Comparing Wheel of Time to other fantasy adaptations

[Jaysen Gore]

57 minutes ago, EmreY said:

 

Personally, I'm looking forward to the downfall of Numenor.  But before that:

 

 

 

I thought this was strictly limited to second age stuff - post trees, post Beleriand, post Morgoth, post Feanor. Basically, only the stuff covered in the Akallabeth chapter, and not the earlier stuff. It's a nice image, though

[Skipp]

11 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

I thought this was strictly limited to second age stuff - post trees, post Beleriand, post Morgoth, post Feanor. Basically, only the stuff covered in the Akallabeth chapter, and not the earlier stuff. It's a nice image, though

This is what I had heard but I have no direct source.

[EmreY]

10 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

I thought this was strictly limited to second age stuff - post trees, post Beleriand, post Morgoth, post Feanor. Basically, only the stuff covered in the Akallabeth chapter, and not the earlier stuff. It's a nice image, though

 

That is my understanding too.  Trees as backstory and because they're cool, I guess?

[DaddyFinn]

Wanted to gather some numbers since I don't have anything better to do 5AM.

 

In a large and active Finnish website/forum (io-Tech/TechBBS) that focuses on (gaming) technology and gaming, it seems that WoT has generated much more activity than The Witcher.

 

The Witcher thread:

Started 4th of September 2018

Views 90 913

Replies 535

Last reply 31st of December 2021

 

The WoT thread:

Started 19th of August 2021

Views 37 534

Replies 482

Last reply 2nd of January 2022

 

The Witcher thread was active for a few weeks after season 2 and generated less than a 100 posts. A lot of those were disappointed book fans. Overall a mixed bag. I don't know how many views the thread had before season 2.

 

I don't have the exact numbers but IIRC the WoT thread had ~15k views before the show aired. Around 400 posts have been made since the show aired. There were a bunch of disappointed book fans. Basically the same complaints as here. Some non-book that really liked the show. Overall a mixed bag.

 

Lastly, Game of Thrones as a reference point.

The GoT thread:

Started 17th of October 2016(day after the website was founded. Previous, now mostly dead, website has 6446 replies and 1,8 million views from 2009-2019)

Views 271 876

Replies 2299

Last reply 6th of September 2021

 

Now, these numbers are not definite proof of anything. Just something to think about from a non-English perspective.

Edited January 14, 2022 by DaddyFinn
Typo

[ArrylT]

So I have now watched 3 episodes of S1 The Witcher.   I'll get into more on that later.  Also skip this post if you do not want mild spoilers from any of the first 3 episodes.

 

But I have decided that it is not really possible to properly compare Lan to Geralt, for a few reasons.

 

1 - Most obviously, Lan is human whereas Geralt is not.

 

Or as Wiki states:  He is a magically enhanced monster-hunter known as a "witcher", who also possesses supernatural abilities due to his mutations. 

 

2 - In part because of their differences, Lan & Geralt are on quite different arcs

 

Lan, imho, is a character who thinks he knows who he is, and has chosen to wall off aspects of himself in order to live in a certain way. He has his 2 goals (basically roughly summed as support Moiraine & fight to the death in the blight).  Moiraine notes in Chp 22  TGH and I see this pretty much on point as how Lan is shown over the course of S1 (honestly compare Lan over the first 2 episodes and Lan once he meets Nynaeve).

 

Spoiler

For a time after he left, Moiraine leaned back in her chair, looking into the fire. She thought of Nynaeve and cracks in a wall. Without trying, without thinking what she was doing, that young woman had put cracks in Lan’s walls and seeded the cracks with creepers. Lan thought he was secure, imprisoned in his fortress by fate and his own wishes, but slowly, patiently, the creepers were tearing down the walls to bare the man within. Already he was sharing some of Nynaeve’s loyalties; in the beginning he had been indifferent to the Emond’s Field folk, except as people in whom Moiraine had some interest. Nynaeve had changed that as she had changed Lan.

 

Geralt rather is someone who is sort of like Data.   Different from, but wanting to become more human, and not really sure who he is other than he has a destiny to meet someone.   

 

I think this perhaps makes for an interesting dichotomy.   Plenty of people like Lan for what he represents in the books.   Whereas Geralt is like Lan in that aspect (Stoic aloof warrior) but I get the sense has an underlying maybe subconscious desire to become more human.*  The difference to me is twofold in that (a) as mentioned Lan is human where as Geralt is a mutated humanoid and (b) we get to see Lan change almost without Lan realizing while Geralt is motivated (imo) to change to fit in with humanity.  

 

3 - Powers

 

While Lan has the benefit of the bond, we already know that it also has its weaknesses.  The bond may help him heal faster.  On the other hand it could easily kill him or drive him mad if Moiraine was dead.   Geralts ability to magically heal from wounds has no negative risk.  Nor does Lan have magic powers he can use to control a situation in which he is fighting (Ep3 The Witcher Geralt vs. the striga) 

 

In the end there is no real comparison.   Perhaps one can argue that The Witcher makes Geralt appear more 'badass', but I would disagree.   In each of the 3 episodes of S1 Geralt has either been knocked unconscious, tied up, gravely injured or almost lost a fight to a female (of theoretically less developed/trained mutant skills).   

 

Heck here is what 1 review said about Ep3 

 

"The Witcher episode 3 recap: Geralt meets his match in the kingdom of Temeria"

 

More opportunity for Geralt to show off physical prowess?  Yes.

Proof that Geralt is actually more badass? No.

 

If I had to guess based off of just the 3 episodes. Lan would beat Geralt in a straight sword fight.  Lans bond would balance Geralts mutated physical benefits, and he looks to be the superior sword fighter. 

 

Now what would be interesting would be to see how Geralt did against multiple Trollocs or a Fade how Lan would do against a kikimora.  That can only be speculated on.

 

But going forward I am going to let Lan be Lan and Geralt be Geralt and not really judge one against the other.  IE I'll prefer Lan over Geralt but enjoy Lan for being Lan and Geralt for being Geralt. I'd rather not find Geralt lacking because I am starting to like the character now that I understand him better. 

 

* - Example from Ep1 - why would Geralt care if Renfri kills humans in order to get Stregobor if he did not have a care for humanity and its constructs like good vs. evil.  And if you're ok with spoiling yourself on book Geralt read up on his personality in the wiki 

 

Spoiler

Geralt frequently showed remorse and had revelations in his life. Other times he had complete emotional breakdowns, even giving up being a witcher in general and dropping his morals at one point.

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by ArrylT

[AdamA]

There actually were quite a few Internet complainers out there in season one of The Witcher saying Gerald had been de-powered a bit or at least de-emphasized relative to Yennefer. Sort of similar to what we see here with people reading politics into it, needing to emphasize strong women over strong men.

 

Of course, people on the other side of the US culture war spectrum also saw Yennefer embodying ableist and sexist tropes with her shining moment being giving up fertility to become beautiful and then going baby crazy later.

 

Everyone chooses to see the parts they care about and ignore all else. The truth is most Hollywood writing makes a lot of lazy choices that can offend people everywhere on every political spectrum.

[Deviations]

43 minutes ago, AdamA said:

Everyone chooses to see the parts they care about and ignore all else.

That's a very broad generalization.  I think people see everything but they complain about the things that didn't resonate with them.  When they debate in forums like this, they pick the examples that back up their stance.  It's clear I am not happy with this adaptation.  BUT, I do like the actress playing Nynaeve.  Thom is rougher than I imagined  but I like him too.  I really like Tam.  I loved the Blood Snow scene.  I think the trollocs look great.  I am one of the few that likes the fades (although I don't like how little they've be explained or used).  I don't think Rand and Tam coming down a mountain trail is representative of the Westwood, but I can get there in my head.  Overall, I really don't like the total but I can see some things I do like.

[EduardoEnriqueGonzalez]

1 hour ago, AdamA said:

There actually were quite a few Internet complainers out there in season one of The Witcher saying Gerald had been de-powered a bit or at least de-emphasized relative to Yennefer. Sort of similar to what we see here with people reading politics into it, needing to emphasize strong women over strong men.

 

Of course, people on the other side of the US culture war spectrum also saw Yennefer embodying ableist and sexist tropes with her shining moment being giving up fertility to become beautiful and then going baby crazy later.

 

Everyone chooses to see the parts they care about and ignore all else. The truth is most Hollywood writing makes a lot of lazy choices that can offend people everywhere on every political spectrum.

I'm one of those people who doesn't care about political extremes. My feelings on the show are not based on that. I simply see a lack of talent in acting and writing. Not everything has to be politics.

Edited January 14, 2022 by EduardoEnriqueGonzalez

[AdamA]

1 hour ago, Deviations said:

That's a very broad generalization. 

You're right. It's very far from "everyone." The problem is the people who bring identity politics and culture war into fandom tend to be a lot louder and poison the rest of the discussion, overwhelming people who just want to soberly discuss differing opinions even if they're only a minority. They make a very outsized impact on the discussion quality.

[Spiritweaver1]

On 1/12/2022 at 12:17 PM, Jaysen Gore said:

 

That lower risk profile is why I'm fairly confident that if season 3 of WoT gets approved, we will get the entire series. If we get s3, we get Rhuidean, which will generate enough buzz to get us to Dumai's Wells, which is really WoT's Red Wedding. And at that point, not only will the audience (however big or small) be committed to the series, but it will have broken even even if subsequent seasons don't make money. So Amazon will be justified in finishing it in order to build it's content catalogue and maintain the intellectual property rights which might have a conclude or sell clause in it.

So excuse me while I expose my ignorance.  How does a streaming show like WoT make money.  In the days of my youth TV was paid for by advertising.  There were so many minutes of advertising per hour of programming.  The network made money by selling advertising at a rate dependent on the show's demographics and viewership in those demographics.  For a streamer like Amazon where the audience is already subscribed how are the economics of the show determined?  Is it new subscribers/week who watch the show?  It can't be merchandise sales??  I have heard about a number of different viewing metrics that are used to determine the "popularity" of the show but I can't relate those in a way to balance the very measurable expenditures to produce and market any given show.    If this has already been addressed someplace please point me in that direction.

[Spiritweaver1]

On 1/10/2022 at 5:31 PM, Gothic Flame said:

To show ogier? Or book ogier?

Book Ogier

[AdamA]

5 minutes ago, Spiritweaver1 said:

So excuse me while I expose my ignorance.  How does a streaming show like WoT make money.  

Opaque, proprietary, service-specific metrics that they may or may not ever make public. I think Netflix does something along the lines of # of unique subscribers that play an episode for at least two minutes per some unit of time. At least that's what they publicize. A lot of people think "two minutes" is an intentionally low number to make shows look more popular than they really are. Whether or not that's really what they use internally can only be answered by an employee who is likely sworn by NDA not to answer. Prime Video is also unique among streaming services is that users don't pay specifically for the streaming service. I've had Amazon Prime since 2004 when I had a free student account and I just kept it and eventually they added a streaming service that is just gravy to me. You also get discounted shipping and discounts for shopping at Whole Foods for subscribing.

 

I'm going to assume what they care about is driving new subscriptions more than anything else. A formula for figuring that out is going to be pretty complex. First, you'll want to look at new subscriber activity, what percentage of time spent on the service is watching anything at all versus shopping, what percentage of revenue is driven by the subscription fee itself versus purchase fees and shipping. But they also care about retention, which they'd need to measure via some sort of time series of attrition rates correlated with new streaming programming offered. Combining new subscriptions driven by streaming with changes to attrition rates driven by streaming gives them an overall value just for the streaming service. Then allocating that to individual shows is a matter of something like taking all of the time spent on the streaming service on any show versus time spent watching a specific show and then assigning that percentage of the streaming service's overall value to that show.

 

But even that's only part of it. You can see this most obviously with The Expanse. They saved it in large part because Bezos is personally a big fan, even though they very likely lose money on it. At least in the short run. Part of what they're trying to do is build a reputation as a quality studio. Even a show that loses money on its own might be worth investing in to build brand recognition for the studio, assuming that leads to greater future revenue in excess of what they're losing right now. I think that's definitely part of it for both Wheel of Time and Lord of the Rings. They want these to be hits, for sure. But they also want them to be culture-defining shows that build prestige for Amazon Studios.

 

Before the AT&T acquisition, that had classically been HBO's strategy. Air shows even if no one is watching them as long as they build brand prestige. The Wire was probably their best example of that. It was never popular and almost no one watched it when it first aired. But it had a great reputation and kind of became a cult classic, a few of the stars went on to become really big megastars later, and people kept talking about and watching it for the next 20 years to see what the hype is about even if they didn't watch it when it first aired.

[Jaysen Gore]

Yeah, I think the back catalogue of quality content is a huge driver.  So that they don't run into what Disney + is getting, with people storing up shows, subbing, binging them all in a month, and then unsubbing again. Amazon has the shipping advantage to tie people to Prime, but even that has a big season subscription swing (for Xmas season)

 

Ultimate, I think the streaming services want to be like gym memberships - used frequently enough that it's not worth the hassle of the sub / unsub cycle, even if people aren't using it every day. 

 

It's another reason (combined with word of mouth opportunities) why I think the weekly release model will win out, because that will at least guarantee a couple of billing cycles.

[Gothic Flame]

On 1/13/2022 at 12:30 PM, Skipp said:

This is what I had heard but I have no direct source.

The Rings of Power

 

The eagerly anticipated, multi-season drama is called The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.

As the name suggests, the story follows the forging of the original rings of power that allowed Sauron to spread darkness across Middle-earth.

The Rings of Power unites all the major stories of Middle-earth’s Second Age: the forging of the rings, the rise of the Dark Lord Sauron, the epic tale of Númenor, and the Last Alliance of Elves and Men,” said showrunners J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay. “Until now, audiences have only seen onscreen the story of the One Ring — but before there was one, there were many … and we’re excited to share the epic story of them all.”

This epic drama is set thousands of years before the events of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and will take viewers back to an era in which great powers were forged, kingdoms rose to glory and fell to ruin, unlikely heroes were tested, hope hung by the finest of threads, and the greatest villain that ever flowed from Tolkien’s pen threatened to cover all the world in darkness. Beginning in a time of relative peace, the series follows an ensemble cast of characters, both familiar and new, as they confront the long-feared reemergence of evil to Middle-earth. From the darkest depths of the Misty Mountains, to the majestic forests of the elf-capital of Lindon, to the breathtaking island kingdom of Númenor, to the furthest reaches of the map, these kingdoms and characters will carve out legacies that live on long after they are gone.”

The Lord of the Rings is already considered the most expensive show of all time, with the first season costing an estimated $465 million. The production was mainly filmed in New Zealand. Then last fall, announced it was moving to the U.K.

The ensemble cast includes Cynthia Addai-Robinson, Robert Aramayo, Owain Arthur, Maxim Baldry, Nazanin Boniadi, Morfydd Clark, Ismael Cruz Córdova, Charles Edwards, Trystan Gravelle, Sir Lenny Henry, Ema Horvath, Markella Kavenagh, Joseph Mawle, Tyroe Muhafidin, Sophia Nomvete, Lloyd Owen, Megan Richards, Dylan Smith, Charlie Vickers, Leon Wadham, Benjamin Walker, Daniel Weyman and Sara Zwangobani.

The debut season of LOTR will premiere Friday, Sept. 2, on Prime Video and will air in 240 territories around the world. New episodes will be rolled out on a weekly basis.

[EmreY]

29 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

Sir Lenny Henry

 

I get the guy played Othello once, to mixed reviews, but who on earth is he going to portray?

[Jaysen Gore]

34 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

The Rings of Power

 

The eagerly anticipated, multi-season drama is called The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.

As the name suggests, the story follows the forging of the original rings of power that allowed Sauron to spread darkness across Middle-earth.

The Rings of Power unites all the major stories of Middle-earth’s Second Age: the forging of the rings, the rise of the Dark Lord Sauron, the epic tale of Númenor, and the Last Alliance of Elves and Men,” said showrunners J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay. “Until now, audiences have only seen onscreen the story of the One Ring — but before there was one, there were many … and we’re excited to share the epic story of them all.”

This epic drama is set thousands of years before the events of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and will take viewers back to an era in which great powers were forged, kingdoms rose to glory and fell to ruin, unlikely heroes were tested, hope hung by the finest of threads, and the greatest villain that ever flowed from Tolkien’s pen threatened to cover all the world in darkness. Beginning in a time of relative peace, the series follows an ensemble cast of characters, both familiar and new, as they confront the long-feared reemergence of evil to Middle-earth. From the darkest depths of the Misty Mountains, to the majestic forests of the elf-capital of Lindon, to the breathtaking island kingdom of Númenor, to the furthest reaches of the map, these kingdoms and characters will carve out legacies that live on long after they are gone.”

The Lord of the Rings is already considered the most expensive show of all time, with the first season costing an estimated $465 million. The production was mainly filmed in New Zealand. Then last fall, announced it was moving to the U.K.

The ensemble cast includes Cynthia Addai-Robinson, Robert Aramayo, Owain Arthur, Maxim Baldry, Nazanin Boniadi, Morfydd Clark, Ismael Cruz Córdova, Charles Edwards, Trystan Gravelle, Sir Lenny Henry, Ema Horvath, Markella Kavenagh, Joseph Mawle, Tyroe Muhafidin, Sophia Nomvete, Lloyd Owen, Megan Richards, Dylan Smith, Charlie Vickers, Leon Wadham, Benjamin Walker, Daniel Weyman and Sara Zwangobani.

The debut season of LOTR will premiere Friday, Sept. 2, on Prime Video and will air in 240 territories around the world. New episodes will be rolled out on a weekly basis.

I don't know how the heck this is going to work; if they want to include the forging, the capture, the Akallabeth and the last Alliance over the course of the series, that's a period of more than 1,800 years, 1500 of which Sauron doesn't do much.  And if they follow the decline and role of each of the other 19 Rings of Power, then this is going to be a massive, massive undertaking.

[Gothic Flame]

8 minutes ago, EmreY said:

 

I get the guy played Othello once, to mixed reviews, but who on earth is he going to portray?

Lenny be playing a hobbit!

[Gothic Flame]

5 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

I don't know how the heck this is going to work; if they want to include the forging, the capture, the Akallabeth and the last Alliance over the course of the series, that's a period of more than 1,800 years, 1500 of which Sauron doesn't do much.  And if they follow the decline and role of each of the other 19 Rings of Power, then this is going to be a massive, massive undertaking.

As I posted elsewhere, Amazon wants this to be a success. They want their series to be sitting next to Jackson's LOTR. And at half a billion...it sounds like they're willing to make a big gamble.

[Lethira the second]

Pissing off WoT fans is one thing, the Tolkien scholars are a whole new ball game.  Let's hope that gamble pays off.

[Gothic Flame]

I'm not sold on the script writers McKay and Payne. 

But director Bayona is promising.

[EmreY]

18 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

Lenny be playing a hobbit!

 

Hmm.  OK, then.

 

3 minutes ago, Lethira the second said:

Pissing off WoT fans is one thing, the Tolkien scholars are a whole new ball game. 

 

Three things separate the Tolkien scholars from the WoT fans.  One, the canon books are much shorter.  Two, we actually have access to the notes.  Three, we've had more years to argue over the details.  Still do, of course. ? 

 

My own credentials are weak.  I've got only three copies of the Silmarillion sitting on my bookshelf...  And only in English.  I've got only three copies of LoTR too, in English.  (One each in a very few other languages.)  And Christopher Tolkien's books, Tolkien's letters, a dried blade of grass that once grew across the road from Tolkien's house in Oxford, a pint glass filched from a pub where he liked to meet with friends, that sort of thing.  Not in the least bit obsessive.

 

[Jaysen Gore]

52 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

As I posted elsewhere, Amazon wants this to be a success. They want their series to be sitting next to Jackson's LOTR. And at half a billion...it sounds like they're willing to make a big gamble.

But the whole issue with LOTR is that for all of it's epic scope, it's an incredibly small story. If I look at the cast of IMDB as a proxy for character importance, the actress who played Rosie Cotton is listed 26th. I would bet that in the books (as opposed to the movies), scenes with only the members of the Fellowship, Gollum, and no other characters account for much more than half the books.

 

But to turn around and to try and do multiple settings, multiple main characters (and their individual supporting cast), and then do the whole thing cutting across either multiple generations (the Numenoreans are human, after all)  or multiple settings (Lindon, Morder, Numenor, Osgiliath? Moria, Blue Mountains, Angmar, etc, etc, etc) means this is going to be almost like multiple mini-series with a Doctor Who type villain, and not a single story. 

 

Oh, and by comparison and to tie it back to WoT, the same character importance chart for WoT from IMDB for Season 1 has Tam Al'Thor at 25th, and GoT has Tywin Lannister. Those numbers will greatly change over the series, since alot of the AS and warders are in multiple S1 episodes, but it just highlights how many more people are around in what we think of as Epic Fantasy, even though LOTR defined the genre.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Jaysen Gore

[Gothic Flame]

1 hour ago, Jaysen Gore said:

But the whole issue with LOTR is that for all of it's epic scope, it's an incredibly small story. If I look at the cast of IMDB as a proxy for character importance, the actress who played Rosie Cotton is listed 26th. I would bet that in the books (as opposed to the movies), scenes with only the members of the Fellowship, Gollum, and no other characters account for much more than half the books.

We have a lot of characters but not a lot of characterization. That's why I'm leery about the writers. After WoT and either hearing the excuses for the lack of, or worse, hearing "good enuff" a company paying that much money had damn well do better than mediocre. The writing needs to be superlative, and the characters need to live. 

They have plenty of leeway in this regard. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Gothic Flame

[Lethira the second]

2 hours ago, EmreY said:

My own credentials are weak.  I've got only three copies of the Silmarillion sitting on my bookshelf...  And only in English.  I've got only three copies of LoTR too, in English.  (One each in a very few other languages.)  And Christopher Tolkien's books, Tolkien's letters, a dried blade of grass that once grew across the road from Tolkien's house in Oxford, a pint glass filched from a pub where he liked to meet with friends, that sort of thing.  Not in the least bit obsessive.

 

Aah, but do you have a copy of his translation of Beowulf?  -I ask because I got stupidly excited when I found it on the shelves in Waterstones about 2 months back.

[EmreY]

5 minutes ago, Lethira the second said:

Aah, but do you have a copy of his translation of Beowulf?  -I ask because I got stupidly excited when I found it on the shelves in Waterstones about 2 months back.

 

Waterstones, here I come. ?