I was just saying that exact thing about Halo...it's the weirdest mix of expensive and cheap.
The first 10 minutes I was like "I don't know what the fuck this is, but it isn't Halo!" It was such a tortured sequence of events to get us to the end of the pilot where they are on the run together. I feel like every video game adaptation always focuses on surrogate characters being like "Damn that God of War is really tough...he's such a legend..." instead of grounding us in the main character from the start.
"Halo" was one of the most disappointing television experiences I've had this year, right up there with "The Book of Boba Fett." Both those shows were obviously made by people who had zero respect for the main character and why he connected with fans, and zero respect for the world-building that was done prior to their involvement with the franchises.
Why does Hollywood keep doing this? Do we call it Rian Johnson Disease? Instead of constantly trying to subvert our expectations, why don't they, you know, do what all good adaptations do which is to TWEAK certain aspects of the source material to make it fit this new format, but never lose sight as to why people love them in the first place? You know, like how Peter Jackson and Philipa Boyens and Fran Walsh did with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy? Those wonderful films that are still the standard for an adaptation that isn't slavishly devoted to the original source material yet still respectful of Tolkien's world? Or like how the recent Planet of the Apes Trilogy took the great ideas from the original movies and created something new, yet something still well-made that didn't insult the audience?
I find myself constantly puzzled by this question regarding so many shows like this the last few years: WHO ARE THEY MAKING THIS FOR? They're not making these shows for the built-in audience, that's for sure. Are they making it to check-off boxes on some imaginary checklist for Twitter likes? So they can have a seat at the "cool kids Twitter table" or something? That's what it feels like, especially science fiction shows: The writers and show runners are just checking boxes. They're not writing a coherent story with engaging characters with understandable motivations that propel the plot. There's no time for that, no. Come hell or high water they will tell the story they want to tell and force the characters into that story regardless if it makes sense for the characters or not, and if it betrays the core understanding of who those characters have always been, well, they're just "subverting our expectations" and the audience is full of crybaby a-holes when we don't like it.
I don't know why I have to keep saying this, as you'd think it was something all these folks should have learned in Composition 1001: Characters with understandable motivations should always come before the plot. You tell the story that makes sense for the characters, and if you have things you want to say, which so much great science fiction does, you weave it into the story, again, in a way that makes sense for the characters. That's how you hook people. When your characters are constantly doing inexplicable things that contradict known motivations so you can check your story boxes, the audience just gets whiplash and they won't trust you. And it's not our fault. We're not bad fans when it's your fault for being bad writers.
It's beyond frustrating, and not just for fans of established source material. It's also frustrating for people who just want to watch something good on TV.
I was just saying that exact thing about Halo...it's the weirdest mix of expensive and cheap.
The first 10 minutes I was like "I don't know what the fuck this is, but it isn't Halo!" It was such a tortured sequence of events to get us to the end of the pilot where they are on the run together. I feel like every video game adaptation always focuses on surrogate characters being like "Damn that God of War is really tough...he's such a legend..." instead of grounding us in the main character from the start.
I would say the first action scene with master chief, definitely scratched all of my halo nostalgia. After that I was mostly bored. 
I don't play video games. It's just not my thing. But my sons do and we watched Halo together. They were OFFENDED when the helmet came off.
OFFENDED, I say.
I said, 'HA! Now you know how we felt when Judge Dredd came out. HA!'
:)
I get big Conan vibes off The Northman trailer and I know that's not what we're getting but damn if it doesn't excite me all the same.
"Halo" was one of the most disappointing television experiences I've had this year, right up there with "The Book of Boba Fett." Both those shows were obviously made by people who had zero respect for the main character and why he connected with fans, and zero respect for the world-building that was done prior to their involvement with the franchises.
Why does Hollywood keep doing this? Do we call it Rian Johnson Disease? Instead of constantly trying to subvert our expectations, why don't they, you know, do what all good adaptations do which is to TWEAK certain aspects of the source material to make it fit this new format, but never lose sight as to why people love them in the first place? You know, like how Peter Jackson and Philipa Boyens and Fran Walsh did with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy? Those wonderful films that are still the standard for an adaptation that isn't slavishly devoted to the original source material yet still respectful of Tolkien's world? Or like how the recent Planet of the Apes Trilogy took the great ideas from the original movies and created something new, yet something still well-made that didn't insult the audience?
I find myself constantly puzzled by this question regarding so many shows like this the last few years: WHO ARE THEY MAKING THIS FOR? They're not making these shows for the built-in audience, that's for sure. Are they making it to check-off boxes on some imaginary checklist for Twitter likes? So they can have a seat at the "cool kids Twitter table" or something? That's what it feels like, especially science fiction shows: The writers and show runners are just checking boxes. They're not writing a coherent story with engaging characters with understandable motivations that propel the plot. There's no time for that, no. Come hell or high water they will tell the story they want to tell and force the characters into that story regardless if it makes sense for the characters or not, and if it betrays the core understanding of who those characters have always been, well, they're just "subverting our expectations" and the audience is full of crybaby a-holes when we don't like it.
I don't know why I have to keep saying this, as you'd think it was something all these folks should have learned in Composition 1001: Characters with understandable motivations should always come before the plot. You tell the story that makes sense for the characters, and if you have things you want to say, which so much great science fiction does, you weave it into the story, again, in a way that makes sense for the characters. That's how you hook people. When your characters are constantly doing inexplicable things that contradict known motivations so you can check your story boxes, the audience just gets whiplash and they won't trust you. And it's not our fault. We're not bad fans when it's your fault for being bad writers.
It's beyond frustrating, and not just for fans of established source material. It's also frustrating for people who just want to watch something good on TV.