I love Kelley Armstrong's Otherworld series and I was a little concerned when I found this whether the TV series would really do justice to the books. Loyal readers need not worry - at least for the first season. S1 is brilliantly cast, scripted and directed with - dare I say it? - perhaps even more dramatic flair than in the book, which is written entirely from Elena's perspective; something that tends to work better in books than on screen.
Now this is very important: this is a re-edit from my first review, in which I had only seen the first season. I've started watching the second season and already, 2 episodes in, I'm reeling from disillusionment. From this point only 20% of the content seems to bear any relation to the book (being based on the storyline of 'Stolen') and the new script and plot-line are awful. It's as though Armstrong's characters have been hijacked and transplanted into dire fan- fiction. HBO sponsored fan-fiction, to judge by the amount of gratuitous sex and nudity. Maybe there isn't any more than there was in S1, but the better dialogue helped it along. Anyway this brought my initial 9/10 down to a 6. I'd have been harsher but I don't want to put people off from watching S1; I'd recommend you watch S1 as a standalone and then walk away.
So to return to the good start. I was particularly impressed by Greyston Holt's performance as Clay - at first I thought "what have you done, Clay doesn't have a beard!" but this tiny detail quickly becomes irrelevant as he is pitch perfect. Clay's character is very unique and complex - a ferocious, animalistic and brutal killer, yet intensely loyal to his family and also extremely intelligent; antisocial (towards humanity) and yet capable of holding down a job as a university professor. It would take a rare actor to be able to show all these facets with believable consistency, and Holt's performance throughout is masterful; but the whole cast is excellent besides.
My one caveat is that this season doesn't always stick to the book's storyline (perhaps a dark foreshadowing of the travesty to come). Armstrong writes a strong, tight story and the popularity of her books attests to her skills, so I don't really understand why the producers felt it necessary to change anything for dramatic or narrative purposes; however, all reproductions tend to tweak their sources, and I could forgive (for example) the death of an important pack member as it did have a lot of plot integrity. But at the end, there is a huge plot twist with a major character revealed behind the scenes, directing the mutts, which owes nothing whatsoever to the books and then carries on into the next season! It is also a terrible cliché.
To me however, the most egregious change was in them revealing the "true reason" behind Clay's decision to bite Elena. I suppose they thought it would make him more palatable to viewers; to show him in a nobler, exculpatory light. I'm sorry but that's just nonsense, and completely inexcusable. Jeremy would never have hurt Elena; he was merely going to forbid their relationship and send her away. Clay bit her (in the book) because he loves her and doesn't want to lose her. It's that simple. He wasn't thinking of consequences, because that's Clay; he is a true werewolf, more animal than man, and the bittersweet romance of the entire series rests on Elena's coming to terms with that fact - he has no excuse for what he did, except that he loves her, absolutely. He was entirely selfish, only protecting his own interests at the time, not hers. It doesn't make him a knight in shining armour, but it is also one of the definitive reasons he isn't a monster, despite his actions; and this makes him much more realistic as a person. There was no need to sugar-coat that act and pander to the audience; they might have credited us with a little more intelligence and imagination as the author originally intended. Clay's wayward love of Elena makes him who he is, and one of the best characters of the books, and part of their charm is being able to sympathise with both of them simultaneously even though they are at such odds. It is also, ultimately, his mistake which makes Elena who she is, and powers every story in which she has a part. It is a story about coming to terms with each other, with their past, with what they have become - surmounting mistakes and bad decisions to build a solid and loving relationship. Turning what Clay did into heroic necessity strips that dimension from the story and cheapens it. Bad call there; very bad call.
This is only revealed close to the end of the season, along with the surprise appearance of (not-so-) Mystery Master Villain, and in a way these perfidies herald the massacre of the second book, 'Stolen'. I wonder whether they changed the writing team, or lost the approval (and input?) of Ms. Armstrong, from this point onward. Or perhaps, knowing the first book as well as I do, and because they did stick to it closely for the most part, I subconsciously masked all but the worst errors and perceived it to be better than it was. Because it's really quite hard to believe that the first and second seasons were made by the same people.
Thus concludes my rather disappointed re-edit.
Now this is very important: this is a re-edit from my first review, in which I had only seen the first season. I've started watching the second season and already, 2 episodes in, I'm reeling from disillusionment. From this point only 20% of the content seems to bear any relation to the book (being based on the storyline of 'Stolen') and the new script and plot-line are awful. It's as though Armstrong's characters have been hijacked and transplanted into dire fan- fiction. HBO sponsored fan-fiction, to judge by the amount of gratuitous sex and nudity. Maybe there isn't any more than there was in S1, but the better dialogue helped it along. Anyway this brought my initial 9/10 down to a 6. I'd have been harsher but I don't want to put people off from watching S1; I'd recommend you watch S1 as a standalone and then walk away.
So to return to the good start. I was particularly impressed by Greyston Holt's performance as Clay - at first I thought "what have you done, Clay doesn't have a beard!" but this tiny detail quickly becomes irrelevant as he is pitch perfect. Clay's character is very unique and complex - a ferocious, animalistic and brutal killer, yet intensely loyal to his family and also extremely intelligent; antisocial (towards humanity) and yet capable of holding down a job as a university professor. It would take a rare actor to be able to show all these facets with believable consistency, and Holt's performance throughout is masterful; but the whole cast is excellent besides.
My one caveat is that this season doesn't always stick to the book's storyline (perhaps a dark foreshadowing of the travesty to come). Armstrong writes a strong, tight story and the popularity of her books attests to her skills, so I don't really understand why the producers felt it necessary to change anything for dramatic or narrative purposes; however, all reproductions tend to tweak their sources, and I could forgive (for example) the death of an important pack member as it did have a lot of plot integrity. But at the end, there is a huge plot twist with a major character revealed behind the scenes, directing the mutts, which owes nothing whatsoever to the books and then carries on into the next season! It is also a terrible cliché.
To me however, the most egregious change was in them revealing the "true reason" behind Clay's decision to bite Elena. I suppose they thought it would make him more palatable to viewers; to show him in a nobler, exculpatory light. I'm sorry but that's just nonsense, and completely inexcusable. Jeremy would never have hurt Elena; he was merely going to forbid their relationship and send her away. Clay bit her (in the book) because he loves her and doesn't want to lose her. It's that simple. He wasn't thinking of consequences, because that's Clay; he is a true werewolf, more animal than man, and the bittersweet romance of the entire series rests on Elena's coming to terms with that fact - he has no excuse for what he did, except that he loves her, absolutely. He was entirely selfish, only protecting his own interests at the time, not hers. It doesn't make him a knight in shining armour, but it is also one of the definitive reasons he isn't a monster, despite his actions; and this makes him much more realistic as a person. There was no need to sugar-coat that act and pander to the audience; they might have credited us with a little more intelligence and imagination as the author originally intended. Clay's wayward love of Elena makes him who he is, and one of the best characters of the books, and part of their charm is being able to sympathise with both of them simultaneously even though they are at such odds. It is also, ultimately, his mistake which makes Elena who she is, and powers every story in which she has a part. It is a story about coming to terms with each other, with their past, with what they have become - surmounting mistakes and bad decisions to build a solid and loving relationship. Turning what Clay did into heroic necessity strips that dimension from the story and cheapens it. Bad call there; very bad call.
This is only revealed close to the end of the season, along with the surprise appearance of (not-so-) Mystery Master Villain, and in a way these perfidies herald the massacre of the second book, 'Stolen'. I wonder whether they changed the writing team, or lost the approval (and input?) of Ms. Armstrong, from this point onward. Or perhaps, knowing the first book as well as I do, and because they did stick to it closely for the most part, I subconsciously masked all but the worst errors and perceived it to be better than it was. Because it's really quite hard to believe that the first and second seasons were made by the same people.
Thus concludes my rather disappointed re-edit.