Comparing Wheel of Time to other fantasy adaptations

[BookLover]

@DaddyFin BTW my avatar I swiped from a painting my husband did because I thought it portrayed Moraine after dishing out some balefire. LOL!

[king of nowhere]

On 1/26/2022 at 7:49 AM, DaddyFinn said:

IMDb ratings at the moment.

 

WoT

 

Witcher

 

WoT:

7-10 74,2%

1-6 25,8%

 

Witcher:

7-10 88,5%

1-6 11,5%

 

I picked 7-10 as the "good" group because I think 6 is more towards "bad". Interesting how much less Witcher has 1-6 ratings. Is the show actually so good? Is it faithful? Are there less passionate book fans? Less review bombing? Something else? It would be better to compare Witcher season 1 ratings. Are those numbers available anywhere?

 

For me personally, WoT S1 is a ~9/10 but I think that the 7,2 is pretty realistic for the larger audience. I wouldn't expect it to be over 8 after S1.

 

It will be interesting to see where WoT balances out after it has several hundred thousand ratings.

the reason witcher has different distribution is that witcher has over five times more votes than WoT. this averages out most review bombings. you see that the votes follow a gaussian distribution; centered around 8 for WoT, around 9-10 for witcher. but then wot has a huge spike of 10 and 1; most of them were just people who wanted to support or sink the show. they break the gaussian distribution. if we follow the trend, 1 should have 2-2.5% of votes, but it gets a crazy 7%; it means 2% of those 1 are legitimate, 5% are bookcloaks doing their best to sink the ratings.

similarly, perhaps a 10% of the 10s are genuine, and the remaining are wot fans trying to raise the ratings.

the witcher has a similar spike for 1, but it's a lot smaller because it has less votes overall.

witcher has a small spike for 1 ratings, but it's a lot smaller; roughly 1% more than it should be by the gaussian. estimating the excess of 10 is impossible with the data available.

5% of votes for WoT means 4000 votes. 1% for witcher means... still 4000 votes.

so, if my mathematical analysis is correct (numbers don't lie, but the truth they tell is rarely the truth you hear; numbers are much like aes sedai in this regard) there are 4000 angry book fans out there who don't like adaptations and try to review bomb them. in witcher they are less relevant because there are more overall votes.

I also conclude that an honest review - taking away the 1 and 10 that don't fit the gaussian - would improve WoT ratings a bit, to around 7.5-8. Witcher would still stay at over 9, season 1 was very good.

[Cauthonfan4]

37 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

if we follow the trend, 1 should have 2-2.5% of votes, but it gets a crazy 7%; it means 2% of those 1 are legitimate, 5% are bookcloaks doing their best to sink the ratings.

similarly, perhaps a 10% of the 10s are genuine, and the remaining are wot fans trying to raise the ratings.

That trend is only true if both are of similar quality of shows, and that's just not true.

38 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

so, if my mathematical analysis is correct (numbers don't lie, but the truth they tell is rarely the truth you hear; numbers are much like aes sedai in this regard) there are 4000 angry book fans out there who don't like adaptations and try to review bomb them.

Your analysis is based on you attempting fo handwave away what you want to handwave away.

 

Food for thought but even naeblis gave season 1 only a 6.5 out of 10 and he didn't expect a 1 for 1 adaption. 

[Jaysen Gore]

1 minute ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

That trend is only true if both are of similar quality of shows, and that's just not true.

Your analysis is based on you attempting fo handwave away what you want to handwave away.

 

Food for thought but even naeblis gave season 1 only a 6.5 out of 10 and he didn't expect a 1 for 1 adaption. 

6.5-7 sounds about right to me, too. 

[Cauthonfan4]

2 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

6.5-7 sounds about right to me, too

To me as well. Which just isn't that good. This show had a huge budget and heavy marketing and a fan base eagerly waiting for it to come out and a 6.5 is utterly a failure considering all that.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Cauthonfan4

[Jaysen Gore]

3 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

To me as well. Which just isn't that good. This show had a huge budget and heavy marketing and a fan base eagerly waiting for it to come out and a 6.5 is utterly a failure considering all that.

This is where I disagree though;  while heavily flawed, I don't agree it was an utter failure. I think the bones of what WoT needs to be is there, and if they can show there's enough blowback among fans, they can get some of the hollywood suits to back off and let character moments breathe. I also figure Harris's departure and Covid cost them at least a point in rating for the season, and wrecked episode 8. Everyone blames Rafe - but I honestly don't think he was the biggest problem, even though he's the visible face of the project.

 

Yes, it's rationalization, but I'm basically giving them an incomplete until season 2.

[Cauthonfan4]

22 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Everyone blames Rafe - but I honestly don't think he was the biggest problem, even though he's the visible face of the project

Rafe was the one who decided to put in the stepin arc instead of developing main characters.

Rafe was the one who decided the books weren't feminist enough and they needed more feminism and he was going to write this how RJ would have wrote it today which lead to much power creep and minimal character development, and actually from perrin and egwenes perspective, a character regression from the books

Rafe was the one who said mat was the character who was the darkest despite 14 books to the contrary.

Rafe and his team of writers were the ones who decided to vilify mat instead of doing the simple logical sick person recovering.

 

 

I'd say there's plenty of reasons rafe was definitely the major problem. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Cauthonfan4

[Jaysen Gore]

10 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

Rafe was the one who decided to put in the stepin arc instead of developing main characters.

Rafe was the one who decided the books weren't feminist enough and they needed more feminism and he was going to write this how RJ would have wrote it today which lead to much power creep and minimal character development, and actually from perrin and egwenes perspective, a character regression from the books

Rafe was the one who said mat was the character who was the darkest despite 14 books to the contrary.

Rafe and his team of writers were the ones who decided to vilify mat instead of doing the simple logical sick person recovering.

 

 

I'd say there's plenty of reasons rafe was definitely the major problem. 

see, you're biggest objections are not my biggest objections, so we simply have a difference of opinion.

[Cauthonfan4]

11 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

so we simply have a difference of opinion

Either way, for season 2 to save the show it would have to be one of the...bombastic. And seeing as season 2 was filming before season 1 released I dont have much hope on that front. 

[king of nowhere]

5 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

That trend is only true if both are of similar quality of shows, and that's just not true.

Your analysis is based on you attempting fo handwave away what you want to handwave away.

 

 

i think you didn't understand my analysis at all, if you think i am trying to handwave stuff away. If you argue with things like the quality of the show, then you didn't understand what a mathematical analysis is about in the first place. You may also have failed to notice that I also infer from the analysis that a fair portion of those 10/10 ratings are fluke. And you also failed to notice that the statistical analysis implied the conclusion that the shows are not of similar qualities; the gaussian curves of the ratings are centered around different values.

 

My argument is based solely on the statistical distribution of the ratings. You are free to argue the mathematical method, or the psycology of rating people producing an abnormal amount of extreme results, but you certainly cannot disregard mathematics just because you don't like the result.

 

[psmith1990]

9 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

...and actually from perrin and egwenes perspective, a character regression from the books

Rafe was the one who said mat was the character who was the darkest despite 14 books to the contrary... 

 

When examining character progression (and regression), does it have to mirror the books in that each character should be at the exact same place at the end of S1 as in EOTW? Narratively AND in terms of development? If so, what happens if there are, let's say, later books with much slower or even repetitive beats to hit? Should the show mirror that or maybe is it okay, hypothetically, to either slow down or even change narrative in S1 so that the character progression is more evenly spread through the entire series? Personally, I think adding in the mystery of who the Dragon Reborn is was a decent decision to provide a hook to structure and new viewers, but the major downside was that I do think it sometimes negatively impacted the ability to provide insight into each character in the same way the books can, even allowing for the immediate differences of page versus screen. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by psmith1990

[Cauthonfan4]

10 hours ago, psmith1990 said:

When examining character progression (and regression), does it have to mirror the books in that each character should be at the exact same place at the end of S1 as in EOTW?

No it doesn't have to be the same.

 

But let's take egwene for example.

She went from someone who saw a chance at power and was willing to throw her old life away from it pretty much right out of the gate by her own choice and forced her way into the fellowship leaving EF.

 

too someone who had to leave no matter what, and near the end season 1 and even was the cause for a very poorly written scene that reads like a cw show love triangle.

 

Perrin went from someone who was deliberately thoughtful because of his large size, but willing to protect his friends

 

To someone who fridged his wife and didn't do a single thing while egwene busted them free of the white cloak camp. 

 

Neither of these changes were an improvement of the source material in the slightest.

 

Don't even get me started on rafes whole "mat is the character who battles his darker side the most".

 

[psmith1990]

12 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

No it doesn't have to be the same.

 

But let's take egwene for example.

She went from someone who saw a chance at power and was willing to throw her old life away from it pretty much right out of the gate by her own choice and forced her way into the fellowship leaving EF.

 

too someone who had to leave no matter what, and near the end season 1 and even was the cause for a very poorly written scene that reads like a cw show love triangle.

 

Perrin went from someone who was deliberately thoughtful because of his large size, but willing to protect his friends

 

To someone who fridged his wife and didn't do a single thing while egwene busted them free of the white cloak camp. 

 

Neither of these changes were an improvement of the source material in the slightest.

 

Is it possible that the same character trait can be seen in multiple scenes or scenarios? If so, does it hurt the story or development that whilst the characterisation is still there (it's made very explicit that settling down with kids in EF like Rand wants isn't what she saw for herself - I certainly don't see her initial desire to leave being her wanting "a chance at power"), being ta'veren is in ADDITION to her wanting to go along on the journey? I know there were complaints about the mention of Jain Farstrider in the context it was made, but again, it's part of that same attempt to show Egwene's character so that it's consistent with what you seem to think was stripped away by making her ta'veren. 

 

I'm personally not a fan of the choice they made re. Perrin/Laila, but I also don't think it was character assassination, nor do I think his behaviour in the camp somehow means he's no longer 'willing to protect his friends' and that trait isn't or won't be shown in other contexts. One doesn't necessarily negate the other. I guess, for me, these changes are more on a spectrum. There are ones I strongly like or dislike, but some, while I don't see as an improvement per se, they also don't change things majorly for me. In those cases, usually I can see why it as done - whether to change the pace of character development or because of the visual medium, etc. 

[Rmp]

On 2/8/2022 at 2:45 AM, Cauthonfan4 said:

 

 

Perrin went from someone who was deliberately thoughtful because of his large size, but willing to protect his friends

 

To someone who fridged his wife and didn't do a single thing while egwene busted them free of the white cloak camp. 

 

Neither of these changes were an improvement of the source material in the slightest.

 

 

 

I could have had my mind changed about the whole "Laila the Fridge Wife" situation, but they handled it, and basically everything about Perrin, very poorly imo.

If I axed my possibly pregnant (speculation) wife, dead serious I'd have just walked into the night and let the trollocs take me - I'm not going on an adventure the next day and fiending after my buddies girl. They've sort of written themselves into a situation where they either need to convincingly portray him as dealing with the emotional blowback of what happened while having him still be a good character and moving his character arc along, or just kinda pretend it didn't happen. So far they've done an awkward combination of both.

As for the Valda tent scene - it would have been sooo easy to have a couple of guards in there with Valda for Perrin to hulk out on, while still allowing Egwene to have a heroic moment. Instead they went with him just "lurching around menacingly" while Egwene saves the day. I just don't get what they're thinking in the writers room sometimes.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Rmp
Format and spelling

[Andra]

21 hours ago, psmith1990 said:

Is it possible that the same character trait can be seen in multiple scenes or scenarios? If so, does it hurt the story or development that whilst the characterisation is still there (it's made very explicit that settling down with kids in EF like Rand wants isn't what she saw for herself - I certainly don't see her initial desire to leave being her wanting "a chance at power"), being ta'veren is in ADDITION to her wanting to go along on the journey? I know there were complaints about the mention of Jain Farstrider in the context it was made, but again, it's part of that same attempt to show Egwene's character so that it's consistent with what you seem to think was stripped away by making her ta'veren. 

It's not that wanting a chance at power is why she left.  That was almost entirely about wanting "adventure" - which is why she thought the boys were leaving.

 

  But the chance at power, seen first as a chance at the One Power, appeared as a motivation very early on.  In the show, it would have been during episode 2.  

 

21 hours ago, psmith1990 said:

I'm personally not a fan of the choice they made re. Perrin/Laila, but I also don't think it was character assassination, nor do I think his behaviour in the camp somehow means he's no longer 'willing to protect his friends' and that trait isn't or won't be shown in other contexts. One doesn't necessarily negate the other. I guess, for me, these changes are more on a spectrum. There are ones I strongly like or dislike, but some, while I don't see as an improvement per se, they also don't change things majorly for me. In those cases, usually I can see why it as done - whether to change the pace of character development or because of the visual medium, etc. 

The problem I have with what was done to Perrin - including his refusal to protect his friends and allies in episode 8 (rather than in the Whitecloak camp) - is that Laila was invented and immediately fridged to create an emotional conflict in him that was never what his actual conflict was in the books.

Perrin's conflict was never between choosing between violence or the Way of the Leaf.  We know that he never considered the Way of the Leaf for himself, and that while he wished the Tinkers the best, he knew their way wasn't realistic in a world with bandits and Shadowspawn.  No actual conflict there.  Regret, but no conflict.  His choice between the hammer and the axe wasn't about renouncing violence.  He actually became a better military commander after planting the axe in a tree and walking away.

 

Perrin's conflict was between his wolf nature and his humanity.  And to a lesser (but related) extent, between single-mindedness and care for all his people's needs.

 

 

 

 

In the book, which was mostly from a single POV, it was reasonable to have most of the character development be focused on that one character, while development of other characters waited until later.  In the show, Rafe wanted to reduce Rand's importance and turn it into a true ensemble story.  In that case, you pretty much HAVE to develop each of the characters over the same period.

 

And that didn't happen.

 

Rand's development was reduced, certainly.  But no one else's was increased to make up for it.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Andra

[Lurker_Fan]

30 minutes ago, Rmp said:

If I axed my possibly pregnant (speculation) wife, dead serious I'd have just walked into the night and let the trollocs take me - I'm not going on an adventure the next day and fiending after my buddies girl.

Exactly this. While I know people mourn differently, his reaction and subsequent attitude was simply not believable.

[Ralph]

9 hours ago, Rmp said:

As for the Valda tent scene - it would have been sooo easy to have a couple of guards in there with Valda for Perrin to hulk out on, while still allowing Egwene to have a heroic moment. Instead they went with him just "lurching around menacingly" while Egwene saves the day. I just don't get what they're thinking in the writers room sometimes.

As people have said before, they are trying to build up his leaning towards the WotL. As explicit in Ep8 and inferred several other times. 

 

I expect a conversation at some point about other people doing the violence for you. 

 

9 hours ago, Andra said:

 

The problem I have with what was done to Perrin - including his refusal to protect his friends and allies in episode 8 (rather than in the Whitecloak camp) - is that Laila was invented and immediately fridged to create an emotional conflict in him that was never what his actual conflict was in the books.

Perrin's conflict was never between choosing between violence or the Way of the Leaf.  We know that he never considered the Way of the Leaf for himself, and that while he wished the Tinkers the best, he knew their way wasn't realistic in a world with bandits and Shadowspawn.  No actual conflict there.  Regret, but no conflict.  His choice between the hammer and the axe wasn't about renouncing violence.  He actually became a better military commander after planting the axe in a tree and walking away.

 

Perrin's conflict was between his wolf nature and his humanity.  And to a lesser (but related) extent, between single-mindedness and care for all his people's needs.

 

 

This is not the first time you have said this. I do not believe you are correct, and looking at the various wot wikis I am not the only one, but I don't have time now to find quotes from the books. 

 

[Andra]

16 minutes ago, Ralph said:

This is not the first time you have said this. I do not believe you are correct, and looking at the various wot wikis I am not the only one, but I don't have time now to find quotes from the books. 

 

What part of it do you think isn't correct?

 

In the books, at every time he interacts with the Tuatha'an, he argues that Way of the Leaf is not realistic in the world as it exists.  When Aram takes the sword, he tells Ila that he has the right to defend himself.  Perrin never seriously considers the Way for himself.

 

He loves the Tinkers, and wishes they eventually find the peace they are looking for - even defending them and praising their courage - but explicitly rejects their Way for himself.  I believe he refers to it as a "nice dream."  The Way of the Leaf is never his internal conflict.

 

Does he wish that violence wasn't necessary?  Absolutely.  But that wish never translates to him ever considering giving it up.

[Ralph]

52 minutes ago, Andra said:

What part of it do you think isn't correct?

 

In the books, at every time he interacts with the Tuatha'an, he argues that Way of the Leaf is not realistic in the world as it exists.  When Aram takes the sword, he tells Ila that he has the right to defend himself.  Perrin never seriously considers the Way for himself.

 

He loves the Tinkers, and wishes they eventually find the peace they are looking for - even defending them and praising their courage - but explicitly rejects their Way for himself.  I believe he refers to it as a "nice dream."  The Way of the Leaf is never his internal conflict.

 

Does he wish that violence wasn't necessary?  Absolutely.  But that wish never translates to him ever considering giving it up.

he doesn't actively consider it for himself, but he wishes he could. That is a conflict 

[Gothic Flame]

9 hours ago, Ralph said:

he doesn't actively consider it for himself, but he wishes he could. That is a conflict 

While he hated the axe he kept using it until he got a better weapon.

Not much of a conflict there.

[Gothic Flame]

And speaking of comparative fantasies, Amazon’s Lord of the Rings Series Rises: Inside The Rings of Power

 

 

[Andra]

9 hours ago, Ralph said:

he doesn't actively consider it for himself, but he wishes he could. That is a conflict 

Not really.

He hates that violence is necessary in the real world (who doesn't, after all?).  But he recognizes that it is necessary, and repeatedly argues with Ila and Raen about its necessity.  Wishing that a beautiful dream was possible isn't a conflict, because he always understood that is all it was - a dream.

 

The Way of the Leaf is an explicit rejection of that necessity.

 

This was never an option for him.  Even when he was using violence to protect the Tinkers so they could continue to follow it.

 

 

 

The show turned that into a full-out adoption of the Way.  Which we know the character in the books would never have even considered.

 

 

 

We know - because we are inside his head when he thinks about it - that his primary conflict is between wolf and man.  From the middle of the first book to the middle of the thirteenth, when he finally resolves it.

[Andra]

28 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

While he hated the axe he kept using it until he got a better weapon.

Not much of a conflict there.

And the reason he hated the axe wasn't because it was good for killing, but because that was all it was good for.  In his hands, the hammer was just as good at killing as the axe was.  But it could also be used to create, not just kill.

This is also something we know for certain, because we are inside his head when he says it.  

[Cauthonfan4]

1 hour ago, Andra said:

g, but because that was all it was good for.  In his hands, the hammer was just as good at killing as the axe was.  But it could also be used to create, not just kill

This 1000%. Perrin never really considered the leaf a possibility. 

 

The way of the leaf in a nutshell.

Good quote.

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it"

Edited February 10, 2022 by Cauthonfan4

[Andra]

This invention of the wrong conflict in Perrin is similar to the invention of the wrong mystery throughout the entire first season.  It misses the point, and creates all sorts of problems that have to be resolved that didn't have to exist in the first place.

 

The "who's the Dragon" mystery was apparently created in the belief that there was no mystery in the source material to keep an audience engaged.  And that's just not so.

The mystery in the book, which could easily have been portrayed on screen, was "what does the Dark One want with all three of these boys?"  It's a mystery that is *partially* resolved (by Loial) when they all get back together in Caemlyn, and which justifies the decision to go to the Eye rather than Tar Valon.  And the implications of that resolution continue to be explored all the way to the end of the last book.

 

Because you have changed what the mystery is, and introduced the whole "everyone who isn't the Dragon will DIE" bit, you have to end up with Rand telling Moiraine who he is.  Rather than her telling him, and him  continuing to deny it entirely for another book, and question it for a third.  It also completely erases the importance of both Mat and Perrin being ta'veren.

If the show wants to make all (4? 5?) of them being ta'veren have any significance in later seasons, it has to start from scratch with an explanation why.  While this significance in the books is laid out already.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Andra