Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Would you count the show successful if it would get the viewership of Shadow and Bone (1.7 million)/The Boys?


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

So, B) I'm in 100% agreement with @Borderlander . By the way, I like the way you write man! You express things well. And that's why I'm already nervous about WoT. With Harry Potter you had Rawlings consulting. It had to be Harry Potter come to life. With LoTR, Jackson was a lifelong fan - his sole aim was to bring Tolkien to life. With WoT, it makes me bigtime nervous that you have main actors who - haven't finished the series yet?!  What?! 

With that argument, the show Runner Rafe is a WoT Fan/has read all the novels. 
How many of the LOTR actors actually read the novels? The only one I'm aware of is Christopher Lee, but he was practically old enough to have met Tolkien... Similarly, I don't know if any of the main cast of Game of Thrones had actually read the novels before the first season. I know later we heard that a couple of the main kids had started reading the books.

 

Back to WoT, we know two of the main actors are in a contest to finish the novels. Which is a Good Sign! (I'm betting it's Madeleine Madden and Marcus Rutherford)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The whole point is: are they making RJ come to life or are they just using WoT's popularity and some of it's material to try to make their own successful show? I'd say I'm somewhere half between @Thrasymachus and @Elder haman on this. I think it's still too soon to make a definitive judgment, but I'm nervous that it's the latter. Nevertheless, I'm hopeful that it's WoT with necessary adjustments and not - say - what The Seeker was to the Sword of Truth series (a total insult to fans).  

 

But I think I can draw a pretty definitive example of what I hope for. When Sanderson finished the books - I thought he did a great job- it wasn't RJ, but it wasn't just Sanderson doing Sanderson with RJ's material - he really cared about how RJ wanted it finished! 

Edited by Wolfbrother31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

The whole point is: are they making RJ come to life or are they just using WoT's popularity and some of it's material to try to make their own successful show?

We'll have to Watch and Find Out (WAFO). 
 

Everything else is just speculation/conjecture. 
image.jpeg

 

27 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

what The Seeker was to the Sword of Truth series (a total insult to fans).  

TBF, I'm fine with the fact that The Legend of the Seeker was insulting to the Sword of Truth books.
Those books were trash, the first ones ripped off wheel of time, but not quite close enough to actually be plagiarism, and Terry Goodkind was an anathema to the Science Fiction/Fantasy genre. 😉 (The dude hated on the SFF genre, it's fans, and often even his own fans.)

/sorrynotsorry.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@SinisterDeath - you're not wrong that Goodkind got worse as he went on - but the first few books were decent -- since at the time I didn't have any other compelling Fantasy series to read, having finished WoT. But ... you know, reading what Sanderson has said about the show ... there's plenty of room for speculation both good and bad. Here's the link to what I read...

 

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/wheel-of-time-co-author-talks-changes-for-tv-lotr-comparisons

 

but i lean on to the worried side - since he takes a shot at the Harry Potter movies FOR sticking to the books, and the changes that Jackson made to LoTR were garbage - it was when he was sticking to Tolkien that it was golden.

Edited by Wolfbrother31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Borderlander said:

If they stick with the books and only task the writers with 'adapting' what is already on the page, and are not called upon to fabricate new material from whole cloth too often, I think they have a golden ticket.

You're not wrong, but I think the comparison between WoT and GoT breaks down here. RJ wrote so much from inside his characters' heads that the writers are going to have to create opportunities to put those thoughts on the screen. The only way to do that is to create new situations and new dialogue.

 

20 hours ago, Borderlander said:

Telltale signs are dialogue scenes that are cut short abruptly, just when it seems like the characters were about to get to the important part. 'Modern' phraseology and modes/mannerisms of speech creeping in (worst case scenario would be modern swearing.) Over-reliance on exposition. Current political/ideological overtones shoehorned in (some may be warranted as being authentic to the source material; others may not; will have to wait and see.) Cheesy plot devices that clearly show the writers trying to make an abridged plot fit together (like Varys suddenly hopping between continents in a day or two in the latter seasons of GoT.) 

This is absolutely spot on - though there's room to talk about 'modern swearing' I think. I don't think they need to remove modern curse words entirely, but rather mix them in with more unique-to-WoT cursing.

 

18 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

With Harry Potter you had Rawlings consulting. It had to be Harry Potter come to life. With LoTR, Jackson was a lifelong fan - his sole aim was to bring Tolkien to life. With WoT, it makes me bigtime nervous that you have main actors who - haven't finished the series yet?!  What?! 

This seems like an apples to oranges comparison. Comparing apples to apples: Rawlings consulted on the Harry Potter movies, but we know that Brandon Sanderson is consulting on scripts for WoT. Jackson was a lifelong fan of Tolkien, but Rafe Judkins has talked many times of his deep love for WoT. I don't think actors need to read the series to be effective. In fact, for some actors, reading ahead could be counter to their acting method.

 

As for Sanderson - his point was that the first two Harry Potter films were considered the weakest of the franchise because they tried too hard to duplicate the books. The series got greater acclaim when they began purposefully adapting the story for the screen instead of recreating the books shot-for-shot.

 

At the end of the day @Borderlander's assessment is correct. This series will rise or fall on the strength of what the writers do to fill in around Jordan. I'm hoping the balance strongly favors Jordan - his writing should be the meat, the new material should be the gravy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Elder haman

7 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I'm hoping the balance strongly favors Jordan - his writing should be the meat, the new material should be the gravy.

 

Yes! Totally agree. IF they do that. Recipe for MAJOR success! Fingers crossed!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanderson's interview just puts me in a tizzy because, on the one hand he says that Rafe's vision differs from the books and is GoT polarizing -- uh oh, I'm nervous - once GoT starting doing their own thing it was garbage.

 

Then he says, "hold on" these are "excellent changes in line with the feel of the books" - like Jackson's LoTR. Ok, I'm excited ... other than stupid changes like having elves show up at Helm's Deep, LoTR was pretty good.

 

Then he says, "Rafe balances his own vision with a love for the source material" and "I'd rather get this than the first two Harry Potter movies - scene by scene adaptations." Ok, I'm super nervous. I don't want "Rafe's spin on WoT" I want Rafe creatively making WoT come to life! 

 

So... here we wait. For S1 the die has been cast. Hopefully I have the Dark One's own luck! Please, please, please, be LoTR quality and not Shannara!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

on the one hand he says that Rafe's vision differs from the books and is GoT polarizing

 

Sanderson didn't say that. The author of the piece did. This is - verbatim - what Sanderson said: 

 

Quote

I found the mast majority of these decisions to be excellent choices--things that will give the show its own soul, but still in line with the feel and tone of the books. I can't say for certain, but my instincts say the fanbase will in general respond to them positively. There are a few I offered suggestions on, and we'll see.

I can't say too much, not just because of NDAs, but also because the show is very much still in flux as Rafe makes decisions on how he wants things to go. As the alterations go, I'd say they fall in line with positive changes made in bringing LOTR to the big screen--things that were altered in order to make the films work for the medium.

Overall, the thing I'm most impressed with is Rafe himself, who really seems to be guiding this show with a balance between love for the source material and his own creative vision. I'd much rather get this, personally, than something like the first two Harry Potter films--which felt like someone trying to bring the books to the screen with exact scene-by-scene recreations.

I'm certain there will be polarizing decisions made by the team, but the changes are coming from a good place, and I really like most of them. And let me tell you, the first of the two scripts I read was sharp. Excellent dialogue, nuanced characters, great pacing. The second of the two was in a rougher shape, so while still good, obviously was still undergoing revisions.

 

Nowhere does he say the changes will be polarizing in the same way the end of GoT was. The author added that, I guess to sensationalize the piece? But it really mischaracterizes what Sanderson said - the tone of which was overwhelmingly positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

 

Sanderson didn't say that. The author of the piece did. This is - verbatim - what Sanderson said: 

 

 

Nowhere does he say the changes will be polarizing in the same way the end of GoT was. The author added that, I guess to sensationalize the piece? But it really mischaracterizes what Sanderson said - the tone of which was overwhelmingly positive.

The problem with GOT is that while they stuck relatively close to the source material in the beginning, the Show Runners D and D had no idea what they were doing.

https://bgr.com/entertainment/game-of-thrones-season-8s-bad-writing-finally-almost-explained-5753407/

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/game-of-thrones-david-benioff-d-b-weiss-panel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a frankly bizarre take about those Harry Potter movies.  The first two movies, the first one really, but the second one helped, were what propelled Harry Potter into being a huge cultural phenomenon.  The fact that the casting and sets were so spot-on and atmospheric, while the story was so well and faithfully adapted, meant that nobody was left out, not die-hard book fans who were pleased with the initial movie adaptations specifically because of its faithfulness, and not the newcomers who need the adaptation to be good to get hooked. 

 

And you can see that in their publication numbers.  In 2000, prior to the first movie, but with the book fans already hyped due to WB announcing the year before that they had acquired the rights to adapt the movies, Goblet of Fire was released, and sold three million copies in the first 24 hours of its release.  The next year, The Sorcerer's Stone movie was released, and then two years later, the Order of the Phoenix was released, and it more than doubled the first 24 hour sales numbers, going up to 6.8 million copies sold.  It's crazy to me to think that the first and second Harry Potter movies were in any way worse than the ones that followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

It's crazy to me to think that the first and second Harry Potter movies were in any way worse than the ones that followed.

In many ways, the Harry Potter Novels/Movies are the exception, not the rule. They were a "phenomena".

Personally, I was never a huge fan of the books, or even the movies. I felt there was far better SFF that would be great on film, that was being squandered on Harry Potter.

In fact, I was actually reading WoT before I even heard of the Harry Potter novels, and didn't understand why everyone and their mother was reading something clearly inferior to WoT! 😉 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

In many ways, the Harry Potter Novels/Movies are the exception, not the rule. They were a "phenomena".

Personally, I was never a huge fan of the books, or even the movies. I felt there was far better SFF that would be great on film, that was being squandered on Harry Potter.

In fact, I was actually reading WoT before I even heard of the Harry Potter novels, and didn't understand why everyone and their mother was reading something clearly inferior to WoT! 😉 

Never read the Books, watched all the Movies once, didn’t hate them but never fell in love with them either. 
Sanderson did say that there would be one change made that a lot of Fans won’t be happy about, i suspect its Caemlyn being dropped and no Trakands in S1. Though i am disappointed if that is the case, I understand the reasoning behind it and have accepted those reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether you're a Harry Potter fan or not, it's just bizarre to me to think that the first two movies were weaker somehow than those that followed, for being more faithful to the stories, when those two movies are largely responsible for Harry Potter becoming the cultural icon it has become.  I mean, god forbid the TV show do for Wheel of Time what those first two movies did for Harry Potter, right? (That last was sarcasm, btw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

Regardless of whether you're a Harry Potter fan or not, it's just bizarre to me to think that the first two movies were weaker somehow than those that followed, for being more faithful to the stories, when those two movies are largely responsible for Harry Potter becoming the cultural icon it has become.  I mean, god forbid the TV show do for Wheel of Time what those first two movies did for Harry Potter, right? (That last was sarcasm, btw)

The movies didn't drive Harry Potter to popularity. The books were already hugely popular at the time the movies released. They had lines around the corner at bookstores for the publication of "Goblet of Fire". The movies mainstreamed Harry Potter. And they did an estimable job. But it the franchise was already hugely relevant before they shot a single second of film.

 

Anyway, no one is arguing that the first two Harry Potter movies were bad. The argument is that as films the franchise became better with Prisoner of Azkaban. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some further reflections on this topic.

 

That Caemlyn is probably cut from season 1 concerns me (and I think that is what Brandon Sanderson was thinking about when he indicated that one particular thing would polarize fans). Rand in Caemlyn seeing Logain for the first time (as the False Dragon is being taken to Tar Valon to be gentled) is one of the most important scenes in The Eye of the World in my opinion, which stuck in my mind long after I read the book. As is his meeting there with Elaida and her important Foretelling. (Rand meeting Elayne there for the first time is not essential but it was charming to read, I thought. It showed how young and innocent Rand was at the start of his incredible journey). I am somewhat baffled that Rafe would consider removing this part. It could have been included without having to ‘build’ a capital city. I suspect part of the reason might be that the showrunners wish less focus on Rand in the beginning of the story (call it ‘deflection’, ‘red herring as for Logain’ or ‘revisionism’ depending one one’s view). I understand financial constraints etc, but come on. It’s a bit like removing Gandalf’s scene with Bilbo/Frodo in Hobbiton at the start of the LoTR-movie (FoTR). Yeah, they could have met elsewhere but that is where they met in Tolkien’s story, that was special, that was what the fans wanted to see.

 

As for the Harry Potter movies, saying some are better made than others is in many ways a subjective view I would say. I had never read any of those books before I watched the movies and can’t say I reacted any differently to the first movies than the later ones. All well made, I enjoyed them all in their own way (I am no die-hard fan but they are entertaining) not knowing which were faithfully adapted and which were not, but I don’t think a faithful tv/movie-adaptation of a book necessarily makes it poor (Game of Thrones: Season 1 is a good example of the opposite). Neither would a faithful adaptation of The Eye of the World (with some necessary changes and minor adjustments but on the whole following the book) have made it poor. Perhaps it would have been better than what we are actually going to get, who knows.

 

What will make the tv-show successful? There is clearly a financial aspect (number of viewers) and expectations. If we get all seasons (say 8 in all) so Rafe and the others get to tell the whole story, that would make most fans satisfied and most would consider it a success I think. I see some believe this tv-show will match Game of Thrones in popularity but I think that is a bit overoptimistic. Game of Thrones was unique when it came, a level above anything else seen on tv in the fantasy-genre, and that series also was a mix of fantasy, horror (zombies), knights and middle ages costume drama which meant it appealed to wide audiences. Even if the Wheel of Time tv-show will be top quality (as is my belief from what I read) it will probably appeal to a smaller audience and so if it becomes popular on the level of say The Witcher or slightly above aforementioned Shadow and Bone (I watched a couple of episodes but something about it - felt like a weird mix of WW1 and fantasy -  just did not appeal to me) I think Amazon should be pleased. The most important is that it becomes popular enough for Amazon to give it many seasons, preferably so the showrunners get to tell the whole story (I agree with those who believe this complex and truly huge saga should have gotten 10 seasons to tell the story with some intricate detail and necessary precision, but seems we must be happy if it gets 8 in the end).

 

I noted btw someone talked above about Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth Book Series. Trash? Not at all. Very enjoyable reading in fact even if he did copy Wheel of Time in several aspects and he did make Richard Rahl preach a lot as the series went along. On the whole though I enjoyed that book series (it's not on the level of LoTR or The Wheel of Time or A Song of Ice and Fire but enjoyable), but I have to add that the ending (climax) was a huge letdown.

 

Talking fantasy tv-series, I have enjoyed many of Terry Brooks' Shannara books as well over the years, esp the first two trilogies (Sword and Heritage). I was curious how the Shannara tv-series would be and must say I was a little disappointed. It wasn't bad per se but not as good as I would have wished. I also thought that the series (season 1, based on Elfstones of Shannara) was less faithful to the source material (canon) than I would have liked but my main issue was that it felt like a YA-series and therefore meant for an other audience than yours truly. I haven't seen season 2 but read that it was a 'free¨' adaptation in the Shannara world.

Edited by Elessar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Elessar said:

Some further reflections on this topic.

 

That Caemlyn is probably cut from season 1 concerns me (and I think that is what Brandon Sanderson was thinking about when he indicated that one particular thing would polarize fans). Rand in Caemlyn seeing Logain for the first time (as the False Dragon is being taken to Tar Valon to be gentled) is one of the most important scenes in The Eye of the World in my opinion, which stuck in my mind long after I read the book. As is his meeting there with Elaida and her important Foretelling. (Rand meeting Elayne there for the first time is not essential but it was charming to read, I thought. It showed how young and innocent Rand was at the start of his incredible journey). I am somewhat baffled that Rafe would consider removing this part. It could have been included without having to ‘build’ a capital city. I suspect part of the reason might be that the showrunners wish less focus on Rand in the beginning of the story (call it ‘deflection’, ‘red herring as for Logain’ or ‘revisionism’ depending one one’s view). I understand financial constraints etc, but come on. It’s a bit like removing Gandalf’s scene with Bilbo/Frodo in Hobbiton at the start of the LoTR-movie (FoTR). Yeah, they could have met elsewhere but that is where they met in Tolkien’s story, that was special, that was what the fans wanted to see.

 

@Elessar  I agree, and I think it's why I really want to be on board with the optimistic people; but am worried about WoT tv adaptation even though we haven't seen any of it yet. Sooo most of what I say, I'm hoping I'm wrong. I mean, we don't "know" that Caemlyn and the Trakands have been cut, but we're pretty sure right?! I understand why from a production/set standpoint. But, as you say, it MAJORLY changes the story of EoTW and Rand's iconic meeting of Elayne, Galad, Gawyn, and Elaida. 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Elessar said:

I noted btw someone talked above about Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth Book Series. Trash? Not at all. Very enjoyable reading in fact even if he did copy Wheel of Time in several aspects and he did make Richard Rahl preach a lot as the series went along. On the whole though I enjoyed that book series (it's not on the level of LoTR or The Wheel of Time or A Song of Ice and Fire but enjoyable), but I have to add that the ending (climax) was a huge letdown.

 

What you describe here is exactly what I think too. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's trash. I enjoyed the first couple books. But with the critiques you have there (and I agree with): it's derivative, it's preachy, the climax was a letdown ... some people would use that to put it in the "trash" category. Did you watch Legend of the Seeker at all though? Cause if you did like the books - Legend of the Seeker was pretty unbearable. But maybe not, for you, if you think S1 of Shannara wasn't that bad (even as a YA series). 

 

Also, 

Harry Potter as a book and movie series/stands alone at the Top in my estimation as a fantasy cultural phenomena. Most authors write for an Age Group - Rawlings wrote for a Generation. As the characters got older in Harry Potter, so did the reading level, content, and length of the books. The movies as well - if you come at them cold as an adult - you might not be impressed, but that's because they started out as for middle schoolers. 

 

When it comes to WoT and Jordan, he is unparalleled in his world-building and details. You get drawn into these new people groups, customs, how they look, politics, ect... Which is why the little clips we've gotten make no sense to me at all. If really the only people paying attention to these 6 sec clips and prop releases are people who are big-time fans of the books - why deviate in these easy details from the books?! I know, people have offered Tv/visual explanations (making the ruby of the dagger more visible/ wanting Thom's actor to actually play a guitar, ect...) We'll see ...

 

But I think we'll be able to tell how "faithful" they are to the source material after the first episode. I mean, if Rand isn't a head taller than everybody and have red hair - those kind of details are essential to the story. If Padan Fain isn't the mysterious "peddler" who from the very first scene we meet him, we don't know that he's a villain - but he's self-obsessed and sly. If we don't get the ethos of the main characters as "small-town", "backwoods", folk who want to be left alone - who are terrified of people who can channel, and who are "awed" by Moiraine and Lan showing up. If Nynaeve isn't a bully who thinks men are idiots. If Egwene isn't a girl who wants to escape the small-town and do something adventurous. If Mat isn't a prankster and Perrin isn't a "good guy" who always wants to do the right thing. Well then, I guess, the sword and the dagger and the guitar - won't matter. But...we'll see right?!

 

I don't know. But here's a fun thought: when this show does finally come out, we're gonna have some great debates/talks about how the show is doing!!! And this site is gonna blow up, even if the show flops- I bet membership goes 20-50x what it is now, I can't wait for that. And there's going to be a lot of "I told you so..." either way. Man, I so hope it comes out this year!

 

 

Edited by Wolfbrother31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the "big change that fans won't like" is the removal of caemlyn, i'd say we get off light. there are so many things they could screw up, introducing the trakands in season 2 and skipping the meeting of rand and logain (incidentally no, that scene is not plot critical) is the least of it.

 

i mostly forgot the exact quote from sanderson, and having read it again, i am more optimistic. sure, sanderson would never directly speak ill of the show. but from everything i know of him, he would not blatantly lie either. and he had a good, strong, and - most important - unrequired praise for rafe that makes me optimistic. he had no need or duty whatsoever to put in a specific paragraph to praise the director, he did it because he was convinced.

 

also, wot has the potential for big money. and the managers know it. they know that, if they do it right and it gets successful, they can milk the cow for 7-8 seasons and make top $$$. If they screw it up, they earn much less. it is in their best interest to commit and try to make a good product.

sure, they can still screw up. GoT did, in the end. but GoT failed when they had no more original script. which is not going to happen here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

from everything i know of him, he would not blatantly lie either. and he had a good, strong, and - most important - unrequired praise for rafe that makes me optimistic. he had no need or duty whatsoever to put in a specific paragraph to praise the director, he did it because he was convinced.

100%

This is why I am so flummoxed by the people who pooh pooh Brandon's involvement. He may not have authority, but at the same time there is no reason for him to be so effusive in his praise if he genuinely didn't like the product. It's easy enough to shoot off some sort of prepared statement that says nothing meaningful. Instead, he chose to engage the question and provide a mostly favorable response. Why do that if he legitimately felt like Rafe was trashing his work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

if the "big change that fans won't like" is the removal of caemlyn, i'd say we get off light. there are so many things they could screw up, introducing the trakands in season 2 and skipping the meeting of rand and logain (incidentally no, that scene is not plot critical) is the least of it.

 

i mostly forgot the exact quote from sanderson, and having read it again, i am more optimistic. sure, sanderson would never directly speak ill of the show. but from everything i know of him, he would not blatantly lie either. and he had a good, strong, and - most important - unrequired praise for rafe that makes me optimistic. he had no need or duty whatsoever to put in a specific paragraph to praise the director, he did it because he was convinced.

 

also, wot has the potential for big money. and the managers know it. they know that, if they do it right and it gets successful, they can milk the cow for 7-8 seasons and make top $$$. If they screw it up, they earn much less. it is in their best interest to commit and try to make a good product.

sure, they can still screw up. GoT did, in the end. but GoT failed when they had no more original script. which is not going to happen here

I think we may still get the Rand and Logain scene but maybe not in Caemlyn. They could quite easily do it having a caged Logain travelling through a random Village where Rand and Mat have stopped and Rand goes to see the False Dragon, maybe have the Camera on Logain and suddenly Logain sees something that shocks him or even have Eye Contact between Logain and Rand. Actually i think this would make a better scene the Caemlyn did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Elessar said:

Some further reflections on this topic.

 

That Caemlyn is probably cut from season 1 concerns me (and I think that is what Brandon Sanderson was thinking about when he indicated that one particular thing would polarize fans). Rand in Caemlyn seeing Logain for the first time (as the False Dragon is being taken to Tar Valon to be gentled) is one of the most important scenes in The Eye of the World in my opinion, which stuck in my mind long after I read the book. As is his meeting there with Elaida and her important Foretelling. (Rand meeting Elayne there for the first time is not essential but it was charming to read, I thought. It showed how young and innocent Rand was at the start of his incredible journey). I am somewhat baffled that Rafe would consider removing this part. It could have been included without having to ‘build’ a capital city. I suspect part of the reason might be that the showrunners wish less focus on Rand in the beginning of the story (call it ‘deflection’, ‘red herring as for Logain’ or ‘revisionism’ depending one one’s view). I understand financial constraints etc, but come on. It’s a bit like removing Gandalf’s scene with Bilbo/Frodo in Hobbiton at the start of the LoTR-movie (FoTR). Yeah, they could have met elsewhere but that is where they met in Tolkien’s story, that was special, that was what the fans wanted to see.

 

As for the Harry Potter movies, saying some are better made than others is in many ways a subjective view I would say. I had never read any of those books before I watched the movies and can’t say I reacted any differently to the first movies than the later ones. All well made, I enjoyed them all in their own way (I am no die-hard fan but they are entertaining) not knowing which were faithfully adapted and which were not, but I don’t think a faithful tv/movie-adaptation of a book necessarily makes it poor (Game of Thrones: Season 1 is a good example of the opposite). Neither would a faithful adaptation of The Eye of the World (with some necessary changes and minor adjustments but on the whole following the book) have made it poor. Perhaps it would have been better than what we are actually going to get, who knows.

 

What will make the tv-show successful? There is clearly a financial aspect (number of viewers) and expectations. If we get all seasons (say 8 in all) so Rafe and the others get to tell the whole story, that would make most fans satisfied and most would consider it a success I think. I see some believe this tv-show will match Game of Thrones in popularity but I think that is a bit overoptimistic. Game of Thrones was unique when it came, a level above anything else seen on tv in the fantasy-genre, and that series also was a mix of fantasy, horror (zombies), knights and middle ages costume drama which meant it appealed to wide audiences. Even if the Wheel of Time tv-show will be top quality (as is my belief from what I read) it will probably appeal to a smaller audience and so if it becomes popular on the level of say The Witcher or slightly above aforementioned Shadow and Bone (I watched a couple of episodes but something about it - felt like a weird mix of WW1 and fantasy -  just did not appeal to me) I think Amazon should be pleased. The most important is that it becomes popular enough for Amazon to give it many seasons, preferably so the showrunners get to tell the whole story (I agree with those who believe this complex and truly huge saga should have gotten 10 seasons to tell the story with some intricate detail and necessary precision, but seems we must be happy if it gets 8 in the end).

 

I noted btw someone talked above about Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth Book Series. Trash? Not at all. Very enjoyable reading in fact even if he did copy Wheel of Time in several aspects and he did make Richard Rahl preach a lot as the series went along. On the whole though I enjoyed that book series (it's not on the level of LoTR or The Wheel of Time or A Song of Ice and Fire but enjoyable), but I have to add that the ending (climax) was a huge letdown.

 

Talking fantasy tv-series, I have enjoyed many of Terry Brooks' Shannara books as well over the years, esp the first two trilogies (Sword and Heritage). I was curious how the Shannara tv-series would be and must say I was a little disappointed. It wasn't bad per se but not as good as I would have wished. I also thought that the series (season 1, based on Elfstones of Shannara) was less faithful to the source material (canon) than I would have liked but my main issue was that it felt like a YA-series and therefore meant for an other audience than yours truly. I haven't seen season 2 but read that it was a 'free¨' adaptation in the Shannara world.

The issue with the Royal Palace scene in Caemlyn is it involves the Cameos of 1 major(Elayne) and 5 extremely important Characters(Elaida, Morgase, Galad, Gawyn and Bryn), their involvement in S1 would at the most be 10min, that is going to restrict your ability to get the right Actors for these roles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the single biggest hurdle for WOT TV is that it is on Amazon instead of Netflix or Disney+. I suspect that Amazon’s viewership numbers are extremely inflated. Anecdotally, I know a great many people with Amazon Prime memberships for that “free two-day shipping” but I’ve never heard anyone raving about the latest shows on Prime. It is always Netflix and Disney+. Always.

 

One reason GOT took off is it was on HBO. Which at the time the series started was still a major player in original content creation for cable. GOT quickly became HBO’s flagship series, which played a significant role in viewership (no, this isn’t a chicken and the egg situation - HBO promoted the hell out of GOT).

 

Amazon is hoping WOT can likewise be a flagship series that increases Prime viewership, but I kind of doubt it will work that way. The book audience isn’t big enough. Mandalorian worked for Disney+ but that was Star Wars. WOT ain’t Star Wars.

 

So we will see.

Edited by Beidomon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Beidomon said:

but I’ve never heard anyone raving about the latest shows on Prime.

You've never heard anyone rave about Invincible? The Boys? Good Omens? The Expanse?

 

13 minutes ago, Beidomon said:

Mandalorian worked for Disney+ but that was Star Wars. WOT ain’t Star Wars.

I dunno what kind of viewership Disney+ is actually getting, but content wise Prime/Netflix have more (Netflix has the best quality-quantity content, Amazon just has quantity). Disney+/HBO Max are a watch and dump streaming service. The only reason I've kept Disney+ for as long as I have, is we bundled it with Hulu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

You've never heard anyone rave about Invincible? The Boys? Good Omens? The Expanse?

 

I dunno what kind of viewership Disney+ is actually getting, but content wise Prime/Netflix have more (Netflix has the best quality-quantity content, Amazon just has quantity). Disney+/HBO Max are a watch and dump streaming service. The only reason I've kept Disney+ for as long as I have, is we bundled it with Hulu.


Nope, never heard of any of those shows except for Good Omens, and that was because I had already read the Gaiman book and happened to see the ad for the show on Amazon. 
 

Again, I don’t care what Amazon’s misleading numbers suggest - I’m pretty sure Disney+ is kicking the crap out of Prime because of their Star Wars, Marvel, and Disney catalogs. Amazon’s numbers are almost surely massively inflated by the free shipping crowd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing GOT had going for it besides HBO was that it appealed to a broader audience. It was basically just sex, swords, and political intrigue for nearly all of the first season. The series really eased into the supernatural / fantasy elements. With WOT, you are much more immersed in the fantasy from the very beginning - from Trollocs to the “magic.”

 

And the next rebuttal is “that worked fine for Lord of the Rings.” And again, WOT ain’t LOTR. Fantasy can be a tough sell for broader audiences. 
 

I’m not trying to be overly pessimistic - I’m just saying the odds are against WOT to begin with, and Amazon isn’t the strongest springboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Beidomon said:

Nope, never heard of any of those shows except for Good Omens

Whether that's true or not, all of the shows @SinisterDeath referenced are legitimately popular shows. And Prime has some other excellent originals as well. WoT is in fine (rich) hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...