How did the show hold up for non-fans watching with you?

[Cauthonfan4]

8 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

Right... but why is the show being criticised for not being something that it hasn't tried to be? 

 

And why would the studio go ahead with the production and demand that it's like GOT, if it was explicitly made clear in the pitch that the show isn't going to be GOT? 

Bezos didn't want thd next game of thrones in style of show or whatever. 

He wanted the next game of thrones in impact level. A show that to this day set the bar other fantasy is talked about. The bar fantasy is compared too. That is what he wanted.

 

And that is what we are referring too shen we talk about when we compare it to game of thrones. And really? This wasn't the next game of thrones? Massive advertising. Huge budget.

[Andra]

24 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

Right... but why is the show being criticised for not being something that it hasn't tried to be? 

 

And why would the studio go ahead with the production and demand that it's like GOT, if it was explicitly made clear in the pitch that the show isn't going to be GOT? 

 

I'm struggling to understand the point of this criticism levelled at the show, especially when there's plenty of other stuff to critique it on. I can understand saying Bezos wants a show like GOT, and this isn't it - but I don't really see why the show should be criticised for that. 

Do you really think that if you were pitching a show to Jeff f*ing Bezos and he said, "I'll give you 10 million per episode if you give me the next Game of Thrones," that you would tell him No?

 

Do you really think Rafe did? 

 

And again, it's not that Bezos wanted a show that was literally like GoT.  He wanted something that was that much of a blockbuster - whatever it was.

[notpropaganda73]

What I would do is irrelevant (unfortunately), and we can only take Rafe at his word, quoted from the last page:

 

In a Nov. 19 interview with The Ringer, Judkins was asked whether all the talk about Thrones in reference to The Wheel of Time was helpful or whether it was a burden. "I find it exclusively an oppressive burden," he laughed. "To be honest, the show is really not, and the books are not like Game of Thrones, and I said that to Amazon right up front. I was like, 'If you are looking for the next Game of Thrones, this isn't it. What I'm going to pitch you is a series that is really different.'"

 

So yeah... I mean if we're just going to take quotes from Rafe and say "nah I don't believe that's what happened" then there's no real discussion to be had here.

 

But yes, Bezos wanting a smash hit like GOT is a stupid aim, and one that I don't think the show should be criticised for not reaching. From the screenrant article you shared just on the last page: 

 

"That's not to say any of the series listed above will be bad; all have, to varying degrees, a lot of talent involved and hold plenty of promise. But attempting to be the new Game of Thrones is a near-impossible mission in 2019, because TV no longer allows it. The way audiences consume television has completely changed in the last few years, and Game of Thrones was the last true watercooler TV show left standing.

The amount of streaming services is only going to increase, with Disney+, HBO Max, NBC Universal and more joining the likes of Netflix and Amazon, which in turn further ramps up the competition for viewers. We've already seen that Netflix shows can dominate the conversation for a weekend, or even a week, but binge-watching doesn't allow for one TV show to monopolize the market for several months at a time in the way Game of Thrones used to. In the Peak TV era, it's even harder to stand out from the crowd, and a single TV show - especially one on cable - reaching tens of millions of viewers around the world seems extremely unlikely.

 

Compounding this is the fact that the next big thing is rarely like that which came before. There were plenty of efforts at recreating Lost, but it was Breaking Bad that really took its crown as the most buzzed-about TV show, which then passed not to another similar show, but Game of Thrones. And before Lost, it was The Sopranos, which was different again. That pattern would suggest it won't be a big fantasy series that becomes the next Game of Thrones anyway, but the changing of TV suggests nothing will, and that we'll never see its like again."

 

The only thing that's come close to GOT in terms of that watercooler/cultural bubble stuff in the last few years is Succession, and anecdotally that has only been watched by about 30% of my friend group compared to GOT which was watched by everyone. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by notpropaganda73

[Scarloc99]

On 2/6/2022 at 1:17 PM, Cauthonfan4 said:

Clearly us fans care, or we wouldn't be so bloody upset about all the changes that they made to the show for no reason. 

No the bottom half of the internet is famous for being populated by a vocal minority who all tend to agree with each other. That means that anyone who disagrees is put off commenting because they are generally jumped on by the others. It creates an echo chamber of a small number (in % terms) of a certain population who, like you, then insist that there opinion must be the most prevalent. He who shouts the loudest generally does not represent the majority like they think they do. 

I challenge you to find comments section which is full of positivity about a TV show, subject or situation lol. 

[Scarloc99]

11 hours ago, Andra said:

I'm not aware of any specific promotional material that made the comparison.  Which is kind of understandable, as doing so would only draw attention to the competitor you want to surpass.  Not something that is generally done if you actually expect to surpass it.

 

The comparison is based on statements about what Bezos expected out of it, and even about what he said he wanted before acquiring the rights.

 

Not because of the similarity of the content, but because if what he wanted as far as popularity.  Which means it's not a specific season of GOT that he was referring to, or about what kind of character or world development he wanted, just the overall buzz.

I would actually challenge if Bezos himself had anything to do with the acquiring of rights, he runs a multi billion dollar set of companies and I very much doubt he is so embedded in the minutia of deciding which shows do and do not get made. Amazon Prime itself is actually the lesser of his revenue creators. For a long time now Amazon has effectively been a web hosting company with a tiny corner shop attached in terms of revenue generation. 

[Scarloc99]

1 hour ago, notpropaganda73 said:

What I would do is irrelevant (unfortunately), and we can only take Rafe at his word, quoted from the last page:

 

In a Nov. 19 interview with The Ringer, Judkins was asked whether all the talk about Thrones in reference to The Wheel of Time was helpful or whether it was a burden. "I find it exclusively an oppressive burden," he laughed. "To be honest, the show is really not, and the books are not like Game of Thrones, and I said that to Amazon right up front. I was like, 'If you are looking for the next Game of Thrones, this isn't it. What I'm going to pitch you is a series that is really different.'"

 

So yeah... I mean if we're just going to take quotes from Rafe and say "nah I don't believe that's what happened" then there's no real discussion to be had here.

 

But yes, Bezos wanting a smash hit like GOT is a stupid aim, and one that I don't think the show should be criticised for not reaching. From the screenrant article you shared just on the last page: 

 

"That's not to say any of the series listed above will be bad; all have, to varying degrees, a lot of talent involved and hold plenty of promise. But attempting to be the new Game of Thrones is a near-impossible mission in 2019, because TV no longer allows it. The way audiences consume television has completely changed in the last few years, and Game of Thrones was the last true watercooler TV show left standing.

The amount of streaming services is only going to increase, with Disney+, HBO Max, NBC Universal and more joining the likes of Netflix and Amazon, which in turn further ramps up the competition for viewers. We've already seen that Netflix shows can dominate the conversation for a weekend, or even a week, but binge-watching doesn't allow for one TV show to monopolize the market for several months at a time in the way Game of Thrones used to. In the Peak TV era, it's even harder to stand out from the crowd, and a single TV show - especially one on cable - reaching tens of millions of viewers around the world seems extremely unlikely.

 

Compounding this is the fact that the next big thing is rarely like that which came before. There were plenty of efforts at recreating Lost, but it was Breaking Bad that really took its crown as the most buzzed-about TV show, which then passed not to another similar show, but Game of Thrones. And before Lost, it was The Sopranos, which was different again. That pattern would suggest it won't be a big fantasy series that becomes the next Game of Thrones anyway, but the changing of TV suggests nothing will, and that we'll never see its like again."

 

The only thing that's come close to GOT in terms of that watercooler/cultural bubble stuff in the last few years is Succession, and anecdotally that has only been watched by about 30% of my friend group compared to GOT which was watched by everyone. 

I mean you could argue in some ways the Boys is Amazons GOT, in that it took a genre and created something totally unique and different, much like GOT did for Fantasy. I know loads of people who hate Marvel but love the Boys. 

[Cauthonfan4]

59 minutes ago, Sir_Charrid said:

I challenge you to find comments section which is full of positivity about a TV show, subject or situation lol

Pokemon fans are in love with arceus.

Reacher is getting lots of love and positivity.

Just as two very recent examples.

 

[Jaysen Gore]

2 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

I mean you could argue in some ways the Boys is Amazons GOT, in that it took a genre and created something totally unique and different, much like GOT did for Fantasy. I know loads of people who hate Marvel but love the Boys. 

Or you could say that Garth Ennis continued to piss on comics the way he has for more than 30 years, swiped the deconstruction of superheroes from Alan Moore's Watchmen, and sold it to Amazon as some new and wonderful idea to do edgy superheroes.

 

Both of these concepts - GoT and the Boys - are predicated on there being normal standards of the genre for them to deconstruct (i.e. piss over). And people who's only take on art is to tear down (through comparison) the art that came before is the art of a spoiled child, smashing things that he isn't good enough to make himself.

 

They are Tolkien's Orcs - twisted and evil versions of the Elves, because their creators cannot actually create themselves; all they can do is distort and destroy.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Jaysen Gore

[Scarloc99]

3 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

Pokemon fans are in love with arceus.

Reacher is getting lots of love and positivity.

Just as two very recent examples.

 

I mean Reacher had the benefit of 2 awful tom cruise movies to build on, but yes it is a really really good adaptation from what I have been told (3 episodes in and loving it). In regards to my point the, find me a positive comments section was probably more tongue in cheek, I can find plenty on the critical role videos. But the fact is that negative views are by far the majority throughout the bottom half of the internet. 

[Scarloc99]

1 hour ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Or you could say that Garth Ennis continued to piss on comics the way he has for more than 30 years, swiped the deconstruction of superheroes from Alan Moore's Watchmen, and sold it to Amazon as some new and wonderful idea to do edgy superheroes.

 

Both of these concepts - GoT and the Boys - are predicated on there being normal standards of the genre for them to deconstruct (i.e. piss over). And people who's only take on art is to tear down (through comparison) the art that came before is the art of a spoiled child, smashing things that he isn't good enough to make himself.

 

They are Tolkien's Orcs - twisted and evil versions of the Elves, because their creators cannot actually create themselves; all they can do is distort and destroy.

wow just wow, I mean yes, no one should ever make anything that does not match your view of what fantasy/super hero should be. I mean lets be fair here, pretty much most of the super hero genre is in some way copied, the very original stuff is new but, even that could be traced back to older tales of myth. 

Someone decided to take the influence of Watchmen, and did something different with it. I mean if your against edgy heroes then where you against the ironman of the comics who became an alcoholic manic depressive? 

but we are digressing massively here. My point was that, as Rafe has said, blanket statements like "the next GOT" could also mean, the next "Ted Lasso" or the next "See" on Apple, both of them massive hits for the service.

[Jaysen Gore]

53 minutes ago, Sir_Charrid said:

wow just wow, I mean yes, no one should ever make anything that does not match your view of what fantasy/super hero should be. I mean lets be fair here, pretty much most of the super hero genre is in some way copied, the very original stuff is new but, even that could be traced back to older tales of myth. 

Someone decided to take the influence of Watchmen, and did something different with it. I mean if your against edgy heroes then where you against the ironman of the comics who became an alcoholic manic depressive? 

but we are digressing massively here. My point was that, as Rafe has said, blanket statements like "the next GOT" could also mean, the next "Ted Lasso" or the next "See" on Apple, both of them massive hits for the service.

Yes, I was against Alcoholic Tony Stark, and Murdering Jean Loring, and Ant Man walking out of Janet Van Dyne's ***** and Dr Light's behaviour AND treatment, and Kyle Rayner's girlfriend in his fridge. And Zack Synder's Superman and JL. Because these are people who are destroying the institutions that other people enjoy in order to be "edgy".  This is about Batman being a psychopath, instead of someone who doesn't want to see anyone else die,  including his villains.

 

And this isn't just about people doing their take on fantasy; this is about people doing a take on something that only works because it says "that original stuff is childish, and stupid, and unrealistic. look, here's blood, and guts, and nudity, and everyone's a villain. That's what a realistic fantasy world would be. Isn't it cool?" 

 

I watch the Boys - I think the Boys is very good, although it goes over the line often, because that's what Garth does.  I thought the first few seasons of GoT were great (books less so). But a big part of WoT's problem is that while Rafe wants people to say it's the next GoT, like it's the next Lasso, a large proportion of the potential audience think that the fantasy genre is childish crap, and GoT is what fantasy should be. So WoT is going to keep getting pressure to be "edgy", because that's what the suits in Hollywood think fantasy should be.

 

It's how you know a lot of people who like The Boys, and hate Marvel.  So the money people are going to push to make comics more like the Boys. And you get Superman killing Zod, and WW killing Steppenwolf, and Harley Quinn as DC's second most popular character.

 

And sorry, this isn't personally about you; it's just a real sore point with me with the Hollywood machine, and the paying public them to encourage them to take all ages properties, and turn them into something dark, edgy, and villainous, because they can't personally conceive of people being good because they are good.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Jaysen Gore

[Scarloc99]

2 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Yes, I was against Alcoholic Tony Stark, and Murdering Jean Loring, and Ant Man walking out of Janet Van Dyne's ***** and Dr Light's behaviour AND treatment, and Kyle Rayner's girlfriend in his fridge. And Zack Synder's Superman and JL. Because these are people who are destroying the institutions that other people enjoy in order to be "edgy".  This is about Batman being a psychopath, instead of someone who doesn't want to see anyone else die,  including his villains.

 

And this isn't just about people doing their take on fantasy; this is about people doing a take on something that only works because it says "that original stuff is childish, and stupid, and unrealistic. look, here's blood, and guts, and nudity, and everyone's a villain. That's what a realistic fantasy world would be. Isn't it cool?" 

 

I watch the Boys - I think the Boys is very good, although it goes over the line often, because that's what Garth does.  I thought the first few seasons of GoT were great (books less so). But a big part of WoT's problem is that while Rafe wants people to say it's the next GoT, like it's the next Lasso, a large proportion of the potential audience think that the fantasy genre is childish crap, and GoT is what fantasy should be. So WoT is going to keep getting pressure to be "edgy", because that's what the suits in Hollywood think fantasy should be.

 

It's how you know a lot of people who like The Boys, and hate Marvel.  So the money people are going to push to make comics more like the Boys. And you get Superman killing Zod, and WW killing Steppenwolf, and Harley Quinn as DC's second most popular character.

 

And sorry, this isn't personally about you; it's just a real sore point with me with the Hollywood machine, and the paying public them to encourage them to take all ages properties, and turn them into something dark, edgy, and villainous, because they can't personally conceive of people being good because they are good.

I mean those storylines have existed long before Hollywood went "Edgy" You can't link Zac Snyder to Alcoholic Iron Man. In many ways those marvel comic runs do stay very true to the stan lee idea that Comics could be fantastical but also grounded in real stories that people could relate to. That is what is great about comic books for me and has been the 35 years I have been reading them. Each to there own, but, the shift to adult themes in comics has been happening for 20-30 years. I remember reading Preacher, and loving it it is one of the comics that I still own. I remember the very first Ninja Turtle graphic novel, I read it I think in 90 but might have that date wrong. The Turtles killing a mugger and hanging him from a lampost as a message. seeing what Nickelodeon turned it into devastated me 

You are welcome to your opinion but sacharine stories where the hero's have no flaws and dont have a dark side to many are boring and dull. The same is the case for DnD, no longer are Orcs and Goblins always cartoon evil guys in many games, bad guys are now sympathetic and many players want real morale questions to answer around a table. It is the way Society has gone, Hollywood hasn't moved people, the people have moved Hollywood. 

 

[Andra]

8 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

I would actually challenge if Bezos himself had anything to do with the acquiring of rights, he runs a multi billion dollar set of companies and I very much doubt he is so embedded in the minutia of deciding which shows do and do not get made. Amazon Prime itself is actually the lesser of his revenue creators. For a long time now Amazon has effectively been a web hosting company with a tiny corner shop attached in terms of revenue generation. 

Bezos is documented to have both used the term "Next Game of Thrones" in meetings going over future productions and to have even gone so far as to create a list of 13 characteristics any show should have to qualify.

And we also know that Bezos had the final say on acquiring the rights from Jordan's estate.

 

This isn't remotely speculation.

 

10 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

So yeah... I mean if we're just going to take quotes from Rafe and say "nah I don't believe that's what happened" then there's no real discussion to be had here.

It's not that he's contradicting the statements from Bezos and Price, it's that he's using the term differently.  Just as people questioning the criticism have done in this thread.

 

In that interview, Judkins is specifically saying that WoT isn't that similar to GoT in its details or the overall kind of story it is.  While what Price and Bezos specifically meant was how much of a blockbuster it should be, and the formula for getting there.

 

Not being one doesn't mean it isn't intended to be the other.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Andra

[Jaysen Gore]

10 minutes ago, Sir_Charrid said:

I mean those storylines have existed long before Hollywood went "Edgy" You can't link Zac Snyder to Alcoholic Iron Man. In many ways those marvel comic runs do stay very true to the stan lee idea that Comics could be fantastical but also grounded in real stories that people could relate to. That is what is great about comic books for me and has been the 35 years I have been reading them. Each to there own, but, the shift to adult themes in comics has been happening for 20-30 years. I remember reading Preacher, and loving it it is one of the comics that I still own. I remember the very first Ninja Turtle graphic novel, I read it I think in 90 but might have that date wrong. The Turtles killing a mugger and hanging him from a lampost as a message. seeing what Nickelodeon turned it into devastated me 

You are welcome to your opinion but sacharine stories where the hero's have no flaws and dont have a dark side to many are boring and dull. The same is the case for DnD, no longer are Orcs and Goblins always cartoon evil guys in many games, bad guys are now sympathetic and many players want real morale questions to answer around a table. It is the way Society has gone, Hollywood hasn't moved people, the people have moved Hollywood. 

 

As wrong as you felt it was for them to change the Turtles to fit a different audience, it is just as wrong for Snyder to change Superman. That's my point.  You feel one is offensive, and the other necessary because it's saccharine and boring. And as wrong as it was for Jackson to change Aragorn it is just as wrong for them to change Lan. And for all the complaints about the changes , it is why I don't blame Rafe for all of them; even most of them. The changes were made to pander to the people, and without that pandering, the show wouldn't get made Hence, many of the changes made aren't Rafe's fault. 

 

I can link all of comics stuff to Denny O'Neil making Speedy a Junkie. It turns out that slope was pretty slippery after all. And now look at the knots they're tying themselves in trying to retcon representation into the existing comics universe, instead of simply creating new interesting characters. Because it's so much easier to sell and generate buzz by corrupting an existing product /character / franchise than it is to create a completely new one. Creation is hard; destruction is easy.

 

If you create your own characters to tell your own stories,  I generally don't care what you do; I may not like them all, but Sopranos, SOA, Breaking Bad, Preacher, Hellblazer, Dredd, have been some of the greatest entertainment of the last 30 years. 

 

Except when a new story only works because it's playing against the tropes of the genre while at the same time insulting that same genre for being puerile and the fans of that genre for being pathetic losers, then you are just breaking other peoples' toys.

 

This is why the discussion matters so much about non-readers - the changes made to make it appeal to the GoT audience make it less appealing to the book audience.  But it's a series of short steps from 'we're changing this to appeal to a broader audience" to "we're changing this because it's stupid" to "you're stupid for like this as it was, and we're going to do it better", and while I put generally put Rafe somewhere between the first and second, I put almost everyone at Amazon firmly in the third.

[Scarloc99]

1 hour ago, Jaysen Gore said:

As wrong as you felt it was for them to change the Turtles to fit a different audience, it is just as wrong for Snyder to change Superman. That's my point.  You feel one is offensive, and the other necessary because it's saccharine and boring. And as wrong as it was for Jackson to change Aragorn it is just as wrong for them to change Lan. And for all the complaints about the changes , it is why I don't blame Rafe for all of them; even most of them. The changes were made to pander to the people, and without that pandering, the show wouldn't get made Hence, many of the changes made aren't Rafe's fault. 

 

I can link all of comics stuff to Denny O'Neil making Speedy a Junkie. It turns out that slope was pretty slippery after all. And now look at the knots they're tying themselves in trying to retcon representation into the existing comics universe, instead of simply creating new interesting characters. Because it's so much easier to sell and generate buzz by corrupting an existing product /character / franchise than it is to create a completely new one. Creation is hard; destruction is easy.

 

If you create your own characters to tell your own stories,  I generally don't care what you do; I may not like them all, but Sopranos, SOA, Breaking Bad, Preacher, Hellblazer, Dredd, have been some of the greatest entertainment of the last 30 years. 

 

Except when a new story only works because it's playing against the tropes of the genre while at the same time insulting that same genre for being puerile and the fans of that genre for being pathetic losers, then you are just breaking other peoples' toys.

 

This is why the discussion matters so much about non-readers - the changes made to make it appeal to the GoT audience make it less appealing to the book audience.  But it's a series of short steps from 'we're changing this to appeal to a broader audience" to "we're changing this because it's stupid" to "you're stupid for like this as it was, and we're going to do it better", and while I put generally put Rafe somewhere between the first and second, I put almost everyone at Amazon firmly in the third.

Oh don't get me wrong, I loved Nolans batman, I hated Superman and the spinoffs from that. I liked wonderwomen on it's own, Snyder Cut was better then Whedon cut but still wasn't a great film. I would have enjoyed seeing "evil" superman but I still think it would have been a bad movie. 

I don't see the change to Lan as much as you do, Lan in the early books has always felt like an Aragorn copy and so seeing a different take on the character I like, but I get why others don't. I was more angry at the change to Elrond in the movie than Aragorn. I do think however sometimes the changes are made because of a view it works better on the screen then simply, the majority of viewers will like this. 

[psmith1990]

2 hours ago, Andra said:

It's not that he's contradicting the statements from Bezos and Price, it's that he's using the term differently.  Just as people questioning the criticism have done in this thread.

 

In that interview, Judkins is specifically saying that WoT isn't that similar to GoT in its details or the overall kind of story it is.  While what Price and Bezos specifically meant was how much of a blockbuster it should be, and the formula for getting there.

 

Judkins addresses both uses. He explicitly says what you're saying, but also discusses the comparisons in terms of 'blockbuster':

 

 "I think when people say they're looking for the next Game of Thrones, often they mean something that pops the cultural bubble and exists in a hugely global space... I think the next thing that does that will be a totally different kind of show. It could be about Danish soccer players, I don't know what it'll be."

 

Implicit in that is an acknowledgement that WoT isn't going to be that, regardless of how many meetings Bezos said he wanted it in, surely? I just think there are plenty of ways to critique the show without dragging the showrunner for not achieving something he's never, as far as we can tell, tried to achieve. 

[Andra]

12 minutes ago, psmith1990 said:

 

Judkins addresses both uses. He explicitly says what you're saying, but also discusses the comparisons in terms of 'blockbuster':

 

 "I think when people say they're looking for the next Game of Thrones, often they mean something that pops the cultural bubble and exists in a hugely global space... I think the next thing that does that will be a totally different kind of show. It could be about Danish soccer players, I don't know what it'll be."

 

Implicit in that is an acknowledgement that WoT isn't going to be that, regardless of how many meetings Bezos said he wanted it in, surely? I just think there are plenty of ways to critique the show without dragging the showrunner for not achieving something he's never, as far as we can tell, tried to achieve. 

Yes he does.

But he doesn't say - in that context of the term - that he told Bezos this wouldn't be it when agreeing to do it.

 

Which isn't really pertinent to what people are saying when they bring it up.

 

Amazon wants WoT to be that blockbuster, whether Rafe ever promised it would be or not.  And they aren't getting it, whether Rafe promised it would be or not.

 

The statements from the fans that poke fun at "Next GoT" predictions aren't for Rafe failing to deliver something he promised.  They are for Amazon not realizing that what he has delivered isn't what they have said they wanted for five years.

[Juan Farstrider]

I think we're dismissing all that Rafe achieved with one short season. Speaking for myself, I got all I could ever expect to get from Rafe's wheel of time already. He did it in one short season. He probably should have paced himself, because I'm folding my cards, gathering up the last of my chips, and leaving the table. If he has 2 more seasons in him, well I'll take everyone's word for it. he's already given me more than I'd ever want him to give me. 

[Chivalry]

9 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

it's just a real sore point with me with the Hollywood machine, and the paying public them to encourage them to take all ages properties, and turn them into something dark, edgy, and villainous, because they can't personally conceive of people being good because they are good.

I couldn't agree more.

[Rmp]

21 hours ago, Andra said:

Yes he does.

But he doesn't say - in that context of the term - that he told Bezos this wouldn't be it when agreeing to do it.

 

Which isn't really pertinent to what people are saying when they bring it up.

 

Amazon wants WoT to be that blockbuster, whether Rafe ever promised it would be or not.  And they aren't getting it, whether Rafe promised it would be or not.

 

The statements from the fans that poke fun at "Next GoT" predictions aren't for Rafe failing to deliver something he promised.  They are for Amazon not realizing that what he has delivered isn't what they have said they wanted for five years.

When myself and a lot of people think "I want a show to be like Game of Thrones", I mean I want it to be well written, have great characters, and strong production value (I can forgive spotty production if the first two are strong).

WoT didn't really deliver any of the above IMO. The GoT comparisons stem at least partially from Amazon and the people behind the show trying really hard to bill it as prestige television, when it really has more in common with cable tv shows.

[wastingtime]

I'm just at the beginning of teaching a middle school English unit about character archetypes and narrative schemas, and it's crystalised for me why WOT will never be GOT, and why it is a fundamentally unfair/imperfect comparison. In the novels at least

Looking at WOT, and despite the intricate world building, cast of thousands and plot twists and turns over 14 novels, it is still fundamentally a straightforward "Hero's Journey". Fair enough The Dragon Reborn has more superhero level sidekicks than most other heroes, and he couldn't achieve his destined goal without their contributions, but his character arc and the outline of the entire story is basically linear and traditional. A 'good' hero has saved the entire world from unremitting 'evil' countless times in stories across all human cultures, languages, genres and ages.

Look at GOT on the other hand and it's not straightforward at all. Who even is the 'hero'? why did that good person just do a dumb thing? Why did that previously immoral douchebag just show surprising tenderness and chivalry? Ned Stark has gotta be the hero of this story right? Oh shit!?!?!? Well at least his son Robb will save the day, right? Hmmn, I guess even courageous military geniuses can be politically naive after all? Throughout both the books and the show (even the last few seasons when the show runners had run out of source material) the audience was constantly kept guessing as to what was going to happen next. And because George RR Martin had no compulsions with developing charismatic characters with believable personalities, realistic motivations and real life flaws... then happily killing them off when it served the purpose of his envisioned story arc, a  huge number of otherwise non-fantasy consuming fans got hooked on the human element involved: while there may have been magic, dragons, giants and ice zombies, they were incidental to the cast of believably messed up humans all trying their best to navigate through the situations they were in, regardless of whether they caused them or not. Even the notion of 'good versus evil', while kind of there, took backstage to the personal and political dramas of the characters.

In WOT's case, for better or worse, that complexity is just not part of the story. Some fans like it in spite of that, some fans like it because of that, and Jordan obviously chose to write it like that for a deliberate reason. It is what it is.

The writers turning it into a screen series then face a monumental (if not impossible) task. Keep it as close to "as-is" to the books as possible, and while you'll appeal to fans of the books and fans of the genre in general, the unpredictability, edge-of-your-seat mystery and deeply conflicted characters (He'd rather be honourable than stay alive? Wait! Aren't those two siblings?!?) don't exist often enough to generate the "Water-cooler buzz" so called Event TV is measured by these days.

But then of course, if you change it too much it fails to gel at all, unless the writing team is truly world class. Aim for somewhere in the middle with an average-reasonable writing team and we end up with mostly what we've seen so far.  

And just imagine if/when the writers do try and "Ned Stark" a character? Given how many top tier characters DON'T die at all, even in the last battle, whatever they do the writers will be pilloried by a large percentage of the fan base. Kill a major character pre-emptively and there will be an outcry. Spend time focusing on many of the second & third tier characters who do actually die in the novels instead, so that when their time comes the audience suffers a genuinely emotional reaction, and the writers will be equally vehemently accused of ignoring the stories and achievements of the top characters.

But then if you tell a predictably linear story following mostly archetypal characters existing within a mostly binary moral universe, no matter how well you do it, while many existing fans will definitely appreciate it, many more unfamiliar fans tuning in to see the "next GOT" (well at least those that tuned in to that show for reasons beyond the frequent nudity & gratuitous sex) will be disappointed.

Makes me glad I'm not Rafe, that's for sure...? 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by wastingtime
sentence structure

[Raal Gurniss]

2 hours ago, wastingtime said:

I'm just at the beginning of teaching a middle school English unit about character archetypes and narrative schemas, and it's crystalised for me why WOT will never be GOT, and why it is a fundamentally unfair/imperfect comparison. In the novels at least

Looking at WOT, and despite the intricate world building, cast of thousands and plot twists and turns over 14 novels, it is still fundamentally a straightforward "Hero's Journey". Fair enough The Dragon Reborn has more superhero level sidekicks than most other heroes, and he couldn't achieve his destined goal without their contributions, but his character arc and the outline of the entire story is basically linear and traditional. A 'good' hero has saved the entire world from unremitting 'evil' countless times in stories across all human cultures, languages, genres and ages.

Look at GOT on the other hand and it's not straightforward at all. Who even is the 'hero'? why did that good person just do a dumb thing? Why did that previously immoral douchebag just show surprising tenderness and chivalry? Ned Stark has gotta be the hero of this story right? Oh shit!?!?!? Well at least his son Robb will save the day, right? Hmmn, I guess even courageous military geniuses can be politically naive after all? Throughout both the books and the show (even the last few seasons when the show runners had run out of source material) the audience was constantly kept guessing as to what was going to happen next. And because George RR Martin had no compulsions with developing charismatic characters with believable personalities, realistic motivations and real life flaws... then happily killing them off when it served the purpose of his envisioned story arc, a  huge number of otherwise non-fantasy consuming fans got hooked on the human element involved: while there may have been magic, dragons, giants and ice zombies, they were incidental to the cast of believably messed up humans all trying their best to navigate through the situations they were in, regardless of whether they caused them or not. Even the notion of 'good versus evil', while kind of there, took backstage to the personal and political dramas of the characters.

In WOT's case, for better or worse, that complexity is just not part of the story. Some fans like it in spite of that, some fans like it because of that, and Jordan obviously chose to write it like that for a deliberate reason. It is what it is.

The writers turning it into a screen series then face a monumental (if not impossible) task. Keep it as close to "as-is" to the books as possible, and while you'll appeal to fans of the books and fans of the genre in general, the unpredictability, edge-of-your-seat mystery and deeply conflicted characters (He'd rather be honourable than stay alive? Wait! Aren't those two siblings?!?) don't exist often enough to generate the "Water-cooler buzz" so called Event TV is measured by these days.

But then of course, if you change it too much it fails to gel at all, unless the writing team is truly world class. Aim for somewhere in the middle with an average-reasonable writing team and we end up with mostly what we've seen so far.  

And just imagine if/when the writers do try and "Ned Stark" a character? Given how many top tier characters DON'T die at all, even in the last battle, whatever they do the writers will be pilloried by a large percentage of the fan base. Kill a major character pre-emptively and there will be an outcry. Spend time focusing on many of the second & third tier characters who do actually die in the novels instead, so that when their time comes the audience suffers a genuinely emotional reaction, and the writers will be equally vehemently accused of ignoring the stories and achievements of the top characters.

But then if you tell a predictably linear story following mostly archetypal characters existing within a mostly binary moral universe, no matter how well you do it, while many existing fans will definitely appreciate it, many more unfamiliar fans tuning in to see the "next GOT" (well at least those that tuned in to that show for reasons beyond the frequent nudity & gratuitous sex) will be disappointed.

Makes me glad I'm not Rafe, that's for sure...? 

 

Not sure “next GoT” is in reference to the actual specific content though, rather it alludes to a fantasy TV series that achieves a blockbuster status…

 

Same as shows tried to replicate Lost or the Walking Dead…

 

Thats the goal, making a lot of money.

[Juan Farstrider]

It seems to be intentionally unimaginative to think it is about the specifics when WoT (tv) is compared to GoT (tv). Like white cloaks are nothing like white walkers or that Rand's mother doesn't cross a sea with an army, or Rand is only one kid not three, so they can not be compared in any way what so ever. Bezos wanted a big fantasy hit that won awards and created a lot of buzz in the broader culture, like GoT did. He the only specific he cares about is income. 

[AdamA]

Everyone knows at this point there will probably never again be television monoculture on the level of Game of Thrones. That was really the last throes of appointment television before the streaming landscape Balkanized and everything went on-demand. They just want something that is a hit by the standards of television it exists contemporaneously with and that penetrates pop culture to the point of attracting casual non-genre fans to take a look. I think there was an expectation that this and LOTR would both be bigger hits than anything else that has ever aired on Prime Video. It's hard to even think of a real comparison for what they should expect at the top end. I think they want something roughly equal to The Mandalorian or House of the Dragon eventually, but it's unreasonable to expect that to happen in the first season when those both come with a pre-established name. It's more like they want future seasons of Wheel of Time and LOTR to match those after the first seasons gain word of mouth and a bunch of new subscribers come on to check it out. For now, I think they'd like to at least match The Witcher for pop culture penetration and total viewing minutes, but long run they want to do better.

[forte12]

Rafe has given Amazon it's biggest hit ever. If anyone thinks otherwise look at the Neilsen numbers for WoT vs. any other Amazon show. This is huge for them. 

 

Not IMDB ratings- those don't mean ANYTHING to ANYONE other than reddit nerds or what your friends at work think, but the actual numbers... against other Amazon shows.

 

It's important to remember that Amazon Prime is a small player in the streaming world, everything is compared to Netflix. Netflix owns almost 50% of the market share of the viewership compared to Disney + (9%) and Amazon (8%). WoT was so successful that it actually boosted Prime's share to above Disney+ for December/January. Basically you cannot compare the numbers, streaming wise, to anything on Netflix as you'll only see one or two shows a year crack the top 30 viewership wise that AREN'T Netflix shows. That's why a failure on Netflix is a REAL failure. 

 

Anyone who says WoT isn't a hit for Amazon needs to pull their head out of their ass. I know you may not like it ( I have my own problems with it) but to deny that it's done well for Amazon (and done well outside of just the online fandom) is absurd.