Is Armstrong's Bitten as bad as the TV adaptation?

Started by Elandra, January 21, 2014, 12:27:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elandra

I have always enjoyed a good urban fantasy whether it was a TV series, movie or book and so I was excited to learn that Bitten would be premiering on Syfy this January (there have been two episodes). Unfortunately, it is a great disappointment and now I am curious if it is because the source material is also horrendous.

There are obviously some issues that are not related to the novel, the acting and CGI are atrocious, but the story and dialog is just as bad. Please someone tell me that Kelley Armstrong's series is better than this adaptation before I venture to read it.
~~~ ONs & OFFs ~~~ Requests ~~~

Moondazed

I love that series of books. :)  They must not be following the spirit of her dialog.
~*~ Sexual Orientation: bi ~*~ BDSM Orientation: switch ~*~ Ons and Offs ~*~ Active Stories ~*~

Crimson Caine

It's probably the same thing they did with the Dresden Files.  I saw the show first and thought, this sucks... I don't want to read the books.  But I've been reading them and they are great.  Especially when read by James Marsters.  And it isn't anything like the stupid show.
The pious pretense that evil does not exist only makes it vague, enormous and menacing. – Aleister Crowley
CC's O/O
CC's Request Thread
CC's Disappearing Routine (A/A)

Inkidu

Quote from: Crimson Caine on January 23, 2014, 11:02:11 PM
It's probably the same thing they did with the Dresden Files.  I saw the show first and thought, this sucks... I don't want to read the books.  But I've been reading them and they are great.  Especially when read by James Marsters.  And it isn't anything like the stupid show.
Actually, I liked both Dresden Files, but I've got this weird habit of being able rate adaptations on their individual merits. ::)
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Crimson Caine

Quote from: Inkidu on January 24, 2014, 05:54:42 AM
Actually, I liked both Dresden Files, but I've got this weird habit of being able rate adaptations on their individual merits. ::)
I did rate the TV show on it's own merit as I didn't read the books, as I said.  In MY OPINION, it sucked.  It had nothing to do with comparison.
The pious pretense that evil does not exist only makes it vague, enormous and menacing. – Aleister Crowley
CC's O/O
CC's Request Thread
CC's Disappearing Routine (A/A)

Inkidu

Quote from: Crimson Caine on January 24, 2014, 01:31:36 PM
I did rate the TV show on it's own merit as I didn't read the books, as I said.  In MY OPINION, it sucked.  It had nothing to do with comparison.
Yeah, that was my goof. I actually picked up the books because I liked the TV show and was pissed they canceled it though. There are some pretty big differences, but Paul Blackthrone is my mental image of Harry B.C. Dresden. Much like Alan Rickman is many peoples' mental image of Snape. :)
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Koren

I haven't seen the series, and can't say i'm interested in doing so after the recent rash of horribly done mythological tv and movie series based around these creatures, but the books I find very interesting and incredibly good to read.
They are smart and intelligent, and not only manage to approach the idea of werewolves and the other creatures in a fresh new ways, and provide interesting plot twists and story, but also manage to provide an intelligent look into the human minds and making characters seem real and affected by their past and how that influences their actions, as both wolf and human, in a way that I rarely see in books any more.

They aren't the best books, they aren't grand masterpieces that will become broadly famous, but they are very good and an interesting take on a well done creature and world. Id definitely recommend reading them.

MrAlanNH

I haven't read the books but my wife has read and enjoyed them all.  We were excited for a TV adaptation, but I am completely underwhelmed.  Like someone else mentioned, the CGI wolves are wholly unbelievable; they don't look right or move right.  I find the acting and dialogue to be flat and unengaging.  I don't find myself caring about any of the characters.

I know sometimes it takes a few episodes for a show to find its stride, but I don't hold out much hope for this one.


Wolfy

Armstrong's adaption has been passed down for generations!!!! *Twinkle twinkle*

.....No one will get that joke. >.> Anyway, thought about checking out this series. :3

Love And Submission

If it's one thing SGU  taught me is that you should never ever trust Sy Fy. This is the network that dropped Doctor Who and allowed The North American Version Of Being Human to have four seasons.


They also made Sharknado ,  Sharktopus, Mansquito and Ice Twisters.



Sharktopus. Typing that out made my brain hurt.


Oh god...What happens if the Sharktopus gets caught in the Sharknado?


Discord: SouthOfHeaven#3454

MrAlanNH

I actually enjoyed SGU.  I much preferred the deeply flawed characters and intense interpersonal conflicts of SGU over the jokey, everyone-is-my-friend, nothing-really-bad-is-permanent style of SG1 and SGA.

I will agree that high quality shows from SyFy are extremely rare exceptions to their standard low production value fare that they churn out.  It feels like most of the time they are running on the business model of "if we make it cheaply enough we'll always make a profit."  But somehow, when I hear about a show that perks my interest, I always hold onto the hope that it will be turn out well.


Vorian

Quote from: Wolfy on February 05, 2014, 03:41:33 AM
Armstrong's adaption has been passed down for generations!!!! *Twinkle twinkle*

.....No one will get that joke. >.> Anyway, thought about checking out this series. :3

Full Metal Alchemist  ;D

Quote from: MrAlanNH on February 05, 2014, 07:29:26 AM
I actually enjoyed SGU.  I much preferred the deeply flawed characters and intense interpersonal conflicts of SGU over the jokey, everyone-is-my-friend, nothing-really-bad-is-permanent style of SG1 and SGA.

See, my problem with SGU was that Battlestar Galactica and Lost did it all much better without hijacking a franchise with an entirely different tone.  There is also a point where 'deeply flawed' crosses over into 'petty, stupid, and useless' and SGU crossed that line too often for my taste.
Ons/Offs - Updated 10/8/14 to reflect my switch to Liege and attempt a bit more clarity.
Ideas
Absences - Updated 3/26/15

MrAlanNH

Quote from: Vorian on February 05, 2014, 09:15:22 PM
See, my problem with SGU was that Battlestar Galactica and Lost did it all much better without hijacking a franchise with an entirely different tone.  There is also a point where 'deeply flawed' crosses over into 'petty, stupid, and useless' and SGU crossed that line too often for my taste.

For some reason, neither of those two shows resonated with me personally.  I missed a few episodes of Lost in the middle of the first season, realized I didn't miss it and never went back.  Battlestar Galactica, I liked the first season, thought Season 2 was OK but by the time they started building a colony, I completely lost interest.

I can certainly understand where the completely different tone of SGU vs the previous franchise would be a turn-off for fans of the original series and how that the writers have to be especially vigilant when doing shows that are heavily driven by flawed characters.  It is a hard line to walk, making characters that are unlikable and do horrible things, yet the audience can still sympathize with and find fascinating without making them devolve into reality show trainwrecks with no redeeming values.