Le Guin unhappy with TV Earthsea

[knivesout]

"My principal feeling about it is one of sadness, loss. An opportunity thrown away, at great expense. . . . I'm sorry for the people who think they've seen Earthsea, but saw a stale, senseless rehash of bits of other fantasy films instead."

Ursula Le Guin is less than thrilled with the current TV adaptation of Earthsea. Her books had a purposefully multi-ethnic milieu, which seems to have been largely thrown over in favour of shades of white by the producers. In addition, producer Robert Halmi Sr has been making claims about 'Ursula's' intentions and themes in the story that Le Guin points out are quite innacurate, apart from the fact that she's never actually met the man and is unlikely to be on first-name terms with him.

Here's an essay she's written about the whole issue: http://www.trashotron.com/agony/colu...4/12-15-04.htm

I suppose it's clear I'm a fan, but I would like to point out that the moderation and basic civility of her tone and content is like a breath of fresh air, especially as compared to Anne Rice's famous retort to disgruntled readers, discussed elsewhere here.

[The Master™]

All I can say to that is: "GO, Ms Le Guin!!!" As I have never met her, and therefore, don't feel that it would be appropriate to user her first name...

She has a great many points to make and every right to set the record straight...

I enjoyed reading The Dispossessed, so I think I'm gonna put these two books (A Wizard of Earthsea and The Tombs of Atuan) on my wish list... And I'll avoid watching the miniseries, should it be shown on Sci-Fi Channel in the UK!!!

[McMurphy]

Thanks for posting this thread, Knivesout.

Le Guin certainly does set the record straight with far more grace and dignity than Anne Rice could muster.

I have only read The Left Hand of Darkness, but it is a novel that was key in how I believe noteworthy science fiction/fantasy should be written. The work did not win the Hugo and Nebula award for nothing.

I noticed that one of her core complaints in regards to the televised adaption of Eathsea was the whitening of the characters and world. I have not sat down and watched a full episode of the newly released Sci-Fi channel series, but I had already wondered about that myself. To have a cast so mono in race seemed absolutely counterweight to what readers experienced in The Left Hand of Darkness. In fact, can anyone tell me if she challenges the common views of gender roles in the Earthsea novel series? I have not read it, and that was another aspect of the former novel that I admired.

It was not a good sign that, despite how much I looked forward to the Earthsea televised series debuting, I still could not conquer the wandering will of the remote control.

[I, Brian]

While it's a good diea for her to set the record straight, there is absolutely no way most film and TV productions are going to be able to properly honour the stories they cover from novels.

I've actually considered that this is usually a good idea - you cannot hope to reproduce the hundreds of pages of a book to a mere couple of hours on-screen time. And sometimes er-interpretations can be pretty interesting.

One thing film especially seems keen to do, is to dumb down towards a lower denominator for marketing purposes - to justify working in the more expensive medium. In some ways that can be dishonest to its source, but in others, it helps capture a wider audience than might possibly ever have encountered the book before.

Maybe Earthsea on TV isn't the same as Earthsea as a series of novels - but it was never going to be that way. However, let's see if sales of the books don't jump as people who would never had touched it before, encounter her worlds - and her ideas - in the detail she originally intended.

[The Master™]

The only way you are going to get a true representation of an authors intentions and mindset, is to get the author to work closely with the production staff, and be ponying up most of the cash for it...

[Leto]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

While it's a good diea for her to set the record straight, there is absolutely no way most film and TV productions are going to be able to properly honour the stories they cover from novels.

I've actually considered that this is usually a good idea - you cannot hope to reproduce the hundreds of pages of a book to a mere couple of hours on-screen time. And sometimes er-interpretations can be pretty interesting.

One thing film especially seems keen to do, is to dumb down towards a lower denominator for marketing purposes - to justify working in the more expensive medium. In some ways that can be dishonest to its source, but in others, it helps capture a wider audience than might possibly ever have encountered the book before.

Maybe Earthsea on TV isn't the same as Earthsea as a series of novels - but it was never going to be that way. However, let's see if sales of the books don't jump as people who would never had touched it before, encounter her worlds - and her ideas - in the detail she originally intended.

Being a Dune fan (both book and movie, but hating with passion the mini - mostly for bad acting and bad directing IMO) I can understand why an adaptation can't be strictly following the novel, or even be loosly based on. What I can't understand is the specific problem Mrs Le Guin brings : the whitening of the characters. Why was it necessary ? From what I read in her article, it's as stupid as if they tried to whitening the cast of "Roots: the next generation" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078678/).

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by Leto

Being a Dune fan (both book and movie, but hating with passion the mini - mostly for bad acting and bad directing IMO) I can understand why an adaptation can't be strictly following the novel, or even be loosly based on. What I can't understand is the specific problem Mrs Le Guin brings : the whitening of the characters. Why was it necessary ? From what I read in her article, it's as stupid as if they tried to whitening the cast of "Roots: the next generation" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078678/).

I agree. The traditional differences between cinema adaptions and their literary sources do not explain some of the changes the producers chose to make. There are always going to be some differences between a book and a film of the same story. They are two different mediums with two different set of tools that are necessary to make the entertainment work. However, when a film adaption chooses to purposefully undercut and/or erase key centeral themes, plots, and thesises for the sole purpose to make the story more marketable, it is not only doing the source a great disservice, but it is even disrespecting the very author they are hoping to profit off of.

"Marketable" has become a curse word for me. I feel that it has become the cowardly way of creating and has somehow been largely accepted in film and television entertainment. In truth, what is or what is not deemed "marketable" in this medium is determined by business people pointing to pie charts of racial demographics of the average Pepsi drinker. "As you can see, most Pepsi drinkers are white; therefore, it is of the best interest of this project to make all the main characters also white."

The mindset of "marketable" isn't necessarily the best policy. Studios need to take a chance with stories that break from their profit profile. When it is followed strictly and exclusively, the story suffers. Don't for a moment think that audiences have an unwavering interest in watered-down entertainment. Disney has suffered huge hits in its profit in films and television in the last decade largely due to having more and more competitors who are willing to flush the prescribed formula down the toilet. Spongebob Squarepants gathers more viewers than any of Television Disney's cartoon line-up, and Shrek 2 toppled Finding Nemo's (a Pixar project back when Disney still believed they could call all the shots) record of the most successful 3D animated film ever. Why? Because Shrek 2's story was more fresh and hip than what the recycled story that Finding Nemo had to offer. But I am sure there is a guy curled up in a ball sobbing in a corner of a boardroom while hugging his pie chart somewhere at the moment.

I have the feeling that if the televised Earthsea overlooked the more artistically devoid aspects of the "marketable" mindset and instead kept truer to the vision of a proved author, the Sci-Fi channel would end up reaping more profit in the long run.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, it was pretty dismal, that's for sure.

I can understand, on a certain level, why they made some of the changes. I love these books with a passion, but even I can see why they wouldn't necessarily appeal to a television audience without a more obvious conflict and a more visible villain -- but if that's what a TV movie needs, why choose Earthsea in the first place?

And there is a great and terrible irony when someone like LeGuin, who is so particular and meticulous about her dialogue reflecting character and setting, has to watch her dialogue being dumbed down and modernized.

[Leto]

Anyway, the end result is that from her article, Mrs Le Guin gave me the slight incitation needed to have a try at this serie. I'll try to find the first book this afternoon.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by McMurphy

"Marketable" has become a curse word for me. I feel that it has become the cowardly way of creating and has somehow been largely accepted in film and television entertainment. In truth, what is or what is not deemed "marketable" in this medium is determined by business people pointing to pie charts of racial demographics of the average Pepsi drinker. "As you can see, most Pepsi drinkers are white; therefore, it is of the best interest of this project to make all the main characters also white."

The trouble is, marketing is what marketing does - it sells a product the best way it can. Of course, marketing doesn't always work, and sometimes even back-fires. Ultimately, though, high-brow does not sell as well as populist.

Originally Posted by McMurphy

The mindset of "marketable" isn't necessarily the best policy. Studios need to take a chance with stories that break from their profit profile.

They should - but someone somewhere has to justify the spending of a few million dollars. Saying it "might" sell is never going to be good enough - the bankers want evidence that a strong targeted marketing base is tapped into.

Originally Posted by McMurphy

Shrek 2 toppled Finding Nemo's (a Pixar project back when Disney still believed they could call all the shots) record of the most successful 3D animated film ever. Why? Because Shrek 2's story was more fresh and hip than what the recycled story that Finding Nemo had to offer.

Aaarrghh!!! You just shot yourself in the foot here, in my opniion - Shrek2 is a marketing feast run by bankers for bankers, based on realms of pie-charts and market research studies. Pixar is more concerned with innovation and story-telling, rather than being "hip".

You just showed that the marketing suits were doing their job properly.

[The Master™]

I thought that Shrek was more innovative and fresh and Shrek2 was purile and boring... Okay, a few one liners, but not nearly as much fun as the original... It only did well on the back of the original one... Kinda like Matrix - rough and ready, innovative and fresh, Matirx 2 & 3 - marketing hype and not nearly as good...

[dwndrgn]

I like Kelpie's point here - if you want a story that is geared for the lowest common denominator, with no risks or chances taken, nothing out of the ordinary or interesting, why choose Earthsea in the first place? It was chosen (IMO) because of it's previous popularity and consistent sales. That series has been out for ages and still sells without any trouble at all. So, they chose it because it is a good story with a large audience already attached to it. That throws Brian's 'marketing' idea of 'not taking risks' out the window because they chose it specifically because it was already a familiar story with a large built in audience. The biggest remaining problem is the same for most fantasy stories - cost of production, but the SciFi channel knows that before it begins and there is no cost savings in making the cast monochrome. Therefore, why make the story bland and dull by removing particular themes and ideas that made it interesting in the first place? There are many directors and producers out there who realize that the world isn't solely white, they should have chosen one of them to portray such a multicultural story.

I wasn't able to catch the miniseries when it aired as I had to work and forgot to set the vcr. I might have to see if it plays again so that I can see what Ms. Le Guin is disappointed in. Just so I can whine and moan knowledgeably here with you guys

[Michael]

Although I haven't read the book, at first I started to enjoy the show. I ended up disappointed, however. Often, if I watch the movie first and then read the book, I have a deep appreaciation for both (for example, "The shining"). When I do it the other way around, I usually hate the movie. This time seems different. I'll have to find "Earthsea" and read it. I'm sure I'll love it.

[Teresa Edgerton]

The casting wasn't entirely monochrome, because Danny Glover was in it -- but even that was inappropriate because he should have come of the same racial stock as Ged. Tiny little islands at the back of beyond don't usually boast much diversity.

Under the circumstances, bringing in one black character where the majority ought to be dark-skinned reeked of tokenism.

Henceforth, I have decided, I shall refer to this production as "From Earthsea to Poughkeepsie."

[Lacedaemonian]

Firstly, I have not read the books, but plan to.

Is the series so bad, because I am downloading them as we speak??

Lastly, Shrek 2 was far funnier than the first one.