However, this is the description of the series:
666 Park Avenue is an upcoming American drama series created and produced by David Wilcox and based on the novel of the same name by Gabriella Pierce. The series follows a couple who learns that the Manhattan building complex that they just moved into, including its upscale tenants, might be possessed by a mysterious demonic force.
The Shelfari description of the book:
What if your mother-in-law turned out to be an evil, cold-blooded witch . . . literally?
Ever since fabulously wealthy Malcolm Doran walked into her life and swept her off her feet, fledgling architect Jane Boyle has been living a fairy tale. When he proposes with a stunning diamond to seal the deal, Jane can't believe her incredible luck and decides to leave her Paris-based job to make a new start with Malcolm in New York.
But when Malcolm introduces Jane to the esteemed Doran clan, one of Manhattan's most feared and revered families, Jane's fairy tale takes a darker turn. Soon everything she thought she knew about the world—and herself—is upended. Now Jane must struggle with new found magical abilities and the threat of those who will stop at nothing to get them.
My question is, why would TV executives not even come close to the story in the book, but make it about the house? The house is demonic? No it isn't. Lynne Doran, the matriarch of the Doran family is demonic. There is a huge rift between her soon-to-be daughter-in-law, Jane Boyle. There is no Jane Boyle in the TV version, but there is a Jane Van Veen, who is the new co-manager of the building (along with Henry Martin who is not in the book). Might Martin be Van Veen's love interest, where the book's love interest in Doran's son, Malcolm?
And the husband of the matriarch is a non-entity in the book. If I remember correctly, he is a milquetoast, hen-pecked, do-as-he-is-told pushover. In the series, however, the husband is played by the formidable Terry O'Quinn. With this casting, you know he will be more of a force in the story.
<sigh> It's all very confusing. It doesn't seem to even fit the bill of being "inspired by the novel", much less "based on the novel". That is poppycock. The book is so well done and interesting on its own merit; why do this? Only the idiots in Hollywood could screw up an already good thing.
Good for author Pierce, though. I hope she got a big payday out of this because they are raping her text. I will pass on this one out of respect for the original.
Ever since fabulously wealthy Malcolm Doran walked into her life and swept her off her feet, fledgling architect Jane Boyle has been living a fairy tale. When he proposes with a stunning diamond to seal the deal, Jane can't believe her incredible luck and decides to leave her Paris-based job to make a new start with Malcolm in New York.
But when Malcolm introduces Jane to the esteemed Doran clan, one of Manhattan's most feared and revered families, Jane's fairy tale takes a darker turn. Soon everything she thought she knew about the world—and herself—is upended. Now Jane must struggle with new found magical abilities and the threat of those who will stop at nothing to get them.
My question is, why would TV executives not even come close to the story in the book, but make it about the house? The house is demonic? No it isn't. Lynne Doran, the matriarch of the Doran family is demonic. There is a huge rift between her soon-to-be daughter-in-law, Jane Boyle. There is no Jane Boyle in the TV version, but there is a Jane Van Veen, who is the new co-manager of the building (along with Henry Martin who is not in the book). Might Martin be Van Veen's love interest, where the book's love interest in Doran's son, Malcolm?
And the husband of the matriarch is a non-entity in the book. If I remember correctly, he is a milquetoast, hen-pecked, do-as-he-is-told pushover. In the series, however, the husband is played by the formidable Terry O'Quinn. With this casting, you know he will be more of a force in the story.
<sigh> It's all very confusing. It doesn't seem to even fit the bill of being "inspired by the novel", much less "based on the novel". That is poppycock. The book is so well done and interesting on its own merit; why do this? Only the idiots in Hollywood could screw up an already good thing.
Good for author Pierce, though. I hope she got a big payday out of this because they are raping her text. I will pass on this one out of respect for the original.
I saw the commercial of the show and I was wondering if it was related to the book. I was completely confused because the storyline was nowhere near close to the book. It's a pity.
ReplyDelete