[Lochleg]

I am wondering if SyFy's The Expanse succeeded completely in their adaptation of novels that were written in contemporary times. Apple's Foundation is awkward at times and its writers seem to believe that they needed to correct and reinvigorate books that were outmoded, but, apparently, the production itself is said to lack real faults. It's really easy to kill a franchise these days because you want it to speak to your audience, but it is seen as much less aspirational with its mixed messages. Of course, that's just my general impression, and I could be talking about any franchise that starts with "Star".

[throw0101a]

> I am wondering if SyFy's The Expanse succeeded completely in their adaptation of novels that were written in contemporary times.

As per a sibling comment: the original authors were involved. But:

It depends on style of the show material and the style of the new medium. If the original is cerebral and low-action, can you make a commercially successful adaptation with the same qualities?

[tenuousemphasis]

There's also the fact that one of the authors of the Expanse series is closely involved with the creation of the show (and the reworking of characters/arcs to fit the medium better).

[nottorp]

There's also the fact that the authors of the Expanse were professional movie script writers before writing a book series :)

[chaostheory]

The Expanse, like virtually all sci-fi and fantasy narratives, follows the Hero's Journey. It's a pattern that is familiar to virtually everyone and it's already proven commercially successful.

As Krugman himself writes, "[Foundation] mostly involves people talking, and its narrative inverts the hero-saves-the-universe theme that burns many acres of CGI every year."

It is hard to film faithfully while attracting and preserving a large audience.