Books vs. series


It's amazing to me that there isn't one discussion on here about how the books compares with the show... I mean, it is the foundation of the overall plot line!...


I think that the first season was as close to the book as it could be, without having to make all of the plots go on forever (meaning they had to ad some things like Angel's domestic problems and Rita's ex)... but the second season has very little to do with the second book (except for the hole Doakes thing), which only bothers me because Dexter is given too many feelings and therefore becomes a little too human in my opinion. In spite of that I loved the fact that Dexter was the one under investigation!

I do, however, miss the irony of him becoming engaged to Rita in the books, which I find hilarious...


But give your opinion: Should the series have kept more to the books?


(By the way don't kill me if the grammar and spelling is wrong, since English is not my native language)

Comments

| Sep 16, 2008 2:38PM EDT
just realised that the thread I started already exists here! Oops... sorry. Anyway, the second book where Doakes is de-limbed is brilliant. I'm not surprised the tv show writers didn't go for it though. It's too gruesome even for Dexter. The "Dark" children in the books are fantastic. And Brian being let go in the first book would have been much better. Common theme? The tv show is watering down Dexter. Making it more accessible for people who might be put off by the serial killer hero idea. It's a bloody shame. I think this season will be the end of visible dismemberment, realistic murder and explicit sex scenes. Sigh. If this is the case, R.I.P. Dex, I'll always remember how it was in season one!!!
| Sep 10, 2008 6:53PM EDT
I've only read the first book and the beginning of the second book so I can't tell you what I think of the second season. But the first season was quite similar to the first book except for the ending. I do however think that the show shouldn't be exactly like the books because it just wouldn't work otherwise.
| Sep 10, 2008 1:51AM EDT
I didn't even know there were books.
| Sep 1, 2008 12:37PM EDT
I have to agree with the opinions so far the first season was fairly close to the book but the second was totally different which upsets me because the second book was awesome.
| Aug 12, 2008 8:32PM EDT
i think it's good that they kind of drifted from the books, because now there are 6 dexter stories instead of 3.
| Aug 5, 2008 8:33AM EDT
i agree that sticking to the book would have been nice, however if they had carried on the original plot line from the books it would give reason for ppl to not read them! the books are great and so is the show, but if they were the same they would take away from one another! if you read the books first then watched the show it would loose the suspence and same goes for the shows first and books second! this way both are equally amazing and equally suspencefull!!!!! and yes the engagement thing should play into the tv show as well! that would be good and allow them to play on a whole new aspect of conflict for dexter to deal with!
| Jun 1, 2008 5:08PM EDT
I think they branched out so that they could keep the show going even if the books stopped coming out, but the Dexter in the show is a completely different Dexter than in the books, more humanity, I really liked the accidental engagement and the fact that the children were just as messed up as he was and I hope that gets worked into the show somehow
| May 31, 2008 6:21PM EDT
the first season was, as you pointed out, deffinately the closest thing to the book. And I was really looking forward to the second season becouse I found the 2nd book awsome to read aswel. I think they should have sticked to the original story.

Post Comment

Want to comment on this post? First, you must log in to your SideReel account!