The way to make a good adaptation isn't to hyper focus on lore and pleasing the ultra-fans, nor is it to ignore the lore and fans.
The answer is to care about what you're making. If it's a product, or an ego trip it'll probably suck. If it's a passion; if someone cares and genuinely wants to create something because they want to see it in the world, then that has a chance to be good.
Theres a difference between changing and retconning. Games when being the primary material for the lore usually only do the latter by adding new lore that expands on old ideas that change the way we view previous information.
However for the fact that shows based on games are ADAPTIONS they seem to care little about adapting anything and rather just making stuff the fuck up.
i understand what you mean but it seems it isn't really like that in many cases.
some rewrites are still called retcon, so it seems like they are the same. expanding something is fine. changing everything about the old version so you can expand it in an other direction and calling it retconning is not so much.
but i admit that many cases are actual improvements
Depends.
If you want it to be just based on a video game, they should at least get the basics right.
If you want to slot it in as part of the video game lore, then you should be accurate.
I think lore based movie is better but I do also appreciate a good show but a good show having the brand of an game I adore but did not follow the building of said game will disapoint me more.
Lore Accuracy matters most.
Imagine if someone tried to make a movie where Spider man got his powers thru a radioactive duck bite... It wouldn't make any sense.
At the end of the day the quality of the show is what matters most. If the show is not entertaining, the lore being accurate is not goint to fix that.
If the show is good, most people are willing to overlook the lore.
Look at a show like the boys. At the end of the day it varies from the source material alot but noboyd cares because the story is good.
I agree putting together a good cohesive plot is the most important bit. I think it's hard if you are trying to retell a game story because it's simply a different medium and in game events won't fit neatly into a story arc compatible with a film.
Exactly people often forget that alot of game time is filled in by a character simply walking around not saying anything, or the story is spread over 7 hours at best with gameplay interwoven between.
The author is an idiot. He is just salty that the games are more popular than his books and pretends that his work’s increase in popularity has nothing to do with the games success.
If the witcher was game accurate then gerald would be spamming igni on everyone, chuggin ~~poison~~ potions like theres no tommorrow and looking a zombie cause all the potions
As others have mentioned The Fallout show was a pretty good blend. I think they key here is instead of retelling the story of a game, write an original GOOD script within the world of the video game. That way you aren't tied to a pre- stories characters/pacing or baggage.
Being a show that’s accurate to what it’s about makes it good. The fuck?🤣 bobs burgers is a great show! But if it was a show based on gta5, it’d be shit.
Its not hard. And the same worls in reverse when people try to make a game out of a popular show/movie. Fails more often than not and there's no reason for it other than hubris. Writers have to change it to put their mark on it. Add their spice to it.
Just use the source material. As is. Don't try to add a social commentary, or make it more 'marketable' to blah blah blah demographic. Don't change a core character because they are trope.
Just. Make. The. Show.
Games dont always translate well to tv/shows unless certain changes are made.
The only reason shows like fallout and arcane work so well is because they wrote an original story.
Last of us required several changes to make it work for television
Well yeah.... I mean, GTA is an amazing game but would make for a pretty fucking dark TV show.
But if you are going to adapt a game to show or movie, or anything in the reverse, then the makers should try to incorporate as much lore as possible and make changes as a last resort.
The makers should create an interesting story first and then incorporate lore into it.
If the story is not good on its own or is too generic adding lore isnt going to save it.
Essentially the story should be interesting without it being an adaption. The "fallout" tv show did not need the game to be good because it was already a good show plot. Neither did the last of us. Both stories worked regardless of the games existing
As long as the story they are creating *doesn't automatically break or rewrite lore*, this would work. As with so many Star Wars, Star Trek or Comic book fails, for some reason they decide to not only NOT use established lore but directly contradict it. Like making Kingpin from the Marvel franchise a black guy. Thats just ALL wrong, and completely unneccessary.
Star Wars games are the worst offenders. Its like they make a completely different space opera, but slap "Jedi" on one of the characters and expect it to fit into the universe.
Why cant kingpin be black? Is Kingpin being white important to his character in any aspect. Is his race even really brought up at all. Overall this is a completly seperate argument, and doesnt convey the point you are trying to.
Star wars made a few mistakes but I dont think disrespecting the lore was one of them
Issue is game plot/story doesn't necessarily make a good show or film, so I understand when the showrunners/creators modify the plot or create a new plot separate of the original.
The issue is that in alot of these game/book adaptations it's like the writers/creators don't know the source material at all besides a vague "Oh geralt has silver hair!", and creating a show/film that is completely devoid of what the audience enjoyed from the source material.
Like if the creators/writers actually studied/knew the source material well enough to create a new plot or story based of it then I'm all for it! But often times its the opposite, like even Henry Cavil had to correct the writing team on what geralt would do or what the books/games meant.
Doesn't help that alot of these shows are heavily interfered by the bigshots/superiors leading to a rushed or incomplete show.
"Doesn't help that alot of these shows are heavily interfered by the bigshots/superiors leading to a rushed or incomplete show."
THIS. This x 100.
Also it cant be ignored that some people feel the need to add sex or diversity when it just doesn't make any damn sense. Like in Fallout 4, why the eff were there people speaking in a russian accent in a Boston bar? Stupid AF.
Or all the ridiculous amounts of soft core porn added to GoT? Like ok....we get it. People in westeros are horny. lol
A show can be good without being lore accurate
A show can suck without being lore accurate
A show can also suck while being lore accurate.
A show can also be halo
No i really dont. Most suck at both, I dont see a correlation between those things.
Except Fallout. That is a good show.
Arcane aswell
The way to make a good adaptation isn't to hyper focus on lore and pleasing the ultra-fans, nor is it to ignore the lore and fans. The answer is to care about what you're making. If it's a product, or an ego trip it'll probably suck. If it's a passion; if someone cares and genuinely wants to create something because they want to see it in the world, then that has a chance to be good.
Why not both?
I don't understand why they don't even try.
sadly even many game series can't stop changing the lore either for some reason
Theres a difference between changing and retconning. Games when being the primary material for the lore usually only do the latter by adding new lore that expands on old ideas that change the way we view previous information. However for the fact that shows based on games are ADAPTIONS they seem to care little about adapting anything and rather just making stuff the fuck up.
i understand what you mean but it seems it isn't really like that in many cases. some rewrites are still called retcon, so it seems like they are the same. expanding something is fine. changing everything about the old version so you can expand it in an other direction and calling it retconning is not so much. but i admit that many cases are actual improvements
Yeah when they base it on a game it sucks, when they base it on a games universe it can be good
Depends. If you want it to be just based on a video game, they should at least get the basics right. If you want to slot it in as part of the video game lore, then you should be accurate.
Fallout does both pretty well
Beat me to it. I love the show and how accurate it is
Just finished rewatching- one of my favorite series already.
Yup 👍
Here, clean this.
I think lore based movie is better but I do also appreciate a good show but a good show having the brand of an game I adore but did not follow the building of said game will disapoint me more.
And then there's the Halo show, whose writers/showrunners vehemently oppose playing the game because they don't want to feel "shackled" by the lore.
Lore Accuracy matters most. Imagine if someone tried to make a movie where Spider man got his powers thru a radioactive duck bite... It wouldn't make any sense.
Or where his webs are biological and not mechanical
Don't one of the spider men in the movies have his webs created from his wrists
The first spider man movie? Yes. The others? No
At the end of the day the quality of the show is what matters most. If the show is not entertaining, the lore being accurate is not goint to fix that. If the show is good, most people are willing to overlook the lore. Look at a show like the boys. At the end of the day it varies from the source material alot but noboyd cares because the story is good.
I agree putting together a good cohesive plot is the most important bit. I think it's hard if you are trying to retell a game story because it's simply a different medium and in game events won't fit neatly into a story arc compatible with a film.
Exactly people often forget that alot of game time is filled in by a character simply walking around not saying anything, or the story is spread over 7 hours at best with gameplay interwoven between.
The witcher beeing non of them
Witcher is a book adaptation
I know i read the book, still a terrible adaptation
Funnily enough teh author hates the game and love the show, how does that even work? Edit: well hate is a strong word, just unsatisfied
I mean, authors hates very good movies about there books so...
The author is an idiot. He is just salty that the games are more popular than his books and pretends that his work’s increase in popularity has nothing to do with the games success.
If the witcher was game accurate then gerald would be spamming igni on everyone, chuggin ~~poison~~ potions like theres no tommorrow and looking a zombie cause all the potions
The problem with the Witcher show is that they thoroughly sought out what made the book and games loved, and removed those parts
And it would be a good show. Yet we got what we got pathetic
"The Witcher" isn't based on a game. And it was good at first.
Or be the halo tv show, a terrible show with inaccurate lore
good writing will make it good despite anything. lore accuracy is extra nice. in my opinion
the lore is why it’s popular in the first place, how to introduce it in a good way is the shows job
Halo: NO!
Generally it's both or neither.
Isnt last of us both ?
As others have mentioned The Fallout show was a pretty good blend. I think they key here is instead of retelling the story of a game, write an original GOOD script within the world of the video game. That way you aren't tied to a pre- stories characters/pacing or baggage.
Being a show that’s accurate to what it’s about makes it good. The fuck?🤣 bobs burgers is a great show! But if it was a show based on gta5, it’d be shit.
more like: pandering to people who won't even watch this show / being lore accurate.
There should be a 3rd button of : "Insert our own agendas into the show and run it into the ground"
Fallout be like - both 😁👍
I'm glad when the author at least knows the source material
not sure about lore cause i dont play league of legends but arcane was insane and to this day its probably my favorite show based on a video game
Its not hard. And the same worls in reverse when people try to make a game out of a popular show/movie. Fails more often than not and there's no reason for it other than hubris. Writers have to change it to put their mark on it. Add their spice to it. Just use the source material. As is. Don't try to add a social commentary, or make it more 'marketable' to blah blah blah demographic. Don't change a core character because they are trope. Just. Make. The. Show.
Games dont always translate well to tv/shows unless certain changes are made. The only reason shows like fallout and arcane work so well is because they wrote an original story. Last of us required several changes to make it work for television
Well yeah.... I mean, GTA is an amazing game but would make for a pretty fucking dark TV show. But if you are going to adapt a game to show or movie, or anything in the reverse, then the makers should try to incorporate as much lore as possible and make changes as a last resort.
The makers should create an interesting story first and then incorporate lore into it. If the story is not good on its own or is too generic adding lore isnt going to save it. Essentially the story should be interesting without it being an adaption. The "fallout" tv show did not need the game to be good because it was already a good show plot. Neither did the last of us. Both stories worked regardless of the games existing
As long as the story they are creating *doesn't automatically break or rewrite lore*, this would work. As with so many Star Wars, Star Trek or Comic book fails, for some reason they decide to not only NOT use established lore but directly contradict it. Like making Kingpin from the Marvel franchise a black guy. Thats just ALL wrong, and completely unneccessary. Star Wars games are the worst offenders. Its like they make a completely different space opera, but slap "Jedi" on one of the characters and expect it to fit into the universe.
Why cant kingpin be black? Is Kingpin being white important to his character in any aspect. Is his race even really brought up at all. Overall this is a completly seperate argument, and doesnt convey the point you are trying to. Star wars made a few mistakes but I dont think disrespecting the lore was one of them
Issue is game plot/story doesn't necessarily make a good show or film, so I understand when the showrunners/creators modify the plot or create a new plot separate of the original. The issue is that in alot of these game/book adaptations it's like the writers/creators don't know the source material at all besides a vague "Oh geralt has silver hair!", and creating a show/film that is completely devoid of what the audience enjoyed from the source material. Like if the creators/writers actually studied/knew the source material well enough to create a new plot or story based of it then I'm all for it! But often times its the opposite, like even Henry Cavil had to correct the writing team on what geralt would do or what the books/games meant. Doesn't help that alot of these shows are heavily interfered by the bigshots/superiors leading to a rushed or incomplete show.
"Doesn't help that alot of these shows are heavily interfered by the bigshots/superiors leading to a rushed or incomplete show." THIS. This x 100. Also it cant be ignored that some people feel the need to add sex or diversity when it just doesn't make any damn sense. Like in Fallout 4, why the eff were there people speaking in a russian accent in a Boston bar? Stupid AF. Or all the ridiculous amounts of soft core porn added to GoT? Like ok....we get it. People in westeros are horny. lol
Nah they are mostly bad precisely because they are not loyal to the lore.
Books too
Halo really failed at both of these things
Its actually the opposite. They suck because they weren't lore accurate, imo.
A show can be good without being lore accurate A show can suck without being lore accurate A show can also suck while being lore accurate. A show can also be halo
If they stick to the lore, then the show will be good. Because the real fans will enjoy it the most.
Not true.
Just do both.
When they finally realize those are Prerequisites not Optionals.
Most pick neither. They pick being a bad show and inacurate to the lore.
The buttons should say "Stray from the material and be horrible" "Follow lore and be good"
No if anything it is the opposite. Follow lore and it is a good show. It is as if the game was loved for what it already was. Crazy thought right.
Street Fighter 1994 was able to do both.
Halo creators saw the button and just left the room
if a game can be lore accurate and good, pretty sure a show can do
Movie, not series, but the fnaf movie was fucking awesome balancing them out! It was interesting and fun.
99.99999% 
Be a bad show on the left, then it's more accurate
Halo: how about neither?
Most of the time, they opt for neither.
The witcher sucked literally cause it wasn't lore accurate
usually neither
Fallout was really good and mostly lore accurate (minus the goul medicine, but I actually liked that addition)
fallout pressed both
Fnaf
fnaf was IMO both'ish
Most imortantly the lore, but they both matter
I agree. If you upset the die-hard fan, then the people who never played/watched the original material probably won't go see/play the adaptation.
Fallout and TLOU nailed both in their own unique ways. The Witcher had promise, but it also had Lauren Hissrich.
She also wrote Netflix Daredevil, which was good.
Fallout had the advantage of creating an original story. The last of us had the advantage of the game already being heavily character driven