Shannara coming to television

[conan50]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The first season, at least, is based on Elfstones.

Thanks!

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I imagine it'll be available on DVD. Most TV shows are.

I know; but then again, I dislike buying into series (books or TV) if they are not finished, because I want to be able to read/watch everything from beginning to end, without having to wait 6 months or a year (or 5-6 years in the case of George RR Martin) for the next installment.

By the way: It seems 10 episodes of 42 minutes are planned. That's a 7 hour runtime, which should be enough for an adequate depiction of Elfstones. The series is called "Shannara Chronicles", however. Has anything been said about creating other seasons based on the other books?

If so, they'll have to rearrange some things, because starting with Elfstones obviously shifts stuff around in the timeline. For example, Wil Ohmsford is the grandson of Shea Ohmsford. If they are doing Sword after Elfstones, there are several possibilities:

- They tell Sword as a flashback to Shea's time.
- They make a timeline and family structure for the Chronicles that is different from the books, making Shea a son/grandson of Wil Ohmsford, for example.
- A completely different character will be the protagonist of Sword.
- Shea will be the protagonist of Sword at his current age, but he would be at least 50, which I can't really believe they'd do.

It could actually be that they do new stuff that is not in the books. They did that in 1995, with the computer game "Shannara" (which I've owned since its release, as I played a lot of point-and-click adventures back then). As Wil is Shea's grandson, there's a gap there. The Shannara game casts Jack Ohmsford and Shella Leah as the son and daughter of Shea and Menion, fitting the game exactly in between Sword and Elfstones. Some people are of the opinion the game is canon in the Shannara world, others think it's not.

They might do something like that in the series as well.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by conan50

Good idea. I have thought about re-reading the book the series is based on.

I would highly recommend doing so. I've been reading Shannara as of late reading the books I've not read before, and up until now, Elfstones is still the best, partly because of its great (to me) ending.

If I were you, I'd read it before seeing the series, if only to make sure the series does not spoil and/or screw up the ending.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If I were you, I'd read it before seeing the series, if only to make sure the series does not spoil and/or screw up the ending.

How on earth would reading it before hand "make sure" it doesn't screw things up? Surely reading it beforehand would only make one notice any deviations from the source material more readily--good or bad. I'm a firm believer that bad movies/shows cannot possibly "spoil" the previously written good books they were based upon.

I would only suggest (re)reading the book before the TV series airs if:

1) You just HAVE to (re)read the book before seeing the movie. Always.

2) You've been meaning to (re)read the book/series, and you think now is as good a time as any to do so.

3) You would like to (re)read the book first, and you aren't the type who is overly affected when movie/TV adaptations deviate from the source material ('cause this one's probably gonna deviate, trust me).

3) You ARE the type who is adversely affected when movie/TV adaptations deviate from the source material for any reason, and you are looking to load up on ammunition for all the internet discussions that will crop up (after the series airs) complaining about all the said deviations.

To the rest ... I'd say just see if you like the show or not.

[conan50]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I would highly recommend doing so. I've been reading Shannara as of late reading the books I've not read before, and up until now, Elfstones is still the best, partly because of its great (to me) ending.

If I were you, I'd read it before seeing the series, if only to make sure the series does not spoil and/or screw up the ending.

It has probably been around 8 years since I read it, so I'm due. I picked up two Shannara books yesterday at a Library book sale that I have never read, the two Legends of Shannara books. I like Terry's books, I'm rarely disappointed in his work.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

How on earth would reading it before hand "make sure" it doesn't screw things up? Surely reading it beforehand would only make one notice any deviations from the source material more readily--good or bad. I'm a firm believer that bad movies/shows cannot possibly "spoil" the previously written good books they were based upon.

And I'm a firm believer that they can. Watching a movie/series done badly can turn people off from actually reading the books or even writing off the entire series (of books).

To the rest ... I'd say just see if you like the show or not.

With that, I agree. Sometimes a 'based on' movie can be very good despite not closely adhering to the source material.

Originally Posted by conan50

It has probably been around 8 years since I read it, so I'm due. I picked up two Shannara books yesterday at a Library book sale that I have never read, the two Legends of Shannara books. I like Terry's books, I'm rarely disappointed in his work.

Heh. I've just started "Bearers of the black staff" myself, after finishing the three Genesis books.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

And I'm a firm believer that they can. Watching a movie/series done badly can turn people off from actually reading the books or even writing off the entire series (of books).

Which would affect how much you, or I enjoyed the book how?

Look; I get what you're saying, but the fact of the matter is: those who would claim that a poor movie/tv adaptation of book would keep them from reading the book(s) it was based on, probably weren't ever going to read the books in the first place. And besides ... Shannara has enough fans (new and old) that it doesn't need us protecting it from TV shows that may cause a handful of people to "say" they're not going to read it now.

Books are books and movies are movies. The people who like books know this. The people who don't, don't care.

[drofgnal]

I just started reading the Sword of Shannara triology. I'm enjoying it. I'm really looking forward to the series as well. I've never been one to care too much about differences between book and movie adaptations, with the exception of that horrible rendition of the Hobbit which was so far removed from the book it isn't funny.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Which would affect how much you, or I enjoyed the book how?

If I read a book which cost me 10 hours, I'm willing to watch the movie, or at least some episodes of the series, to see what they did with it. If I first see the movie and know the general plot and ending, I'm not really inclined to spend 10 hours reading the book to see if it is better.

It's a question of time: I'm willing to spend an uncertain 1,5-2 hours on a movie, but not 10 hours on a book if I know most of it already, and don't know if it's better than the movie.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If I read a book which cost me 10 hours, I'm willing to watch the movie, or at least some episodes of the series, to see what they did with it. If I first see the movie and know the general plot and ending, I'm not really inclined to spend 10 hours reading the book to see if it is better.

It's a question of time: I'm willing to spend an uncertain 1,5-2 hours on a movie, but not 10 hours on a book if I know most of it already, and don't know if it's better than the movie.

Other than "The Princess Bride," and "To Have And Have Not" how many times is the book not better?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Other than "The Princess Bride," and "To Have And Have Not" how many times is the book not better?

And how many book-lovers aren't already aware of that overwhelming trend?

Bad movies only discourage people who were already looking for excuses not to read the books they were based on.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Other than "The Princess Bride," and "To Have And Have Not" how many times is the book not better?

Reading a book is a completely different experience to watching a film. I thought the three LoTR films were wonderful, for example, but they don't in any way change my enjoyment of reading the book.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Other than "The Princess Bride," and "To Have And Have Not" how many times is the book not better?

I know of only one movie/series that was on par with the book, and that's Shogun. (The 9,5 hours series, not the 2 hours movie.) The series was an almost perfect adaptation, with only some of the less relevant background plots cut out.

Lord of the Rings was quite good as well. Some of the stuff that was cut out (Tom Bombadil, Barrow-Wights, etc) was even seen as a good thing, as some people find it to be irrelevant padding in the book.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Reading a book is a completely different experience to watching a film. I thought the three LoTR films were wonderful, for example, but they don't in any way change my enjoyment of reading the book.

Exactly. I can love/hate/not-care-one-way-or-the-other them completely independently of each other. Same as with movie remakes (or reboots) and the original.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

In Brooks' defense, I don't think it was "blatant." Blatant as in, "I'm going to sit down and write a story that is LoTR with different colored trousers." Inspired by Tolkien (as many writers were), a lawyer-cum-wanna-be-writer started writing an epic fantasy (when epic fantasy wasn't being published). After pounding away at what turned out to be the first two-thirds of Sword of Shannara, he grew dissatisfied with the way his story was going (because he knew it was closer to ripoff than homage--which was not his intent). After taking a long, soul-searching break, he returned to the project and finished the last third of the book. Which—to anyone who paid attention when reading the book—is exactly where the plot deviated from the formula of Tolkien's masterpiece. That was where/when Brooks discovered his own voice and his own style and never looked back from there. He went on to write 32-and-a-third more novels with no resemblance to Tolkien's plots (unless one wants to grant an unlimited patent to Tolkien on elves, monsters and magic).

So it's really about time to put the "Shannara is a Ripoff of LoTR" meme to bed. It's not as if he's the only fantasy writer to get his/her start writing about a Party on a Quest with/for an Artifact led by a Wise (yet not completely forthcoming) Old Man with special gifts.

Twenty-seven Shannara books and counting, with twenty-seven non-LoTR-like conclusions, and twenty-six non-LoTR-like beginnings and middles; yet someone always wants to dwell on the first two-thirds of the very first book of a burgeoning fantasy author who didn't quite have his feet under him yet (and recognized it).

Give the ripoff bit a rest. Whether you like the Shannara series or not, it's not fair to the guy's body of work ... which speaks entirely for itself (in its own voice).

I'm not saying the various plot-point comparisons/analyses aren't valid. I'm just saying the ridiculous scrutiny of Sword of Shannara was at least partly due to the fact that it had the (mis)fortune of being the first commercially successful epic fantasy since LoTR was published (and/or culturally embraced). So it got branded with the stigma that the virtual flood of LoTR ripoffs that followed were able to avoid for the most part.

When I read the Sword of Shannara all those years ago, my reaction was the same as Harry's. I was never some shrill "everybody's ripping off Tolkien" guy, but in this book Tolkien was more omnipresent than God in the Bible. Doesn't mean that I thought Brooks was a crook. Doesn't mean that I didn't read any of his other books.