Help Please - Amazon WOT Adapted or Based on

[Spiritweaver1]

I am struggling mightily with the series and last night I had a dream about the title.  It was a court scene.  I think if i can clarify in my mind whether this is RJ's story they are telling or Rafe and Co's story.  I separated this topic from accepting the adaption because I wanted this aspect to stand out a bit and then be done.   To prime the pump here is what I am currently thinking.   An adaptation is when the story is basically the same just adapted to work in the different story telling media, book, live theatre, TV series,   or movie.   Based on stories is where there are certain elements in common such as some characters or events but in general the story's are not the same.  

 

Starting from that position I see LOTR as an (excellent) adaptation.  The Hobbit movies conversely are a based on because of the massive new content stuffed in to explode a book into three movies.  I have never rewatched it.  Looking at another genre we are rewatching the American TV series Elementary which is based on the Arthur Conan Doyle detective Sherlock Holmes and his side kick John Watson.   The series is clearly based on since the setting is different, Watson is a woman,  the villain Moriarty is a woman  and most of the stories have nothing to do with the source material.   This is not to devalue the show, we really loved it hence the current rewatch.  

 

However in Amazon WOT's case it is called an adaptation and lots of the discussion in the community is that it is a adaption but it looks like a based on to me.  Why this matters to me is managing my expectations.  If it is an adaptation I can anticipate versions of events and characters that I have loved through the years and I can judge the series based on how well they tell the original story.   If it is a "based on"  I throw out all my preconceived notions and judge the Amazon story on it's own merits and try very hard not to confuse it with the original.   E4 and E5 take us deep into based on territory in my current assessment.

 

I appreciate any thoughts you all might have that would help us (i see others struggling too.)

 

 

[Gothic Flame]

One of the big reasons some don't like the words "based upon" is because the story being told does indeed make detours and changes. And characters and elements are all up for grabs in that regard.

[Vambram]

I believe that Amazon's Wheel of Time series is an adaptation of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time books. For me, I am certain that what we are seeing onscreen, and what we will continue to see onscreen, is far more than "based on" but is instead a very good adaptation.

[Spiritweaver1]

4 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

One of the big reasons some don't like the words "based upon" is because the story being told does indeed make detours and changes. And characters and elements are all up for grabs in that regard.

Exactly but at some point the detours and changes make it a new story.  I am trying to tease out what folk think about that point and where is the show in regards to that point  for them.  Clearly the point is personal and subjective to each book fan.  We probably can be lumpers or splitters to speak from a taxonomy perspective.

[Elder_Haman]

I'm sure you're tired of me referencing "Last Kingdom" but...

 

Bernard Cornwell (author of the Saxon Stories - upon which the Last Kingdom tv show is based) glows about the television show. And this is despite the fact that the show is very, very, very different from the books. Characters are changed entirely. Entire plots are added. Important plot points are deleted. For example: (spoilers for Last Kingdom books and tv show)

 

Spoiler

Father Beocca is changed from a crippled hunchback into a good looking stout man.

Ragnar's younger, sickly son is removed entirely despite his having an important relationship with Uthred.

Brida is aged down, and made Uthred's peer. She is given a far more prominent role in his life in the tv show.

Uthred's family relationship with the King of Mercia is removed entirely from the television show and Uthred's cousin is aged down and made largely irrelevant to Uthred's character.

Leofric is changed from a sailor who commands the ship Uhtred is assigned to into a mentor and member of the king's household guard.

Aethelwold is made into a prominent schemer and manipulator of events when he is not a major player in the books.

Alfred is made relatable and understandable from a third party perspective in the show when he is only ever seen from Uthred's POV in the books.

That's a very off-the-top-of-my-head list from just Season 1. And yet the author of the book seems to love the show. 

 

I think the important question is whether the characters remain true to their inner motivations in the books. And whether the essential plot points for the main character(s) journey are met. Anything that's new should be created only to explore and advance things that are already in the books, develop character, or tie up loose ends.

 

Idk. That's my $0.02 

[AdamA]

Like it or not, this falls into the "adaptation" bucket. They're not changing major plot events or gender-swapping all the characters or changing the setting to modern day. "Based on" is much like what you're talking about with Elementary. Take characters you need to purchase the IP rights to, but put them in entirely new stories you're largely making up from scratch. There is also "inspired by" with very loose connections. Then you get extended universe type of stuff like Mandalorian where the characters and stories are both mostly made up, but in the same continuity with existing IP. Sometimes this gets fuzzy. Clueless is almost exactly the same story and characters as Emma, but moved to modern day. Is that adaptation or based on?

 

Frankly, I don't see how Wheel of Time so far has changed any more than LOTR. A whole bunch of changes from LOTR:

• No Tom Bombadil, barrow wights, or explanation of how Merry got an enchanted sword that can make the Witch King killable, implying Eowyn found a loophole in the stupidly worded no man can kill me
• Aragorn's fake out death
• Elves being at Helm's Deep and Haldir getting killed
• Gimli largely just being comic relief
• Gondor not even trying to evacuate women and children until the city walls are breached
• No scouring of the shire (probably the biggest thing given how important this was to Tolkein)
• Ents needing to be tricked into fighting back against Isengard
• Arwen being perfectly okay with leaving Aragorn and middle earth until it occurs to her via magic that it's actually possible to have children

The biggest difference here doesn't seem to be that Wheel of Time has changed more. It's that you like it less.

[Jaysen Gore]

For me, a great adaptation has to keep the the setting, the characters and their personalities (but not necessarily motivations), most of the important plot beats (not every plot point, but the milestones), and the theme of the work the same.  The closer to a 1:1 match of the 5W's (Who, What, Where, When, and Why) the story it is, the better the adaptation I generally think it is. It should also leverage the strengths of the new medium to enhance the experience, while minimizing the negative impacts of switching (show don't tell vs inability to show internal conflict)

 

Stories in any medium that are "based on" another story, or reality, usually only keep one or two of those factors, and then change a bunch of other stuff to tell a good story. Happens a lot on Criminal procedure shows if you pay attention to those. (Only the names have been changed)

 

Great adaptation:

Dune 2021 - key plot and beats, characters, themes are all intact; changes made to fit medium / cost only. And a masterpiece of the new medium

FoTR -  almost a perfect adaptation, considering the medium shift

 

Good adaptation

The Two Towers - they traded the full Saruman conflict and the Ents extended refusal for a scene that was like 4 paragraphs in the book, and an internal conflict with Faramir that didn't exist. A good middle movie, though.

WOT (so far) - most of the setting, most of the plot milestones, most of the characters, and most of their personalities have survived intact. Not every single point of every single one but most. And it's too early to tell on theme, but seeing as how that's really Rand on Dragonmount and Egwenes speech in aMoL, we'll see. 

 

Bad Adaptations:

Return of the King - Aragorn's hesitancy around the crown was bad, but losing the Scouring gutted the whole point of the story. For the hobbits, the death of the 27 lads and lasses was a bigger deal than the death of Denethor, and the return of the King mattered not all all, except to the 4, and the inability to go home again.

Starship Troopers - plot beats, characters are intact, but theme was intentionally inverted from author's intent to undercut the original message

The Crow - beautiful movie, and a personal favourite for the time, but they removed the uncaring irrational revenant aspect of the character, to give him a heart.

I, Robot - completely missed the point of the 3 Laws of Robotics, which is the heart of the story. And a generic movie.

 

Really good based on the book movies

- Blade Runner. The setting and theme are the same, the plot definitely is not

- West Side Story (nee Romeo and Juliet) - the plot and theme is the same, but the setting is definitely not

 

Really bad based on the book movie

- Argo; the characters and players were changed, real people consolidated, and the truth obscured.  

- JFK: may have created truth out of whole cloth for some people

my rambling on this topic...

[Gothic Flame]

54 minutes ago, Spiritweaver1 said:

Exactly but at some point the detours and changes make it a new story.

They said it was "another turn of the wheel," and Rafe is quoted as daying he wasn't going to follow the book. Add in writers you've a work that is done by a committee, so you're going to get both...