“3 Body Problem” TV series? I think reading the book is enough.

Note: Non-members can read the full story in this link.

The Netflix adaptation of the TV series “3 Body Problem” was released yesterday, stirring up some emotions in the spring air. There have been previous domestic adaptations of a TV series and an animated version, both of which I haven’t watched, and I don’t intend to watch this Netflix adaptation either.

When literary works are adapted into visual media, the outcome can vary. If lucky, it can result in a perfect match, complementing each other brilliantly. For example, the widely known film “The Shawshank Redemption” is adapted from the novella by the master of thriller novels, Stephen King. Both the movie and the novel are outstanding works. Particularly in the case of films, sometimes additional plot elements not found in the original novel are incorporated during adaptation, yet they seamlessly align with the essence of the novel, as if Stephen King himself had penned them. Such successful examples of original works and films coexisting harmoniously are few and far between in the vast sea of cinema. Apart from “The Shawshank Redemption,” there are films like “The Lover,” “The English Patient,” “Titanic,” “Life of Pi,” “Arrival,” and so on, which belong to this rare category.

A step below in luck is when the adapted visual work surpasses the original source, and there are more instances of such films. For instance, “Forrest Gump” the movie is superior to its original novel. Over the years, one hears of people repeatedly revisiting the film, but seldom do they hear of someone revisiting the original novel. The same story may not achieve its full potential in the literary medium but finds its strength in the visual medium. The director, in such cases, demonstrates an ability to surpass that of the original author in the process of adaptation, deepening and supplementing the story seamlessly.

More commonly, visual adaptations end up “ruining” the original work. The term “ruin” here is relative; some adaptations indeed turn out disastrous, with directors and screenwriters embarking on adaptation projects without even being familiar with the original work. Other times, the difficulty of adapting the original work itself exceeds the boundaries of the screenwriter and director’s capabilities. However, this isn’t an absolute relationship. For example, when Peter Jackson directed “The Lord of the Rings,” he wasn’t a fervent book fan, yet the films were highly successful. Similarly, Wong Kar-wai’s “Ashes of Time,” while departing significantly from Jin Yong’s original work, transformed into a personal style of fan fiction film, yet still became a classic.

“3 Body Problem” in my opinion, belongs to the category of works that are exceedingly difficult to adapt to the screen. The sensations evoked in the mind while reading the novel are challenging to transpose into another form and express visually. Plot elements like the Trisolaran blockade of Earth, which evoke bone-chilling fear and coldness through imagination while reading, become exceptionally difficult to evoke the same feelings visually. The concept of blocking humanity’s technological progress isn’t something that can be comprehended solely through sight or hearing; it’s as abstract as time and space.

Even the destruction of a galaxy by a two-dimensional foil leaves little room for visual expression. Because readers are all earthlings, their perspective is inherently limited to Earth. For Earthlings, witnessing the destruction of a city can evoke emotions and understanding, but witnessing the destruction of a galaxy requires a cosmic perspective — viewers standing somewhere in the universe, watching an entire galaxy being annihilated in a flash. However, why would such an event be of urgent importance? Supernovae erupt and black holes swallow planets in the universe all the time, these are concepts humans learn from books. Events occurring beyond Earth’s realm aren’t of concern to people unless humanity has evolved to travel throughout the entire universe, witnessing the destruction of a galaxy, much like a sailor seeing a familiar island being destroyed, requiring such a cosmic perspective to feel alarmed.

By the way, why do many science fiction novels specially set up worldviews, creating super empires spanning the universe? It’s for similar reasons. By doing so, events between stars turn into internal affairs of the empire, making it easier for readers and viewers to immerse themselves. It’s like the Roman Empire; initially a small city-state, citizens dealt with and handled the internal affairs of the city-state daily. When Rome became an intercontinental empire, Romans still pretended that the entire empire was just a city-state, governing the empire according to the original methods of governing the city-state, until it collapsed under its own weight. Romans had no choice; they could imagine a specific city-state, but they couldn’t fathom what a vast empire, too vast for citizens to traverse all territories in a lifetime, should look like or how it should operate.

Humans similarly face the universe.

Liu Cixin’s “3 Body Problem” forcibly shifts the reader’s perspective from Earth-centered to universe-centered, setting the worldview as a dark forest, compelling readers to imagine how humanity should behave and survive in a universe-sized dark forest. This involves intrigue and strategy, having no relation to visuals. The famous saying “Destroy you, but it’s none of your business” also indicates that many scenes occur without direct contact. Imagine if no UFOs were landing on Earth, no dense clusters of alien warships outside the atmosphere, and no direct contact or confrontation between humans and aliens — what would the audience watch?

It’s not that concepts cannot be filmed; Nolan filmed dreams, filmed four-dimensional space, and Villeneuve filmed a specific alien language. But that’s Nolan, that’s Villeneuve, right? To some extent, such directors are geniuses among directors; they can express a conceptual idea visually and make all audiences accept it the way it should be. Is the director brought in for “3 Body Problem” Nolan? Is it Villeneuve?

“3 Body Problem” itself is an extraordinarily challenging project for visual adaptation, bringing in decent, passable directors rather than genius directors almost guarantees failure in adaptation and dissatisfaction among book fans. Although it’s said that book fans may never be satisfied, when a director’s ability reaches a certain level of mastery, even if there are a thousand interpretations of Hamlet, ultimately, the director’s version of Hamlet prevails. This is evident in Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings”; after the first installment was released, the Shire remained as it was, Mount Doom remained as it was, and even the combat style of Elven archers in close quarters remained unchanged. For “3 Body Problem” I haven’t seen such a possibility so far: a powerful director assisting fans and viewers in faithfully shaping the world and characters from the book, accurately portraying the scenes from the book, making them believe it should be that way — it’s hard to achieve consensus.

Therefore, all current adaptations of “3 Body Problem” are, in my opinion, standard commercial endeavors. Because a set of books is popular, turning it into a TV series ensures popularity and discussion, making it a commercial success. Whether it can be adapted, whether the adaptation can embody some aspects of the original work, and which way of adaptation can best bring out the strengths of the original work are certainly not the key points to consider in commercial endeavors. I understand this so that I won’t watch, nor will I engage in debates about which version is better or whether a certain version has been excessively modified. Instead of endless arguments and complaints, it’s better to simply

Thank you for reading until the end. Welcome to leave a message and interact with me. If you can follow me👏, it would be my greatest encouragement.