Why TV adaptations suck.
J...@tmbg.org
people are arguing that it's because of movies coming from "uncreative"
sources like remakes, sequels, and TV adaptations. What's interesting to
me is that TV adaptation is the only form of adaptation that gets singles
out, while adaptation from other forms of media like novels, plays,
articles, radio, and to a lesser extent comic books are considered
acceptable. I've come up with some ideas as to why TV adaptations are
different from these other adaptations, and why these differences may
explain the less than favorable response people have to them.
The first and major factor is that TV, like film, is an audio and visual
media delivered to mass audiences. All the other forms of media that film
adapts from has certain limitations, either in style of delivery or the
size of the audience. In fact, film and TV are so similar in what they
deliver to the audience, sometimes it seems the only difference is the size
and location of the screen. Certainly the success of film on home video,
along with increased production values on TV, has blurred the line between
content on the two. I think the similarities help explain why I see TV
adaptations getting mislabeled as remakes often. People get the sense that
they've seen the film before because they *have* seen it before, but on TV.
The second factor is plot. With a TV adaptation, you don't get one to work
with. With most other adaptations, such as a novel, play, or even comic
books, the plot from the movie is usually heavily based on the source.
Certain changes may occur, but they have a story to work from. With a TV
adaptation, the movie can't simply recreate the plot from one of the
episodes, so they often start from scratch. This goes back to the "seen it
before" syndrome. Audiences aren't going to be eager to see a story
they've already seen. I remember South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut
getting criticized in a review because the basic plot was similar to the S1
episode "Death," even though
the movie greatly expands on it. People expect something new.
Another reason why a new story is needed though is because of the scope and
arc differences in film and TV. Films are similar to plays, short stories
and novels in that they have a self-contained story arc. Sequels may be
made, but the original story stands on its own. In contrast, TV shows
either have a zero-sum story arc, where everything ends up near the same to
where it began, or where the plot of each episode effects small changes
that contribute to a larger story arc. Neither are really conductive to
film, with individual episode arcs being too short or too inconsequential
for a film, and seasonal arcs being far too long. A film needs a story
where a big enough arc occurs to be interesting, but isn't too long to tell
Thus a new story needs to be created, although fitting a film-style arc
into the TV show's premise and characters can be a stretch.
Which leads us to the third factor: premise. The premise of a TV show
isn't always an easy fit into a feature length film. Seinfeld may be a
classic sitcom but extended its most appealing factors (the plots aren't
about much of consequence, the characters don't grow or change) to feature
length would probably be disastrous. It's the same with Beverley
Hillbillies, which had a premise that was barely enough to create
culture-clash jokes and plotlines to fill a half-hour episode, let alone a
movie.
Then there's the characters. Again, the main problem here goes back to the
"seen it before" syndrome, in that people associate certain characters with
certain actors, and are reluctant to see them played by someone else. This
can affect remakes and sequels as well, but not other adaptations. The
only other adaptation this may affect is theater adaptations, but usually a
theater character is seen by a small enough number of people, and usually
played on stage by a number of actors anyway, that it's not that much of a
factor. For TV adaptations though, a new actor may be unacceptable. One
way to deal with this is to simply use the same actors from the TV show, as
with Star Trek, X-Files, and the upcoming Serenity. Often though, what
with Hollywood's penchant for using well-aged shows, the original actors
aren't the right age for the characters anymore, and Hollywood isn't eager
to make "where are they now" continuations, at least on the bid screen.
Beyond affection for the actor though, there can be affection for the
character itself. Movie arcs often dictate that character grow and change
throughout the course of the story. However, the audience likes the
character as he/she is and doesn't necessarily want to see a change from
what they saw on TV. Conversely, if a character doesn't change over the
course of a film, we often end up feeling cheated out of what a film is
supposed to do. One solution is to use an origin story, so that the
character changes *into* the one people remember from the show. However,
then you have still the problem of the character *not* being the remembered
one for the beginning of the film. Also, TV shows often cover the origin
story, so you are stuck with the "seen it before" problem again.
All these factors combine to create hurdles and challenges for TV
adaptations that other adaptations don't face. The increased challenges
mean that a satisfying end product is less likely, thus people's view that
TV adaptations are a "lesser" form of adaptation.
-Jay
moviePig
J...@tmbg.org wrote:
> The first and major factor is that TV, like film, is an audio and visual
> media delivered to mass audiences. ...
AFAIK, so was Shakespeare. I remind myself of this when I'm tempted to
*excuse* TV (or film)...
> The second factor is plot. With a TV adaptation, you don't get one to work
> with. ...
>
> ... the third factor: premise. ...
Don't know if it's a separate factor, but I'd also indict "premise
disguised as plot", which is one of TV's more annoying prevarications.
This is particularly visible whenever a teaser for a "continuing drama"
promises, "Tonight, all will be revealed!!!" As if. (Film can get away
with that only for something like X-FILES... whose fans *prefer* not to
handle The Truth, even if it is out there...)
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/
J...@tmbg.org
>
>
>J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>
>> The first and major factor is that TV, like film, is an audio and visual
>> media delivered to mass audiences. ...
>
>AFAIK, so was Shakespeare.
Play adaptations don't get maligned nearly as much as TV adaptations
though, and not as a whole. I think the reason is that while theater is
both audio and visual, there are certain differences in the medium that
make a film adaptation more acceptable.
First off, the main difference is both theater's main assest and main
liability: it's live. This brings with the the immediacy and initimacy of
seeing the action performed live in front of you, but puts limitations
on many other things, including distribution. While Shakespeare's
plays may have been delivered to a "mass audience," the population
is simply to large for any one production to make much of a dent in
it. Even with multiple productions over many years, the available
seating is still relatively rare. The many years of productions of
Phantom of the Opera probably didn't produce the number of
available seats the theatrical adaptation created in its opening
weekend.
Another difference is setting. A play can be set anywhere, but is
much more limited in its scope and its realism. Even the best
productions and plays use a level of abstraction in their sets, even
if it's only the lack of a fourth wall. Film can give far more realism
to its settings, as well as far more variety, being able to move through
a large number of settings with relative ease. Even Shakespeare
himself knew these limits theater had regarding setting, as he wrote
in the prologue to Henry V:
"But pardon, and gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that have dared
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object: can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work."
A final factor is the matter of cost, and the perception of value.
Theater, especially the high-class Broadway shows with stars,
can cost significantly more than a movie. A good seat at a
performance of The Producers on stage could have cost more
than $100, while the movie tickets for the film adaptation will
cost, even in the most expensive of cities, a tenth of that.
TV doesn't have these limitations, and as far as value is
concerned can be cheaper than a film, since some channels
just give it away for free. In fact, the cheapness of TV may
hinder the value of the film adaptation. Why pay to see what
accounts to an extended episode of Dukes of Hazzard when
you could just watch reruns of it at home?
>I remind myself of [Shakespeare having mass appeal in his
>day] when I'm tempted to *excuse* TV (or film)...
Well, while Shakepeare's play were popular with the masses
and have certainly stood the test of time and quality, he was
only one man. There were dozens of other playrights during
his time that churned out plays that are mostly footnotes in
history books, if remembered at all. In short, not everyone can
be Shakespeare.
>> The second factor is plot. With a TV adaptation, you don't get one to work
>> with. ...
>>
>> ... the third factor: premise. ...
>
>Don't know if it's a separate factor, but I'd also indict "premise
>disguised as plot", which is one of TV's more annoying prevarications.
>This is particularly visible whenever a teaser for a "continuing drama"
>promises, "Tonight, all will be revealed!!!" As if. (Film can get away
>with that only for something like X-FILES... whose fans *prefer* not to
>handle The Truth, even if it is out there...)
When the premise is a mystery, the genre pretty much dictates that
the mystery at hand will be revealed slowly. The main difference
between a TV show whose premise is a mystery and a movie is
that a movie has a definite end, which means the mystery can
and will be revealed by that end, while a TV show by its nature
will drag it outas far as it can.
One interesting plot route I thought of regarding TV adaptations
is the "threaten the premise" storyline. What if the Addams
Family weren't rich eccentrics? What if the Beverley Hillbillies
lost their money? What if Boss Hog stole the Duke's ranch?
The removal, or threat of removal, of the basic premise creates
a plotline where the characters strive to gain it back Of course,
the TV shows themselves sometimes can be guilty of this
plotline from time to time.
-Jay