admiration, amusement, and pride(ish?) of living in a Southern US state for most of my life. There are incredible metaphors and imagery in that book and the country-flavored ones are the most delightful. The second thing I thought? The TV Show is better. This is when I paused. When - When!? is the media version better than the written? Hardly ever, that's when.
LJ's homepage and writer's block question is all a-flutter with Twilight talk. (Well, so was USA Today for that matter) The writer's block question was about the translation of the book to the movie. I think I would say that 9 times out of 10 I prefer the book for the experience of the story but I'm a huge fan of media in all its forms so I never automatically hate the movie. Life's too short to be a hater. (However, after seeing "The Seeker" I wished, not for the first time in my life, that I could unsee things.)
Back to True Blood and the Sookie Stackhouse novels - how exactly is the book less enjoyable than the series? I've only read the first but it seems pretty clear that there are aspects of atmosphere and moment building that Charlaine Harris just doesn't (consistently) care for. I don't know how many times I read a scene and thought "oooh! Slow down lady! That part is good. Tell me more...wait!" Sookie's voice carries you on in this perky little clip most of the time and sometimes you wish you could jump out of her head and take a break. This is not to say that I won't get the next book in the series but that I'll be sad I don't have Alan Ball's second season of True Blood to accompany it.
Media, and dramatic television in particular, love drawing out little moments of tension. It's just built into the genre. So when Sookie and Bill kiss for the first time in True Blood it's a *thing* and not a stepping stone to the next thing. There are other examples I could give but you get the gist. The writers and, I'm assuming, Alan Ball have done an incredible job condensing and collapsing the characters and scenes to improve the flow of the story. How often does that happen!? I mean, they took Charlaine Harris' somewhat clunky moments and smoothed them out like rolled dough, into a cohesive story. WTF.
Also, they beefed up some characters and, as far as I can see, crafted Tara outta thin air. That explains why some of her scenes seem awkward...I think. You know, this could just be a matter of length. A TV Show at 55 mins an episode is a completely different deal than a 2 hour movie.
Afterall, the 2000 televised miniseries of Frank Herbert's Dune and the entire epic reality that is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy has taught us that length, and outrageous production values, do count when pulling from a book.
I do have to wonder if, after seeing True Blood, Charlaine Harris' next book in the series will be any different. (She's still writing new ones as far as I can tell) Does she see her characters differently? Can she get Anna Paquin's face out of her mind? Now that's what I would call a authorial mindfuck. Woowee.
Read Swaying Text blog here http://patina-green.livejournal.com/4373.html?view=4629#t4629
Book to Film? Book to TV Series? Movie to TV Series? Adaptation has been on my mind lately.
I just read the first book in the Sookie Stackhouse Series by Charlaine Harris. The first thing I thought? This author is *country*. I say that with all of the admiration, amusement, and pride(ish?) of living in a Southern US state for most of my life. There are incredible metaphors and imagery in that book and the country-flavored ones are the most delightful. The second thing I thought? The TV Show is better. This is when I paused. When - When!? is the media version better than the written? Hardly ever, that's when.
LJ's homepage and writer's block question is all a-flutter with Twilight talk. (Well, so was USA Today for that matter) The writer's block question was about the translation of the book to the movie. I think I would say that 9 times out of 10 I prefer the book for the experience of the story but I'm a huge fan of media in all its forms so I never automatically hate the movie. Life's too short to be a hater. (However, after seeing "The Seeker" I wished, not for the first time in my life, that I could unsee things.)
Back to True Blood and the Sookie Stackhouse novels - how exactly is the book less enjoyable than the series? I've only read the first but it seems pretty clear that there are aspects of atmosphere and moment building that Charlaine Harris just doesn't (consistently) care for. I don't know how many times I read a scene and thought "oooh! Slow down lady! That part is good. Tell me more...wait!" Sookie's voice carries you on in this perky little clip most of the time and sometimes you wish you could jump out of her head and take a break. This is not to say that I won't get the next book in the series but that I'll be sad I don't have Alan Ball's second season of True Blood to accompany it.
Media, and dramatic television in particular, love drawing out little moments of tension. It's just built into the genre. So when Sookie and Bill kiss for the first time in True Blood it's a *thing* and not a stepping stone to the next thing. There are other examples I could give but you get the gist. The writers and, I'm assuming, Alan Ball have done an incredible job condensing and collapsing the characters and scenes to improve the flow of the story. How often does that happen!? I mean, they took Charlaine Harris' somewhat clunky moments and smoothed them out like rolled dough, into a cohesive story. WTF.
Also, they beefed up some characters and, as far as I can see, crafted Tara outta thin air. That explains why some of her scenes seem awkward...I think. You know, this could just be a matter of length. A TV Show at 55 mins an episode is a completely different deal than a 2 hour movie.
Afterall, the 2000 televised miniseries of Frank Herbert's Dune and the entire epic reality that is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy has taught us that length, and outrageous production values, do count when pulling from a book.
I do have to wonder if, after seeing True Blood, Charlaine Harris' next book in the series will be any different. (She's still writing new ones as far as I can tell) Does she see her characters differently? Can she get Anna Paquin's face out of her mind? Now that's what I would call a authorial mindfuck. Woowee.
Read Swaying Text blog here http://patina-green.livejournal.com/4373.html?view=4629#t4629
0 comments:
Post a Comment