Game of Thrones, Outlander, Netflix's Jessica Jones, and Netflix's Daredevil: these are some examples of books and comic books that are now being put into a television series rather than a film. It seems to be a new trend. What are the merits of having a book series represented through television rather than a single film (such as Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings)? Is one better? Is this a natural progression of the new trend of splitting a book into two or three movies (think Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or The Hobbit)? Is the age of one-book-to-one-film over? If so, is that a good thing?
Is television or film adaption better? it depends on the book or comic itself and how detailed and complex it is. The only difference between film and television is that the story in a television show can take its time while a movie has to fit everything into at least a 2 hour adaption for the audience to be satisfied. Another reason is if the book or comics film rights were bought by a major conglomerate, the writers and producers would have to convince the studio to do either one. For Game of Thrones, G.R.R. Martin created an intricate world that would not have been able to translate well into a film adaption, while Lord of the Rings is similar but is compiled into three books, so it made the trilogy easier for a film adaption, with the prequel, the Hobbit, which made them a lot of money and was stretch out. Is it a good thing? I believe so, because many television adaptions can stay true to the books and comics or take a completely different direction which creates an alternate universes that many fans enjoy, one example is The Walking Dead, they follow the storyline but they have changed a couple of things due how well they can translate the story visually and budget. and is the one book to film over? No, because there are stand alone novels that the film studios have acquired and will capitalize on, one example is Jojo Moyes, Me Before You, featuring the khaleesi herself, Emilia Clarke. – Angelina918 years ago