3 ms·

I have really enjoyed The Peripheral and found it to be a nice accompaniment to the books. Sprawl would be sick.

cgh 4y ago
Yeah, The Peripheral is quite good. Gibson seems pretty happy with the adaptation too, which is a good sign. I still haven't read the books. The Sprawl trilogy was one of my favourite series when I was young. I'd like to see it adapted so that it had the same "dent in the universe" effect it had when it was published.
- moomin 4y ago
  The thing with The Peripheral adaptation: there’s basically no cyberpunk aesthetic in it. The near-future stuff is done very naturalistically. The content remains pure Gibson.
  - borbulon 4y ago
    to be fair, there's not much in the book, either.
  - bitwize 4y ago
    You do know that Gibson stopped being cyberpunk decades ago, right? Mainly because many of the shitty aspects of cyberpunk are just "reality" nowadays?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- solomonb 4y ago
  I found the pacing on the show to be way too fast but I enjoyed it. Television and movies in general are afraid of moving slowly now-a-days. I think this is a big problem for most book-to-screen adaptations.
tgv 4y ago
I started watching, because I was lazy and Prime recommended it, and stopped after about 20 minutes in. My impression in that time was "Rebel teenage girl outsmarts everyone in overdone and ugly CGI but we've added something about neuro to make it look sci-fi". It felt like the Hunger Games, but less realistic. I did not know at the time it was written by Gibson, who I admire as an author, but also it did not come to my mind that it could have possibly been written by him. Is the screen adaptation so different from the book, or did they add filler to make 8 (or more?) episodes?
- kfrzcode 4y ago
  Nah, keep going. At least watch the first episode through.
jdkee 4y ago
It would have been great if the tv adaptation did not stray so far from the book in later episodes.

cgh 4y ago

Yeah, The Peripheral is quite good. Gibson seems pretty happy with the adaptation too, which is a good sign. I still haven't read the books. The Sprawl trilogy was one of my favourite series when I was young. I'd like to see it adapted so that it had the same "dent in the universe" effect it had when it was published.

moomin 4y ago
The thing with The Peripheral adaptation: there’s basically no cyberpunk aesthetic in it. The near-future stuff is done very naturalistically. The content remains pure Gibson.
- borbulon 4y ago
  to be fair, there's not much in the book, either.
- bitwize 4y ago
  You do know that Gibson stopped being cyberpunk decades ago, right? Mainly because many of the shitty aspects of cyberpunk are just "reality" nowadays?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
solomonb 4y ago
I found the pacing on the show to be way too fast but I enjoyed it. Television and movies in general are afraid of moving slowly now-a-days. I think this is a big problem for most book-to-screen adaptations.

tgv 4y ago

I started watching, because I was lazy and Prime recommended it, and stopped after about 20 minutes in. My impression in that time was "Rebel teenage girl outsmarts everyone in overdone and ugly CGI but we've added something about neuro to make it look sci-fi". It felt like the Hunger Games, but less realistic. I did not know at the time it was written by Gibson, who I admire as an author, but also it did not come to my mind that it could have possibly been written by him. Is the screen adaptation so different from the book, or did they add filler to make 8 (or more?) episodes?

kfrzcode 4y ago
Nah, keep going. At least watch the first episode through.

jdkee 4y ago

It would have been great if the tv adaptation did not stray so far from the book in later episodes.