We've learned the wrong lessons from our favorite stories
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- Check out Campfire: www.campfirewriting.com/readi...
Why do showrunners, publishers, et al continually learn the wrong lessons from our favorites? Why do they try and copy them to no avail? It's something I think about a lot and wanted to share today. Let me know your thoughts below!
Chapters
00:00 - Intro
02:01 - The Hunger Games
06:07 - Sponsor - Campfire
07:20 - ASOIAF / Game of Thrones TV show
10:50 - LOTR/ Rings of Power
13:51 - Conclusion
Socials
Www. bookborn.reviews 
Развлечения
Agreed, This is also why people hated the ending of Game of thrones TV show. After running out of source material it became painfully obvious that the showrunners in fact didn't understand why it was so popular in the first place. They fell into all the same traps as copycat shows. Character development was ignored and things just happend too fast. A lot of flashy battles and very out of character things that happened just to resolve the plot. If George ever finishes the books and It ends with exact same results I believe he could make the story inbetween much better and believable just by writing character decisions and motivation in a way that makes sense.
I was going to say that this was my theory for why the last seasons were so hated, but as I haven't watched it I figured I shouldn't say it 🤣
Overwhelming the fan bases take is this above. @@Bookborn
This EXACTLY
The more I re-read the books and rewatch the show, the more I fall in love with the books and the more I dislike the show. When you remove the fact that the show has a STELLAR cast, and a costuming department DREAM TEAM, and look at the show without those in mind - it just... Isn't good. And I'm not even talking about the last few seasons. I'm talking about all of it, all the way back to season one, episode one. It's so clear that the showrunners did not get any of the symbolic language, mythological inspiration, or underlying themes drawn from George's personal values. They've admitted themselves that they read the red wedding and were so shocked by it that it was a driving motivator for them to adapt it for television. Not the question of what makes a good ruler, looking closely at the meaning of chivalry, family and honour, not thinking about morality or how much one can sacrifice for the greater good. Just pure, wonton violence, and shock factor. That's all they wanted. And it shows.
On the flip side, however, is House of the Dragon!! I saw a lot of people complaining about how HotD was slow and boring to them, or just not as good as Game of Thrones because of the tonal shift, but I firmly believe that Ryan Condal truly appreciates George's writing, and a lot of the themes and quieter character moments from the books are on full display in HotD. The ONLY real complaint I have with it (pacing issues only bugged me a little bit, I think they did fine with the limited runtime they had) is the "oh shit" moment at the end of episode 9, which felt so extremely out of place that I can't help but wonder if HBO didn't step in and say "hey, this is the penultimate episode, we need a big bang moment here". Otherwise I really feel that FINALLY, somebody is doing this world justice.
They didn't run out of source material so much as they ran out of good source material. The first four seasons of the show cover the first three books which were excellent. Books 4 and 5 are terrible and that's why season 5 shows a noticeable drop in quality. Season 6 was actually pretty good with eps9 and 10 being up there with the best episodes of the whole series and by that point they were already beyond the books. The last two seasons otoh are not so great with the last season not being good at all.
A great part of the "appeal" of the Red wedding is actually that with all the foreshadowing it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion, particularly on reread. You need that narrative justification!
absolutely, the chapter in the book reads like a thriller
Still love that he's "George" now. You're one of us.
Georgie and me are bffs 👯
Martin's character work is definitely a strength that the Game of Thrones show was able to capture. When I read the series, in high school, I remember being truly moved by the soft quiet character moments like Katlin at prayer. Its because of that quiet time, that made her fate tragic. So many copy cats just cut the quiet stuff, the valleys, and jump from shocking peak to peak. Which (ironically) levels out the story and as you said misses the point.
YES! I love how you described it as jumping from peak to peak - never giving readers/watchers moments to appreciate a character and sit in it
It's sad because Martin's character work was definitely the least important thing in the eyes of the showrunners. I think littlefinger is the best example of it because even George has talked about how the show version is just straight up a different character from the book version. The world of the show is also so much smaller, with so many cut characters and reasonings and motivations lacking. Robb's entire kingsguard is straight up not in the show. Theres so many small but important details that the showrunners did not care about just in general.
This reminds me of a flip side example of when Neil Gaiman was trying to get his Sandman series made into a movie. He went to the pitch meeting at Warner Bros, and before he could tell them any of his ideas really, they asked him a question. They had looked at other successful fantasy series, mainly Harry Potter and LOTR, and decided the reason those were successful was because they had clear, main villains. Does Sandman have a clear main villain? Well, no, but.. And they dismissed his pitch.
I guess GoT hadn't been made yet huh, they missed on that thought 😂
These executive type of guys know nothing about making a successful story. You can't quite put it in a formula. At the end of the day, what makes a story interesting is complex characters (or at least, characters you can empathize with at some level) and well addressed themes.
@@sesshowmarumonoke One important aspect of art is imho that it's always unique.
No product of art is the same as another one. The same is true for the art of storytelling.
But an industry always tries to massproduce something, because it's goal is to maximize the profit and minimize the risc.
That's why those executive types are always looking for a formula to mass-produce something that's successful like on a production line.
The first Katniss point is spot on. Stories are (in my opinion) meant to marry the character and their arcs with the world and plot. You can't just grab Katniss and put her in, I don't know, Westeros, and expect it to work.
Brienne encompasses many of the same traits.
@@thatwittyname2578 Brienne and Katniss are wildly different characters imo haha
Yeah, I think it's easy to overlook that stories are so much more than one or two easy things to put in a list
@@BookbornThe other commenter didn’t claim they were exactly the same and indistinguishable characters, just that they share some similar traits, which I incline to agree.
yeah, like trying to put her in a court of thorns and roses with loving sisters...
Andor is a great example of getting the point of a work. It puts a dark twist on a lot of themes in Star Wars, while not eviscerating them. It also lacks a lot of the visually "Star Wars" elements like the Force and lightsabers, so its strength as a piece of art is its use of character work and themes. Also, it uses real locales for sets instead of just relying on the Volume.
I never understood the appeal of Andor. For me, It appeared to have all the makings of a good show, but it was terrible Star Wars. ST is not a political thriller. It's an action adventure. For the first 3 episodes, Andor walks around in an incredibly suspicious manner. That should have been a meme. It wasn't until we got to the prison that the story had meat on its bone. But it resembles nothing connected to Star Wars.
@@spilchsaysstuff1427 I agree with you, to an extent. I wouldn't like to see everything Star Wars take its tonal and pacing cues from Andor, because that would shift it into a very different series. But for a series so long running, it does give a fresh perspective. I also liked Rogue One quite a bit, so a well-written prelude to that was very welcome, in my eyes.
The things I liked were how it explored finding hope, the importance of family (found or blood), standing against oppression, and the arrogance of corrupt officials being their downfall.
When I use it to reflect the more upbeat action-adventure nature of the rest of the series, it provides an interesting contrast without contradicting the themes. I think it's reasonable that you don't want that out of Star Wars, though.
@@spilchsaysstuff1427 Hmm actually Star Wars is pretty dang political, especially when you look at the prequels!
I love Andor because it's a different kind of star wars story. I think telling the same story again and again gets boring. But, I can understand if it's dark tone turned people off.
I will die on the hill that this is what took the Pirates franchise from one the most fun and well crafted movies of it's time into a parody of itself trying to capture the same magic - The first movie was incredibly well made and thoughtful and a compelling storyline contrasting valor vs propriety and class expectations - and it happened to have a very fun goofy side character in Jack Sparrow and fun ghosty pirate vibes
The powers that be saw that people loved Jack Sparrow and decided that the rest of the series would just be "More Jack! Most Ghosty Pirates" without understanding that part of what made his character great was that he was a great foil for Will's growth - that he was a static character that never really wants to nor (in my opinion) should fundamentally grow or change in any way
In the fourth and fifth movies they tried to recapture the magic of the first thinking that all was required was attractive young leads and a forbidden love storyline - but that wasn't satisfying either - they even tried brining Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly back but it still wasn't a replacement for a thought provoking and fun story
Yes! Jack only works because of Will and Elizabeth. It's the dynamic of young, hopeful, and naive vs older, cynical, and world-weary. There were complaints about how boring Will is...but it's the contrast between him and Jack that makes Jack work.
This is all just a corollary to the rule William Goldman set forth in his book, Adventures in the Screen Trade: Nobody knows anything. The book describes, in hilarious and sometimes cringeworthy detail, examples of that working within Hollywood, and examples of incredible catastrophic failures that stem from the hubris of Hollywood types thinking that they know something.
Goldman himself may be an exception to the rule. After all, his adaptation of his own The Princess Bride is one of the best adaptations ever done, and its framing story veers wildly from the original, softening but also somehow preserving its spirit.
My favorite species of these are the ones where you can actually see the pitch for the movie in the trailer: It's Die Hard on a boat. It's Die Hard on a bus. It's Die Hard on a plane ad nauseam...
My favorite example of this done poorly was when Pirates of the Caribbean came out and then they started releasing movies based on all the Disney rides, as if that was what people loved about it. The when Transformers made a billion, they released Battleship, as if people just wanted movies based on Hasbro toys. It’s sad that modern Pirate movies don’t really get made anymore and even the main POTC series is an imitation of what it once was. I’m mostly saying that because I’m reading the Liveship Traders trilogy from Robin Hobb and I’m freaking obsessed with pirates right now and want a movie so bad
Omg yes I remember all the ride failures after pirates like pirates was lightning in a bottle, it wasn’t a ride thing! So silly
Peter Weir could be a good director for a Liveship Traders movie adaptation maybe. His Master and Commander movie was phenomenal.
@@Zivilin I haven’t seen that but I definitely will after hearing this!
Yes, a Liveship Traders movie could be amazing!
And this is exactly what they’re going to do after Barbie was so successful, they were already making more movies based on toys as if that was the reason it was successful. That wasn’t the reason!
If anyone learned the wrong lessons from ASOIAF it's David Benioff and D.B. Weiss 🤣
How? At least they ended the series. Martin got lazy and greedy
I'd add GRRM himself to that list. Book 1-3 are excellent. Books 4 and 5? Well...
@@gunkulator1 he’s added too many characters and completely lost control of the narrative. His editors really should have said after book 3 “no new POV characters!”
@@henryleake4697GRRM ignores his editors. We’ve seen stuff that his editors mark like the absurd amount of times George uses “words are wind” and George went on to ignore it
@@henryleake4697 Too many new characters, new places, new situations plus a lot of other rambling details that don't advance the narrative. You are correct that the main problem is with the editing. Much of this new extraneous material would be excellent to put in an appendix or perhaps a companion work but it does not belong in the main story.
i think some understand the heart of what makes a story beloved.
Poldark is one i like to reference because while the show follows the plot more or less, the tone is shifted to appeal to a modern audience's understanding and perspective. There were things in the original work that we today probably wouldn't connect with -- chief among how they matured Demelza in the show so that she's more fierce rather than subservient to her circumstances, but without compromising her femininity. She doesn't go from doormat to warrior, but they gave her a level of strength that allows her to stand up for herself rather than wallow in self-pity, and she's one of my favorite characters for it.
Shogun is the other that comes to mind. The previous adaptation the showrunners had this idea of not translating so that the audience would be as confused as John Blackthorn and only know what he knows. Which was a bold and creative move, but it meant that the audience couldn't connect as well with the story. The newer adaptation translates, but the tone (as well as what is said) is controlled by those who translate, so we can see the pieces shifting across the board and feel more invested in every character. And, it makes every character appear to have more agency.
The show is less about being any kind of historically accurate, and more of a political intrigue with strong character motivation. In this case: they learned the right lesson from previous mistakes.
I think in these examples, with their less successful previous adaptations, the showrunners understood that what made the books a sensation was in the characters, and so doubled down on that.
For quite some time, something pounded into the minds of anyone in creative writing or filmography is that things need to advance the plot, plot is king, get from point A to point B efficiently. And it doesn't work. So we have screen writers and directors who take plot-above-all-else and neglect character. Couple that with producers whose entire job it is, is to invest in something that they can later profit from, and yeah...
Weird as it sounds, maybe these mistakes need to happen. The same way the above had flops in their former adaptation and came back stronger in their second attempt, maybe it's a cycle so that the rest of us can assess and understand how to try for the better next time.
In Patrick H Willems video about R-rated superhero movies he calls Hollywood a reactive entity. What he means by that is that they don't really plan they just try to copy what most recently made money. And that feels spot on to what you are talking about here. But a lot of industries seems to work like that. Sanderson has talked about how a lot of publishers (around the time he started trying to get published) wanted books like ASoIaF because that was popular at the time.
Absolutely, and in some ways, we've become more reactionary than ever because of the increase and ease of output!
@@BookbornI forgot to say that if you don't have watched Patrick Willems I think you would like his video essays. They are mostly on movies/TV but some might interest you. Like the latest one, it's about adaptations where he bases a lot of his points around the Super Mario movie from the 90's and the latest animated movie.
100% House of the Dragon (got prequel based on Fire and Blood) understands what made S1-4 of the show great: the characters. ALL the characters in the show are actually fleshed out, unlike in the history book (bc it's a history book) where much of the info was left out of the picture, or purposefully unreliable bc of THE MAESTERS bias. If there was a version of the show where all the icky stuff was cut out, I couldn't recommend it enough.
I heard HotD was just incredible, and all I heard over and over again is how they managed to make amazing characters. A lot of the show was spoiled for me since I figured at the time I wouldn't watch it (hadn't read ASOIAF yet) so liene's library discussed how good it was with me every week 😂
@@Bookborn I'm glad you were at least exposed to it. The scene in episode 8 where *spoilers in case anyone hasn't seen it* King Viserys walks to the throne to defend Rhaenyra amd her family was just incredible, it is something you can only experience once. This man who throughout the whole season was gone through so much because of the politics of this world, who is literally falling apart, slowly making his way to the throne to defend his daughters'line/wife's legacy, it was incredible. In a show with dragons and battles, a man slowly walking towards the throne is the highlight due to the tension of wondering if he'll make it and get to defend his family. (He does get to who!!!). THAT is amazing character writing.
Season 6 is the best season of thrones
@@shinymk6562 Not to mention amazing acting! Paddy Considine deserved the Emmy for that scene alone!
@@henryleake4697blasphemy
Great points! It's important to remember that we as readers/viewers can also often take the wrong lessons from our favorite stories because we get so drawn in by particular characters or events that we can easily overlook some of the substance of the story. With Game of Thrones, I've met people who genuinely idolize Tywin Lannister despite his several war crimes, or who believed Jon was best fit to be king solely because he didn't want the throne (without considering all his other admirable traits). We're just as susceptible to drawing bad conclusions, and today's readers become tomorrow's showrunners and publishers.
Very, very true - it's often hard for anyone to really pinpoint what we like.
You hit this so spot on. What I don't get is *how* can these creatives can attract so much money, get so many people involved (e.g. producers, showrunners, actors, set designers, financials, etc.) when they are clearly missing so many points that you've listed. Its amazing that literally hundreds of people all have to say 'Yes' for something to get to either the movie screen or TV screen and then when you watch its like 'Huh, that was a lot pretty stupid choices'. Also, I think a *very* good example of this is The Witcher (from Sapkowski's book) - I mean talk about missing the point of the books!
I'm not always sure it's the creatives to blame, tbh. I especially felt with Rings of Power that it was a lot of creation by committee - instead of one or two people with a clear vision, it was bogged down by every stakeholder who wanted a say - and that will kill creativity
@@Bookborn The Rings of Power is just a weird one. I mean they tried to tell a story when they don't have the rights to said story, they have the rights to the summary of the story in footnotes in another book. That's probably executives making that choice because Sauron is the big bad for LOTR, gotta have him in any LOTR thing, i.e. The Hobbit movies. Very weird though. And you mentioned the hobbits in the show as well. Hobbits practicing eugenics no less?!?! Why??????
The people who greenlight it have no heart.
@@jatzi1526 I disagree, they had everything they needed to make a good show right there in the LoTR Appendices. Check out, for example, *How 'The Rings of Power' Should Have Been Written* on the *Tolkien Untangled* channel. Also, when they wanted they did in fact use stuff from places like Tolkien's *Unfinished Tales* like the map of Numenor. And finally, given their complaint/excuse of not having the rights to Tolkien's writings outside of LoTRs, why did they ignore so much of the material they did have? As far as I can see, if they had access to Tolkien's wider legenderarium it would only have led to the ignoring even more stuff.
@terrystewart1973 I didn't say they couldn't have done a good job. Still weird af to make that specific story instead of a different one
10:40 I think you just perfectly described the last few seasons of Game of Thrones when the showrunners ran out book material to work with.
I was going to say it but figured I didn't have a leg to stand on since I haven't watched it 🤣
Similarly, I think that's what made "House of the Dragon" work, and hopefully continues to do in the seasons that come.
I definitely agree that oftentimes the wrong lessons are learned. I think there is a mode of artistic production, often profit- centred, that I would characterize as hollow mimicry, distinct from genuine influence. A couple other examples are Tarantino ripoffs in the 90s and Mark Manson self-help replicas more recently.
I feel like Bookborn is talking about the Aes Sedai TV show as well. I didn't really like the books myself, but I understand why they worked for many people. I'm not convinced that the showrunners do.
Even before the show, I feel like so many fantasy series started doing "major character deaths" because ASOIAF was getting so popular and none of them quite grasped what made the deaths in Martin's series so shocking. When characters die in ASOIAF it drastically changes the story. You go from thinking "this is a book about the north rising up" to "...I don't know how they get out of this." Other series will kill off a well loved character but it typically doesn't have a narrative impact other than motivating one of the protagonists.
YES YES YES! I always say that you better have a purpose to kiling off a character - there better be consequences - or it'll always feel hollow.
I think a great example of failure to understand the material, in a same medium example, are the shows West World and Altered Carbon. Season one of both had shocking elements, but the character writing was a notch above. Season 2 for both jumped the shark and showed the new writers had no idea what they were doing.
I wondered why you mentioned Altered Carbon as a bad 'translation', then I realized you differentiate between 1st and 2nd season. I barely even remember 2nd one😂
Westworld-also, hard agree!
@@mapletree3434 oh yeah, I also make the distinction between the book Altard Carbon and the show as they are mightily different too. But the show was was a major step down in season 2. Felt like a cheap stage play at times.
Westworld S2 was so disappointing. It felt like an empty shell of S1.
Yeah I wonder if this sort of thing happens because they see chatter online about the wild parts, not realizing what goes into making those wild parts effective.
@@Bookborn maybe, but I'm also growing more convinced that the majority or writers just have no idea what they are doing. They see the surface level and think that's all there is too it. For instance alot of modern "bad guys" are actually more rational and reasonable than the hero's. Example that comes to mind is Falcon and Winter Solider, they tried to paint Walker as a bad guy but he was the only reasonable person in the show. They tried to paint the terrorists as reasonable and "correct" but with the very substance of the series they were horrific people. That tends to be the trend I see with writers. They don't seem to understand ethics or morality.
I've been thinking this for a while as well. The problem is that the "copycats" fundamentally don't understand why the original was successful, so they lose it all when they try to copy. My husband's greatest frustration with the red wedding in the show was that in the books it was caused by Robb valuing honor to not abandon the woman he had gotten pregnant and in the show they tried to convince us he screwed over his entire country and broke his word because he fell in love. So, the show-runners didn't understand that Robb's honor was so intrinsic to what made him compelling that taking that away and giving another explanation destroyed a lot of point (for people who loved the books). Similarly, the knock-offs of Hunger Games didn't realize that Katniss was, fundamentally, being USED by the rebellion, not an active, enthusiastic participant, and that struggle of hers was a major portion of why she was compelling.
I'll throw in a fourth example just from TV sequels. Compare the original TV series Leverage to the "reboot" Leverage: Redemption. Leverage was engaging because it was about a collective of loner thieves with their own personal struggles learning to trust each other and discovering that, at their core, they really do care about more than what they've been living for. Sure, they conned a bunch of evil corporations and helped the underpriviledged in the process, but it was about them coming together as a found family and building something for themselves. The reboot is a training program for a couple of new characters, one of which was just a jerk and the other of which was a vague relative of a previous main character that we mysteriously never heard about in 8 seasons with that previous main character. The reboot was ALL about the cons and how the new characters needed to learn better, and the show-runners missed that the heart and success of the original show came from the character moments, not the "look, it's cool to rip off evil corporations" window dressing.
omg YES ABOUT THE RED WEDDING. So I had my friends tell me how the red wedding in the show was different and I was floored by the changed to Jeyne (and just her being there also changed things a lot). Like the depressing part is that Robb DIDN'T NEED to marry Jeyne! It wasn't love! That's what makes it even more tragic!
I think aSoIaF does an incredible job of connecting disparate stories At First. The prologue has three characters, we see what happens to two of them, then CH1 starts off with what happens to the third one, and how that affects our main characters. Almost all POVs for the first book start out in Winterfell, together, part of the same story, then branch out - even Daenerys is almost immediately introduced in the context of the ‘bad guys’ discussed in the previous chapter. Contrast this with Rings of Power, or really a lot of attempts to ape Martin’s style, and you’ll see three, four, five very loosely-related stories that never really give us time to connect to any character.
Ironically Galadriel in ROP was also blindly following the Katniss archetype, without understanding the archetype or its context and without understanding Galadriel.
Point of Order on the Red Wedding: Robb’s entire army was massacred. It was not just the people in the banquet hall. There were tents holding all of the soldiers who were also partaking in celebration. The tents were collapsed and set on fire with all of the people still inside. It was _thousands_ of men killed.
Yeah so I didn't want to spoil things lmaooo but I meant main characters. Obviously the massacre of the red wedding was horrifying and disgusting, but my initial impression when it first came out is that like 15 main, named characters died. But I figure if I said "only like 3 main characters die" that's a bit of a spoiler 🥲 But yeah it wasn't stated well lol
And that’s why the North in Dance will always remember
The way I thought the same thing, then I realised that 1) she was talking about main characters, and 2) she's trying not to spoil things.
Are you a new sub? She knows what she's talking about. Have a little more faith in the creators, man.
Even Tywin tones it down, at least in the show. The line:
"Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner"
Is iconic.
@@IshtarNike i don’t see why you’d have to be a new sub to interpret what she said that way. “i thought there was gonna be a massacre. i thought like 30 people were gonna die”. the way she said it definitely made it seem like she thought only the people in the banquet hall died since there definitely was a massacre.
I have really been enjoying your more in-depth looks at different topics like this. Great job!
Great video! My favorite adaptation is probably Hannibal the tv show. All the themes in there are intact and Will Graham and Hannibal and their relationship with each other is explored in even more depth compared to the novel but feels inherently true to the original work. That's also probably why the surrealist, darkly romantic, at times operatic, dreamlike tone and the elaborate artful death stagings work so well. It's a little bit like we're watching through the lense of Hannibal, a conaisseur of art and all things beautiful - yes, also morbidly beautiful - and Will's perspective is that of horror, alienation, empathy and deep-rooted anxiety. And a last point, contrary to the Disney approach (in the voice of South Park: put a chick in it and make it lame and gay) Bryan Fuller introduced an underlying romantic tension between the characters that fits organically. Will and Hannibal have such a profound psychological connection and understanding for each other that it could be interpreted as love even though it is only mental and never consumed or overtly portrayed.
The reason any story is popular is that it draws on unconscious material. When people try to consciously recreate that, it feels empty.
Oooh fascinating point. An author brings so much of their emotion, ideas, worldviews into a novel without realizing, and copying that is difficult...
@@Bookborn Thanks! Also, trying to add your own ideas to something that didn't originally contain them produces weird hybridized products that (to me) don't really mesh. Better off to write your own story.
At 9:00 you mention foreshadowing in the GOT series. An example you left out that heavily supports your point is the very first chapter where King Robert comes in. Every character he physically touched, died.
🤯
I think the concept of " _We must subvert people's expectations to keep them interested_ " has a lot to answer for. It seems to be an excuse to have characters acting completely out of character, and blowing away plot lines that may have been unfolding over many previous episodes or even seasons - all just to shock their audience. Basically, it removes storyline payoffs for the stupidest reasons. Often this seems to be done in response to online fan chatter, with them wanting to make something none of the show's fans thought of - without thinking maybe those fans didn't think those things because those things were just stupid, or that they were things they really didn't want to see.
Yeah the later seasons of GOT just started randomly killing characters without resolving their storylines.
There was even a case of an actor who criticized the direction the show was moving in, and was subsequently killed off despite them still having a LOT of book material left to cover for the character.
The showrunners had gotten the idea that character death was so vital to the show that it could now become *all the show is*
Your Eras Tour sweatshirt in the ad read just makes me excited for the day when your ASOIAF journey eventually leads to an "Every Game of Thrones Reference in Taylor Swift Lyrics" video.
ok I didn't know this existed but now I literally can't wait LMAO
I'm really impressed with this. I don't have additional specific examples handy, but just the idea that fiction needs to make sense on an emotional level is important.
Great video ❤Can’t wait for the DwD review. I was reading along with you and am now watching the show!
This is a full basket of excellent points. Thank you!
I think you're right on here. To boil it down, I suspect that there are a lot of people who don't understand the difference between "substance" and "style." Like... they go their entire lives, and the "deepest" level they understand anything on is just that surface level style. Conservatively, 2,000% of marketers are like this. So executives throw a bunch of money at a project and say, "Make it make money." And then, for some reason, marketers and middle-managers are left to make a bunch of important decisions. And they just do not work on a wavelength where they understand the significance of... basically anything.
Add that to the "cost vs. benefit" exchange, where the first two or three knockoff projects are bound to make money despite being terrible, and the incentive is to "produce something with as little effort as possible." Most of these people just don't care. Because they kind of can't. Because they don't "get it."
GRR Mart fucking gets it. You get it. Lots of people get it. But we're still the minority. And I really wish that some CEOs out there would start to get it too, so that they'd back things that are actually good.
I don't know if you've ever read the books in the Expanse series, but it's amazing. The show was amazing. When Jeff "Amazon Bux" Bezos saved the show and produced the last three seasons, I was like, "Cool. This guy gets it." And those final three seasons were excellent! Then... Amazon started churning out things like the Rings of Power and Citadel. I don't think Jeff gets it. I think he just ported over all the talent for the Expanse from its original production staff.
PS: If you haven't already, you should REALLY read the Expanse when you're done with ASOIAF. It's written by two dudes, one of which used to personally work with GRRM. The Expanse is like Game of Thrones, but in space, and instead of the smothering hopelessness of ASOIAF, replace that with boundless hope and optimism.
Awesome topic! I couldn’t agree with you more! Details and themes are important in fiction. Foreshadowing elements is also super important. Love your examples.
Great video and I very much agree. There is definitely a dialogue among authors and true filmmakers that leads to more and more stories. But there are also those who are just trying to chase a quick buck and write whatever they can get away with. It's just a good reminder as an author to have my own vision and reaction to these properties, and as a consumer to not chase something similar just because it's similar.
This is solid gold, no notes, bravo!
Thank you for expressing this, I've thought the same thing for so long! People saw Game of Thrones had tons of super adult content and suddenly every fantasy show, even ones geared more towards kids, included nudity and graphic violence... just because. Some projects just don't need it, especially when it contributes nothing big to characters or the story! Love the thought and effort you put into these videos!
What's missing is originality. There's a line in the Silmarillion about how Melkor couldn't create anything original, "save in imitation of others" and it made him resentful, to put it mildly. Imitation of course is part of the process, always, but if that's all there is, then it's all empty and meaningless. You have to bring something fresh to it, something with a heart of its own. But those who make content just to capitalize on someone else's success never care about that. So it's not so much about creation as duplication, and that never works.
Watching this video reminds me of the Ned Stark “bad decisions” meme, but you see all the work Martín put in place to make Ned Stark a relatable character. Similar with the Hobbits in LoTR; they have themes of friendship, courage, supporting each other, of idilic innocence that makes you relate to them. I don’t mean to be rude towards people producing TV/Movies today, but I see easy outs, a desire to be shocking for the sake of being shocking and doing what is convenient.
Great mini masterclass on adaptation and borrowing inspiration!
Have you started reading ADWD? Super excited for your review!
Me too. I saw that there was a private video in the asoiaf Playlist und was so excited because I was expecting it to be released today
Not yet :) I'm reading something right now, a book that comes out next week, and then ADWD is up next!
How is it that RUclipsrs and the people who watch them, know this but the so-called "professionals" (who are supposed to know and understand show-running) don't? Remember when we used to preface our criticisms with, "I'm not saying I could have done it better but..."? Now we know we could all have done a better job. The pretense is gone. We've just been let down too much.
I don't necessarily know that I could do it better - being an editor is very different than a writer - AKA, I can often spot mistakes but I'm not sure I could write something free of them. However, I do think it's related to the sheer speed of which content is being created today - streaming has vastly changed the landscape, and so I think the focus is often to chase smaller trends for money now rather than take a longer time to produce something long lasting.
Most of them do but it doesn't matter when you get in a room with the suits fronting the bill who are just gonna say, "nobody cares about that, put more sex, violence, and hobbits in." The problem is they only view the project as a business venture so having hobbits in is a success for them regardless of its impact on the artistic merits of the end result since they can put them in the trailers which will increase sales.
because regardless of what the show runs will say they all watched, played games or read books in the 90s that are on a level that Game of Thrones, Hunger Games, etc could only dream of.
it's the oh you mean all stories need to have an edge lord and be dark with fantasy stories like FF7 while missing the point. Cloud wqs not an edge lord.
And hooray for the ad roll!! I watched the whole thing. 💸
100% agree with your points. I’m waiting for the Dune copy cats to come and missing the themes from the books and the movies.
I find it really interesting, how you recognized elements from A Song of Ice and Fire in the First Law series (which I haven‘t read), because I had the same experience when reading Dune (quite some time after I had read ASOIAF) and seeing where Martin got a lot of his inspiration from. It‘s fascinating to see how much these authors can draw from each other’s writings and still make their own unique contributions, and it also shows how important it is to understand your source of inspiration.
100% agree! Amazing video, Bookborn
Another great video!!!! Thank you!!!!
This video is straight FACTS. I was ranting about this with my co worker with wheel of time and how it’s so pushing to be “the next game of thrones” like quit trying to be “the next…” ANYTHING! It’s annoying lol
Anytime I see shows say they made the story more "Game of Thrones" like I just think oh great another show I won't be able to see even with the brightness turned to max.
Lmao 😭😭 seriously why is every show so dark now 😭
@@Bookborn I think showrunners think making it visually dark is the same thing as telling a dark story.
Game of thrones was one of the best looking shows on television - complaining about one poorly lit episode is so lame
@@henryleake4697 not complaining about game of thrones I'm complaining about the shows that try to replicate game of thrones by making it so visually dark it's impossible to see
@@henryleake4697lol it wasn’t “one poorly lit episode”, there was also the goofy decision to have everybody wear all black for like 3 seasons straight and a general greywashing of the sets
It’s definitely true that some shows learn the wrong lessons, but I also think it can be legitimately difficult to learn the right ones and we shouldn’t really expect it to be simple. If that’s the case we shouldn’t expect every writer or every team of writers to succeed.
Also, if one type of story is compelling and unique, a few years later when everyone is trying to copy it, the same tropes in a slightly worse packaging also won’t be that unique anymore.
The meta has shifted and maybe it’s time to mix things up and try new concepts. And also to get those things right of course. That’s the tricky part.
You absolutely nailed it. People who have no idea about what makes a story great , trying to ride on the coattails of great works. Because they think it’s an easy cash grab. Please Disney , fire everyone in your production department , and hire this woman to be the gate keeper. That’s a good first step on a path to success.
Great insights all around.💯
"Themes are for eighth-grade book reports." -David Benioff 🤦♀
I started reading the ASOIAF books after watching the 1st season of the TV show and upon rewatch, it is painfully clear from the very first episode that the showrunners deeply misunderstood many if not all of the characters and themes in George's books.
I had the reverse, by the time the episode of The Red Wedding aired, I had read all the books, so I knew it would happen in the show, but still watching it was heart-stopping
Campfire! I really enjoy this writing software. Definitely recommend trying it out
Often learn the wrong lessons? Often????? Dark Night -> Everything has to be gritty. GoT-> All fantasy has to be blood, politics and boobs. MCU -> ALL has to be interconnected universes. Star Wars (back in the day) -> Ships, lasers and droids is all you need. The Force Awakens Success -> Soft Reboot is the way to go always all the time. Hannibal Lecter -> All serial killers are geniuses. Tony Soprano + House + Walter White -> All leads need to be *ssholes. And on, and on, and on…
Oh man, now I want someone to try to make a comprehensive list. Lots of great examples here I hadn't thought of all together, but are so true.
@@BenJack 🤔 Idea for a video? Comprehensive would be almost impossible. There are always new examples of stupidity 🤣🤣
haha well that's the point of the vid! Every popular thing spawns knock offs that aren't good. But some people DO learn the right lessons and it's how we get great stuff, too.
@@Bookborn Ah! Ever the optimist! 🤣 You're right, of course, it's just that the bad examples infuriate me 😅
@BenJack it's not going to be much of a list.
Many of the ideas were stolen from far early movies, video games, and TV shows.
DCAU is what was copied. Blade and Xmen is what was copied. Star Wars OT was what was copied. Final Fantasy 7 is what wqs copied. World of Warcraft is what was copied. Superman was what was copied.
The issue is no one knew what made them great and they just kept going with it. They also never had the end point.
Yeah I think movies and shows also often struggle to create the next thing. The culture and favorite movies and shows of the next 10 years will not look like the ones that were successful in the last 10 years. Some will to be sure, but the longer you keep using a formula the less it will work. Especially if you're trying to capture the trivial elements without trying to capture the heart of them and really create something. I want the next great book. If I wanted a bland remake I'd just reread the book I already loved.
I agree with you completely here! The "lessons learned" from the shows that work are so often completely butchered. Additionally, when you start talking about adaptations, etc. (Rings of Power, Games of Thrones, Wheel of Time, etc.) they have the issues of fandoms and pre-existing mental pictures of the properties. I will say, Game of Thrones did a better job (until the final seasons) then the others I have listed because they didn't shy away from shocking... or even try to re-tool the social constructs of the original pieces. They also spent a lot more time developing characters rather than trying to flash to big special effects and battles. Saw one person discuss the Wheel of Time series as having scenes in mind and then just ignoring how the characters move between them... and it is very accurate.
I love A Song of Jon and Tyrion (Jon being the ice/wolf, and Tyrion being the fire/lion)
Great video! Thanks for sharing
Nice. Clever arguments.
I think (the first season at least) House of the dragon is succeeding in an adaptation. Its based on a historical book so the show is able to add the character into these historical figures that GRRM is so well known for
Absolutely agree. It's honestly strange that something as fundemental as character contrast and foil could be SO overlooked.
We're also seeing the same problem in cinema as well. Comparing remakes to their original works has often been disapointing, but Disney seems to have completely missed what made the Marvel movies and the Star Wars films work in the first place.
But I suppose they are corperations that prioritize money over storytelling.
I think another factor here is the increased volume, as well. I don't have a video to put it in yet, but I made an interesting discovery the other day by accident. My husband and I were discussing future movies we can't wait to show our kids and marvel came up. I went to check to see if I was right about the order of the first couple of movies and when we saw them. I was shocked to see how we went from 1-3 marvel movies a year to... I think NINE projects coming out htis year? I used to think I was just tired of Marvel beause it was going on so long, but I wonder if only 1-2 movies/shows were being released a year if I'd still have energy for it.
@@Bookborn Yeah, agreed. Especially with the difference in style and narative. The early phases told complete stories, while building the larger world was more of a secondary priority. The characters and their stories were the focus. They don't do that anymore.
Now each project seems to be in competition with everything else, and most of them are totally unrelated.
I can't recall most of the new phase 4 characters, and couldn't aford to watch EVERYTHING in thearters even if I wanted too.
The other problem is that when you take inspiration from a property that works really well, by definition, your version won't feel fresh or original (or if it does, it only feels original because it's doing something significantly different).
Idk if someone else has pointed this out or not but in the red wedding episode, about 3,500 people die so in the show it is actually a massacre which is why it was so shocking and devastating.
Ooooh my gosh YES! AbsoLUTELY learning the wrong lessons! When everything becomes about money, and is controlled by a board, the quality SINKS.. and then they wonder why their show was hated. Ugh.
Great video! To build on your point about Katniss--she is strong _because_ of her femininity. Her love for her sister. Her compassion and connection to Rue. Her refusal to accept the violent ending to the Games the Capital demanded of her, and changing the rules. I could go on. She is tough and masculine, but she grounds that in feminine qualities. And you are exactly right that Peeta is the perfect complement to her (from a storytelling perspective) as a man with relatively "feminine" qualities that give him strength. For any character, if you strip out the full spectrum of human experience, you take away what makes them human and compelling.
I mean I think the heart of it, like you said, is that there is a range of experience and it's not into neat boxes. People pretend Katniss is a "male" female character but she truly isn't. Like you said, she has many aspects of her that are both feminine and masculine...like we ALL do
If some traits can be shared by multiple genders, then they do not originate from gender to begin with (at most, 1 gender has a tendency to have a particular trait). I get baffled at peoples’ insistence of using gendered terms when they aren’t connected to the gender.
@@LilacSreya Of course, individuals are individuals and any category you try to put them in is superficial. I am referring to the way that certain traits are coded culturally and historically as "feminine" or "masculine". These are just stereotypes, but they are meaningful in how we think of human experience (and the sterotypes are powerful in how an audience experiences a character). I think both Bookborn and I are arguing that the type of "strong female character" who just takes a woman and gives her masculine-coded traits isn't very deep or true to life. It's also implicitly sexist in itself in assuming that "feminine" traits are weak and "masculine" traits are strong (which is why the "strong" woman must be predominantly "masculine"). It's much more interesting--because more realistic and human--to portray any character as a complex mix of qualities. Thus Katniss and Peeta are interesting because they capture that complex spectrum of what it is to be human. They are great characters because of the way they combine feminine-coded traits (nurturing, gentleness, emotionality) with masculine-coded ones (fighting, persevering, toughness).
very excited to see this video
Just discovered your channel and I feel like Jaime Lannister first meeting Cersei. Subscribed, MHYSA
I think the plague of bad copycats has been around for decades really, it's just more noticeable to some people watching TV shows. I'm old enough to remember all the check knockoff imitations of the LoTRs books that came out in the 70s (looking at you Terry Brooks)
Brooks started as a copy of LoTR, but imo it definitely grew into something that was fully its own
Great video....I will say another example of an IP that borrowed from another and did it well is Wheel of Time. Obviously most modern fantasy has borrowed from LOTR, but WOT put a really good spin. Robert Jordan had said in an interview that if he was a village boy and a wizard came to take him on an an adventure he would most likely run away from the whole thing. WOT's reluctant hero, a savior whose return is dreaded by the whole world is brilliant.
Oh yes WoT is a great example of something that had clear inspirations, especially in book one, but made it its own thing
Great video! Grr, I get annoyed just thinking about all the hunger games clones :P I also think a book "feeling derivative" can impact how you react to it if you're a fan of the work that it was inspired by. I was a huge Eragon fan as a kid and it was my first experience with a lot of those tropes so it felt totally novel to me. But I see people online saying they didn't enjoy it because they felt like they'd read the story before or because they felt it was ripping off other series they love, which is fair. I think we all have our own limits for when something feels like its inspired by or referencing another work in a way that's fun vs. when it feels like its ripping it off
The Game of Thrones television series was hugely popular in comparison to failures like Rings of Power, Wheel of Time, and Shadow & Bone. However, the quality did decline when they ran out of source material and got ahead of the books and the showrunners did rush season eight.
Funnily enough i feel like Hunger Games is a great example of inspiration done right with elements of Battle Royale. The idea that these people are forced to fight each other due to factors outside their control leading to a rage not entirely due to the person in front of you.
Popular works are created by artists with vision and skill, whereas the flops, like Rings of Power, are commissioned by commitee. The Hobbit was the same. Greed and the desire to create capital will always influence media negatively. It's why the Dune's and Lord of the Rings's of the world are few and far between. Expect some diabolical adjacent-media related to Dune to spawn soon.
We already have it with Brian Herbert basically writing fan fiction-ish continuations of his father's Dune series.
@@gunkulator1 True, but I meant more in terms of media like TV shows, games, etc, following the success of the films. Maybe the Dune comparison was a bit of a poor one.
Dune Part 2 was the first movie since the LotR trilogy, that inspired me to actually give a focused read to its source material to then compare how they were done side-by side.
In contrast, I've started the Wheel of Time because the show's first season got me interested. But only a few books in, I don't feel like the show will be as fun or interesting to revisit once I've read through.
Awesome Video 🔥🔥Thanks for sharing 🤘🦇🤘
I agree with you no additional thoughts from me ⭐️ here’s your gold star
I think you're right about the hobbits in RoP--they needed to be central to the entire plot. Hobbits are the heart and soul of LotR.
I've had similar thoughts about this for a while, this video really sums it up well. Like Rings of Power was definitely not the worst show I've seen, but it felt like easily the most hollow. Tons of well-shot scenes that seem like LOTR, but without any of the heart that made the original so good. Same thing with Wheel of Time, another Amazon show where it felt like some exec said "hmm, idk if a straight adaptation will be popular, just slap a Game of Thrones paint job on it" and it messed up the core of the story. If you want to make a good story then it needs a good heart first (with the aesthetic coming from that) not just copy the aesthetic of a good show and think it'll just get a good heart through osmosis.
totally agree about RoP - I kept trying to tell people that the issue wasn't even lore stuff (we all knew they didn't have rights to the Silmarillion!) but it failed because ultimately the show was just BORING! Like I was just BORED! I couldn't feel connected to anyone!
@@Bookborn I asked a friend his thoughts on RoP and his response to my text was simply, "Beautiful but dull".
Great points. While personally I never loved Hunger Games it was clearly the best and so many just missed the point. I think the only ya distopia store I like more than HG was the Maze Runner series.
This is how i feel about the live action Avatar. There was some stuff that was really cool to add, but from the beginning it was very clear that they were trying to recreate as much as they could shot-for-shot that they completely ignored what people actually love about the series. It's 100% obvious to me that they don't understand the material.
What studios haven't learned is they have to be very careful and have the right showrunners for their adaptations.
You have a glut of shows trying to get in on the successful book gravy train, and some are better than others.
I agree with everything in this video. I think one more reason for poor imitation copycat shows is studio executives. They see a hit like Game of Thrones and say we need something like that too. Then a show runner can be forced into a box of trying to create a worse version of a hit movie or show because the execs told them to. I think studio execs often don’t give enough room for creativity. Relatedly, this is also why we have so many sequels and reboots.
The Expanse adaptation work so well because they had the authors in the writing room, while not leading the room, and those authors had enough humility to know they didn't know everything. The showrunner had to work around actors not being available multiple times, being cancelled, and a scandal near the end of their run and yet most people would call it the top sci-fiction show of the century if not of all-time.
I could not get onboard with that show. I thought that every time they deviated from the source material, it was the wrong decision. I actually have become very cautious with adaptations of things I already liked because of this show. ( I think the only ones I've seen since are Sandman and now Shogun)
@@petervandeweyer517I liked most of the changes, the Ashford and Drummer character amalgamations in particular. I can see how those changes can make the system seem smaller, but it never really bothered me since the performances were so strong. I suppose it comes down to personal preference, sorry to hear you didn't like it.
@@valetboy21 Indeed I heard from a lot of people that they really liked this show. So I"m probably the odd one out 🙂
I think you are spot on. It as if certain properties read just the Tropes section of Cliff Notes and used it as a formula for assembling their product. Surprise! You just built something formulaic. Whooda thunkit?
I felt the same about the red wedding! I started watching the tv show late, so after hearing about it for some reason I imagined a horrible wedding where EVERYONE dies 😂 In my head I was expecting demons and dragons to kill everyone so when it happened it was a little bit underwhelming (but I still cried lmao)
It was actually worse than I expected ironically LMAO but maybe because Cat is one of my top three characters 🥲
George RR Martin: Revenge is a never ending cycle that deeply affects everyone involved. When seeking revenge dig two graves and no one wins at war.
David and Dan: But what if battle biiiiiiiiiiig?
Also, to not COMPLETELY dump on Dingus and Doofus. Bookborn, some of the show only scenes in the early seasons are AMAZING.
I know you’ve seen scenes on RUclips. If you have some time, Look up “Cersei and Robert discuss their marriage” “Jaime and Robert trade war stories” and in Ned’s execution, his last act is shouting “BAELOR” to Yoren, after seeing her. His last act being to save Arya. Even George was like, “wow why didn’t I think of that.”
I hope you watch GOT, because I’d love to hear your opinion.
💯 on character development in the books. What the show did great in the beginning was display this through dialogue and interactions. The last season of GOT show completely lacked the dialogue we all learned to love/hate the characters through. Was so disappointing.
Good thing about reading books 1st, is knowing when to close your eyes watching the show 😅
The Red Wedding in the TV show is more brutal than the books because Robb is a much more major character in the show. Instead of only seeing Robb when Cat is present or reports of his actions in King's Landing, you get to see him the entire time. There is also the most violent death I have ever seen on television that isnt in the books.
Hmmm idk I talked extensively with my friends about what happened in the red wedding and I personally think the book version would be more devastating for me - of course it’s impossible to know since I can’t experience both for the first time. But since I was so connected to Cat as a character, I think seeing the scene through her eyes particularly affected me.
@@Bookbornyou really should watch the scene and the show in general cause you’re making a lot of poor assumptions
I honestly can't say which is worse. When I read the Red Wedding, it devastated me. When I watched it on the show, I knew it was coming, and I was prepared to get a kick out of watching my friends be wrecked, but it *still* devastated me again! Michelle Fairley's performance as Catelyn just did me in. She was amazing and heart-destroying.
@@henryleake4697 I mean someone detailed it to be scene by scene. I didn't say the Red Wedding in the show was bad - I think it was probably very effective - but I am saying why for me PERSONALLY, I think the book would've hit harder. Jeyne dying and Robb actually being in love with Jeyne fundementally change the story to me. Robb was depressing for me because he died for honor, not for love. Him being in love with her makes it worse in a different way, of course, but for me, I really like how the REd Wedding in the books exemplify some scenes. And, like I said agian, since I'm like the number one Cat defender, seeing everything through her eyes and inner monologue would be more impactful for me than through visuals.
The Rings of Power has the same relationship to the source material as Orcas do to Orcs. It ended up being a different beast altogether.
The only recent example I can think of is Picard season 3. After a poor season 1 and a truly awful season 2 they passed it to a different show runner who actually liked Star Trek and it was a great conclusion.
It is sad how many shows I can think of that have been ruined in recent years.
Some More News did something similar looking at why Hollywood blockbusters seem to be very bad now, and I think the same thing is at issue in both. Writers, directors, etc. (the creatives who would likely be able to understand why a story works) are generally not in charge of deciding what to adapt and are often forced to make changes based on the whims of the money people (who seem to be fairly disdainful of anything creative) in order to make money. The money people are often wrong because they seem unable to look below the surface of anything but are also absolutely sure that they're the smartest because they have the money. Entertainment and a lot of the more mass reaching art are falling into the tech framework of quick growth through cheap copies mainly because the people in charge of basically everything are the same boring individuals who apparently have no internal life that isn't attached to dollar signs.
While more a recent, and I don't believe it was deliberately, but the FX show Shogun (adapted from the 1970s book of the same name) seems to have learned what made Game of Thrones successful. Character driven drama, attention to detail, and good foreshadowing.
Except that the book Shogun is highly detailed, character driven drama as well, with an intricate political plot and an impending war in the background. That sounds like a very basic description of Game of Thrones, with the setting moved to Sengoku Era Japan. As a writer, James Clavell knew what he was doing and did it quite well.
Btw, thanks for the reminder that I still need to watch Shogun! I'm really looking forward to seeing what Hiroyuki Sanada does with the role of -Tokugawa- Toranaga!
Those are pretty much just the elements of _any_ good dramatic storytelling so that's a bit like saying the lesson of "Game of Thrones" is "be good" :). To me 'Shogun' didn't learn anything from "Game of Thrones" except _maybe_ that screen adaptations with a more novelistic pace, structure and approach have an audience (the original _very_ successful 1980 adaptation was only _somewhat_ novelistic at about 3 hrs runtime and was also of course over 40 years ago - No, YOU'RE old :) - so not indicative of modern audiences). To me that's mostly what "Game of Thrones" (the show) did - it brought the qualities every _reader_ already knew SF&F possessed and made them work on TV for a mainstream audience.
But in general it didn't do much e.g. "The Wire", "The Sopranos" etc. - which both heavily feature OP's mentioned qualities - didn't also do (and i'm pretty sure neither of those were inspired by Martin's novels and obviously _couldn't_ have been inspired by the show because, y'know, time :). GoT is just what some had been referring to (for years before its arrival) as "quality television" but in the fantasy genre (and crucially, in an era when TV budgets _and_ VFX advances made it possible to fully realise a high-fantasy world).
When people ask me with the kind of music that I like, I always respond that I don't have a preferred genre. In my opinion, every genre has quality and has some terrible works of art as well. I feel like literature, cinema, television, comic books, comedy and every form of art has it's good and it's bad and some that people are going to debate whether it's good or bad. But at the end of the day no genre can be described as good or bad.
Very much agreed! I've thought this too, so thanks for giving voice to it. This misinterpretation has been going on for an enormously long time.
The Lord of the Rings books succeeded because the story had simple folk making small and very brave decisions that led to the defeat of ultimate evil while set in a believable and satisfying world. All the copycats then made maps in the front and/or strange names and new languages.
Harry Potter succeeded because a downtrodden boy learns that the love of his friends is the ultimate power against darkness. All the copycats made a scrawny kid go to magic school.
Most of all, I think that people enjoy new properties with new things to say. In this age of sequels and reboots, showrunners and executives in their greenlighting meetings focus only on the new and flashy elements of the big hit properties. The new and flashy stuff isn't why people enjoy things; it's because the new and flashy things in a story make us look at the old and true things. So, it's no wonder that all the new shows and stories feel empty. What we really need to look for, to replicate success, is "what does the story say that is lastingly true?"
It's funny to see Hunger Games used as a work being copied when you've seen Battle Royale.
Because Hunger Game is really mimicking Battle Royale (down to the motivation for the games and the ending), but set in a fantasy world and with most of the social commentary removed.
But I'll acknowledge one thing : Hunger games works as a stand-alone story. It's heavily inspired, but the author managed to do it in a smart way. Hence why it worked (with some problems, especially in the later books).
In fairness, there is a theory that only 7 stories were ever told, so many things can be pointed as copies of other works. And, stories that are inspired by other stories can spawn new copycats, so I don't think it's mutually exclusive that Hunger Games could be deeply inspired by Battle Royale and still deeply inspire other works.
I think their decisions make perfect sense if you consider the incentives at play.
1 - The top decision makers at these organisations typically do not consume their own product. So they don't understand the appeal and ascribe the success to the most obvious/superficial elements of the original.
2 - When an individual is commissioning a new show the safe choice is to choose an obvious copycat because if it fails their peers/boss won't blame them for following the trend given point 1. If they commissioned something original and it failed they'd bear greater responsibility for it and risk their job.
3 - This cycle plays out continuously and despite it leading to worse product no one has any personal incentive to change it.