tv show spoilers S1E7: The Dark Along the Ways

[Deviations]

1 minute ago, DigificWriter said:

 

All of these attitudes are, I believe, rooted in an unwillingness to let the producers of the show retell the story using the tools of visual-medium storytelling.

Tools of visual-medium storytelling don't preclude Abel Cauthen being a stand up husband, father and council member.

[Deviations]

12 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

ere RJ wrote about a breakdown in a relationship between R&E. He tried to create an emotional impact on R because of this. They have taken that and made it more visible.

Agreed.  My point was only that you don't need to age a character to form a connection with the audience.  

[Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Deviations said:

Tools of visual-medium storytelling don't preclude Abel Cauthen being a stand up husband, father and council member.

 

100%. And I hated that change. But I understand why they did it. And even if I didn't I don't think I would allow that to draw me into a conspiracy theory about dumbing down men etc etc. 

 

I believe we were discussing specifically the R/Eg relationship, and the change in Lan's personality. 

 

Every change should be judged on its own merits, attempting to understand the why, and then assessing whether it achieved its purpose and whether it was well done. Some have been, some haven't. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Ralph

[Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Deviations said:

Agreed.  My point was only that you don't need to age a character to form a connection with the audience.  

 

Sorry if I didn't explain my point properly

 

 

My point was that RJ created an emotional point of connection, by creating a relationship between R&E, and then having the story break it

Not specifically connecting to the characters, but to their emotions. The show has deepened that exact point, and I think has done that particular change very well

Edited December 20, 2021 by Ralph

[DigificWriter]

@Deviations The show chose to use the tools of visual-medium storytelling to depict Mat's character in a way that in turn led to them changing the characterization of the people closest to him.

 

Trying to draw a line in the sand and say that those changes were unnecessary is to essentially deny the producers of the show the freedom to tell Mat's story in a way that made sense to them in the context of a television series as opposed to on the written page.

[Gothic Flame]

38 minutes ago, dwn said:

I'd say he adapted Lan because someone who barely talks, and who has only minor development over 14 books, wouldn't work as a one of the main characters in an ensemble TV show.

If you've read the books how on earth can you make such a false claim of "minor development?"

You either haven't read the books, or you're putting forth a disingenuous argument in favor of Rafe's reinvention, or you really didn't like how he's characterized in the book at all with him already a hero, fighting for 4 decades before getting to Emond's Field.

[Yojimbo]

8 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

@Deviations The show chose to use the tools of visual-medium storytelling to depict Mat's character in a way that in turn led to them changing the characterization of the people closest to him.

 

Trying to draw a line in the sand and say that those changes were unnecessary is to essentially deny the producers of the show the freedom to tell Mat's story in a way that made sense to them in the context of a television series as opposed to on the written page.

Or maybe some of us are saying that they feel like unnecessary changes because they are so poorly done.   

[DigificWriter]

Just now, Yojimbo said:

Or maybe some of us are saying that they feel like unnecessary changes because they are so poorly done.   

 

The subjective quality of how these changes were implemented has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they were 'necessary'.

[JaimAybara]

3 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

@Deviations The show chose to use the tools of visual-medium storytelling to depict Mat's character in a way that in turn led to them changing the characterization of the people closest to him.

 

Trying to draw a line in the sand and say that those changes were unnecessary is to essentially deny the producers of the show the freedom to tell Mat's story in a way that made sense to them in the context of a television series as opposed to on the written page.

You haven’t justified why the changes were necessary while saying that is the likelihood of the change, “making sense on t.v.” What does making him a thief and his family a shambles, (particularly his father) have to do with making it better or adjusting for television? If anything, it appears they haven’t successfully justified these alterations through the medium you claim specifically is what they adjusted it for.

[KakitaOCU]

7 minutes ago, JaimAybara said:

You haven’t justified why the changes were necessary while saying that is the likelihood of the change, “making sense on t.v.” What does making him a thief and his family a shambles, (particularly his father) have to do with making it better or adjusting for television? If anything, it appears they haven’t successfully justified these alterations through the medium you claim specifically is what they adjusted it for.

Because their argument is not "These changes were necessary."   Their argument is that someone shouting how this or that change was unnecessary is making a subjective stance that has no accuracy as a fact.

The reality is that this is not a debate between "This change was 100% required and cannot be assailed" and "This change was horrible and ruins the story.

The debate is between "Changes are not automatically bad and don't ruin the story as a whole." vs "This change was horrible and ruins the story."

My argument isn't "Abell's changes are awesome."  I hate the change to Abell.  But I will also sit here and say the change to Abell gives further justification and angle for Mat's character and who he is going to be.  It'll give payoff for what he ultimately becomes and allowed us in the first episode to show the whole nature of him as a reluctant hero who doesn't want to do the right thing but keeps doing it anyway.

I then combine that with the fact that Abell is a tertiary character who has no bearing on the overall series.

None of that is my arguing that the change was 100% necessary, it's simply arguing that there's a logical reason for it and it doesn't actually hurt the narrative.

[RhienneAgain]

2 hours ago, DigificWriter said:

@RhienneAgain There is no right or wrong way to adapt something.

 

An adaptation that changes everything about its source material other than the names of the characters and the basic overall beats of the story it's adapting is just as valid as an adaptation that doesn't change anything except the way it visualizes sets, costumes, and props relative to how these things were depicted in the source material.

Very true, but an adaptation that changes nearly everything about its source material has to involve the adapter is 'flexing' their own writing. Those changes are made because, presumably, because the new writer wants to improve on the source material in some way (whether to make it more current, to appeal to a new audience, to make a character more interesting).

[DigificWriter]

The show chose to use the tools of visual-medium storytelling to depict Mat as a troubled young man with a bit of a dark streak, and used the brokenness of his home life as an Impetus for him being troubled and embracing the darker aspects of his personality. 

 

Its not my place to determine whether or not these decisions and the changes generated by them were necessary because I'm not the one who made said decisions.

 

I would also add that it's possible to disagree with the narrative choices that were made without calling into question the viability of those choices or the integrity of the people who made them.

[TheDreadReader]

10 minutes ago, JaimAybara said:

You haven’t justified why the changes were necessary while saying that is the likelihood of the change, “making sense on t.v.” What does making him a thief and his family a shambles, (particularly his father) have to do with making it better or adjusting for television? If anything, it appears they haven’t successfully justified these alterations through the medium you claim specifically is what they adjusted it for.

 

The "changes" allowed for a quicker communication of characters attributes with relatively short seguences.    One of the core complaints about early-book Mat is that he is an undeveloped character.

 

 

Some examples....

 

Losing at a dice game = he is a gambler and currently unlucky

Never seeing him steal the bracelet = he may be shady but you never really know

Bad parents / he risks himself to protect his sisters = he is still basically a good guy

 

vs.

 

He released a badger on the green and covered some dogs with flour = he is a prankster.

 

 

 

 

[Elder_Haman]

2 minutes ago, RhienneAgain said:

an adaptation that changes nearly everything about its source material

Okay. But that's hyperbole. The series has not changed "nearly everything about its source material". The most significant changes were alterations to two major characters' backstories that allowed the writers to quickly frontload character information and the reorienting of the plot to Tar Valon as opposed to Camelyn.

[RhienneAgain]

2 hours ago, DaddyFinn said:

For me personally, when they make huge changes that I hate. I hope they won't do that. ? 

 

Has Rafe said those things?

?

 

Not that I'm aware of. A review on the Dragonmount main page discussed the question of the kind of masculinity bookLan and TVLan represented (not sure if the writer had any direct info from Rafe). I wasn't trying to suggest Rafe had said those things - just that those are two of the possible motivations people seem to be assuming he may have had in changing Lan. I'm kind of interested as to whether the rationale for the changes makes them more or less acceptable to people.

[notpropaganda73]

28 minutes ago, Yojimbo said:

Or maybe some of us are saying that they feel like unnecessary changes because they are so poorly done.   

I don't like the change to Abell but we can't say that for sure yet really, can we? We can hate the change as it currently stands, but we've no idea if it has been poorly done until we see more of Mat in the show and how his home life impacts his character.

[RhienneAgain]

1 hour ago, DigificWriter said:

 

Yep.

 

The 'purists' don't seem to be willing to let the people making the show actually use any of the tools of visual-medium storytelling and instead want a 'purely as written' depiction of this world and story, which is something that can't exist.

I really disagree. I think in an ensemble cast you quite often get a 'strong, silent' type that viewers respond well, too. It wouldn't work if all the characters were like that, but I think one out of a big group is fine. 

 

I think it's actually a well-enjoyed trope when you have a stoic, 'emotionless' character who then steps in to help in some way/shows emotional walls breaking down, etc.. Seeing Lan's transformation from someone who was married to death and duty into a mentor figure for Rand and loving husband for Nynaeve would have been beautiful on TV, in my humble opinion.

[Yojimbo]

3 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

I don't like the change to Abell but we can't say that for sure yet really, can we? We can hate the change as it currently stands, but we've no idea if it has been poorly done until we see more of Mat in the show and how his home life impacts his character.

If it were just that one thing I would be inclined to give them a pass.  That there have been a LOT of instances where I have felt this way leads me to conclude that (for my part) the writing and implementation of those changes is just bad.

[notpropaganda73]

Just now, Yojimbo said:

If it were just that one thing I would be inclined to give them a pass.  That there have been a LOT of instances where I have felt this way leads me to conclude that (for my part) the writing and implementation of those changes is just bad.

That's fair, if you're seeing a pattern (hoho!) that you don't like it's definitely hard to place trust in the show, I can understand that. 

[JaimAybara]

24 minutes ago, TheDreadReader said:

 

The "changes" allowed for a quicker communication of characters attributes with relatively short seguences.    One of the core complaints about early-book Mat is that he is an undeveloped character.

 

 

Some examples....

 

Losing at a dice game = he is a gambler and currently unlucky

Never seeing him steal the bracelet = he may be shady but you never really know

Bad parents / he risks himself to protect his sisters = he is still basically a good guy

 

vs.

 

He released a badger on the green and covered some dogs with flour = he is a prankster.

 

 

 

 

Totally think adding the second bit while playing with his sisters would have given added contrast to what the dagger does to him though. I really like prankster Mat. But I’m tracking a bit more from some of these explanations. 

[RhienneAgain]

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

 

 

 

It is more that they cannot fathom why some of these changes have occurred, because they see them as unnecessary, since they love the books so much. 

 

Some of them are therefore ascribing nefarious agenda-driven motives to the show runners, which obviously creates a self-consuming spiral.

 

I think you are spot-on here. I've been reading and re-reading the books for about twenty years and I had so been looking forward to seeing my favourite characters on screen. Of course I'm going to be disappointed when the Lan I see isn't recognisable as the one I know from the books (going with Lan here as he seems to be one of the most divisive character modifications).

 

Having said that, I don't consider myself a 'purist' (don't think that's a very nice or helpful term, but I've seen it used on here ?). I absolutely love some of the changes - Logain's new material is fantastic for example.

[Ralph]

Isn't it wonderful that suddenly we are talking about why the changes were made and whether we agree, about how they were changed and whether they were done well. 

 

Of course someone who sees many changes they disagree with, dislike, or feel are badly done (or all of the above) will dislike the show. But they may still see things they do like. 

 

Whereas the "agenda" "own story" "fanfic" comments are just not interested in assessing any of this

[dwn]

48 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

If you've read the books how on earth can you make such a false claim of "minor development?"

You either haven't read the books, or you're putting forth a disingenuous argument in favor of Rafe's reinvention, or you really didn't like how he's characterized in the book at all with him already a hero, fighting for 4 decades before getting to Emond's Field.

In New Spring Lan is dead set on fighting a one-man, suicidal war against the Blight. In KoD he has Nynaeve take him to the borderlands so he can--wait for it--make a one-man, suicidal attack on the Blight. Over the final couple books he grudgingly accepts a leadership role, first over the remnants of the Malkieri, and later other elements of the armies. He does have some character development--that question of leadership, and how his relationship with Nynaeve mellows him and give him some hope for the future. Yet compared to other main characters, his arc is very minor and very drawn out.

 

The stoic, enigmatic, loner hero works in some genres--it's common in samurai movies and westerns--but it's an extremely tough sell as in a modern TV show with an ensemble cast.

 

[RhienneAgain]

38 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

The show chose to use the tools of visual-medium storytelling to depict Mat as a troubled young man with a bit of a dark streak, and used the brokenness of his home life as an Impetus for him being troubled and embracing the darker aspects of his personality. 

 

Its not my place to determine whether or not these decisions and the changes generated by them were necessary because I'm not the one who made said decisions.

 

I would also add that it's possible to disagree with the narrative choices that were made without calling into question the viability of those choices or the integrity of the people who made them.

Im sorry, I'm not really getting the point on the use of visual medium. I understand what you're saying with regards to how the changes to Mat can support his motivation and potentially other changes to his character and plot that are to come. The bit I'm not getting is what about the switch to TV made this change necessary..? 

 

For Rafe's vision of the story these changes were necessary, but I don't think that equates to these specific changes being necessary because of the change in medium..? (Sorry, I may have misunderstood something here!)

[RhienneAgain]

40 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Okay. But that's hyperbole. The series has not changed "nearly everything about its source material". The most significant changes were alterations to two major characters' backstories that allowed the writers to quickly frontload character information and the reorienting of the plot to Tar Valon as opposed to Camelyn.

I wasn't saying that this adaptation has changed nearly everything about the source material (I agree that it hasn't). It was about adaptations in general, and I was just pointing out that in the case of an adaptation where only the title was the same (as in the scenario given by the person I was replying to) the new writers would be relying heavily on their own writing talent.