Is tv incompatible with epic fantasy?

[king of nowhere]

I'm reading a lot of criticism, some of it legitimate. "this character arc is cut short" "the worldbuilding is too sketchy" "this thing is not well explained" "this interaction between characters is not explored enough".

And the answer is always the same: "tv has limited time, the story has to be adapted for it".

 

Other tv adaptation of epic fantasy suffer from the same issues. The witcher has much sketchier worldbuilding than the books, and it's already much easier to adapt because it has less characters. LotR has virtually no worldbuilding, just a bunch of elements that are randomly introduced in the plot; there's very little of the vast world created by Tolkien. Can't speak for GoT because I didn't watch it, but I bet it had the same issues with streamlining storylines. Harry Potter doesn't count, it's got a small cast of characters and world, it's a different kind of fantasy.

Epic fantasy is founded on three main points: a large, extensive, detailed world. Lots of characters. A complex storyline.

None of that fits with the tight time budget of a movie. So I'm coming to think that maybe the reason fantasy doesn't work well on tv is not for any fault of the screenwriters, or even of the meddling executives, but it's a fault of the tv medium itself.

 

Everything that makes epic fantasy "epic" is built on time. Lots of characters. A detailed world. A well-considered magic. And interactions. Lots and lots of interactions. Interactions between cultures, interactions between characters, interaction between magic and characters and society. And all of that requires loads and loads of pages to explore. And all of that has a very steep learning curve where we are introduced to the world, the characters, the magic. We have to learn all that stuff, putting in the kind of effort normally required for a university exam.

The reward is that we get to experience this world and this story, in detail that cannot be achieved by anything else.

 

A movie can't do any of that. Even a long tv show, with dozens of episodes, still won't have time to do justice to this complexity. And so it has to streamline, streamline, cut, reduce, streamline.

there's only two things that tv does well: action and scenery (and fanservice, but let's not go there). Everything else, books do best. Take LotR. Actually seeing the fighting was awesome; the characters? book version was much better. the worldbuilding? was there even an actual worldbuilding in the movies? i got the impression there were 2 cities, with wilderness in between.

take WoT itself: the highlights? the blood snow, the logain fight. all action scenes.

 

Compare with a james bond movie. The world is our world, everyone knows that. If james bond is fighting against the soviets, everyone knows who the soviets are and what do they stand for. everyone knows why james bond is fighting them. so they can put in some 10 minutes introduction, and then have the rest of the movie consisting of nothing but fighting and chase scenes.

Compare with a superhero movie. There's a main character who's explored a little bit. the world is our own, except with superpowered people. short introduction, then it's people fighting all the time. plot elements are introduced mostly out of the blue.

Those are successful movies. vastly more successful than the most successful fantasy adaptations. those movies use what tv does well, and what tv does well is not epic fantasy. novelizations of those movies were not successful, because those stories are not what books do well.

 

I'd like to put in a good conclusion, but can't really find one.

"love this show, because its the best possible, and its flaws are caused by tv" - well, it works for me, but it's not much of a rousing speech.

"fantasy is not suited to tv adaptation, so they should stop trying"? nope, i'm still glad there are those adaptations

"they should invent a new mixed media where you read a book, then the book stops for the fight scenes and you have a video only for those"? dunno, that could actually be interesting, but i'm not much sold on it. actually, by having both a book and adaptation, I can already take the best of both and build a headcanon on it.

 

not knowing how to end, I'll just reinstate the thesis: tv has inherent limitations when adapting epic fantasy. it cannot possibly do anything better than a passable job at it.

 

EDIT: after more discussion, perhaps i finalized a conclusion:

we cannot expect the movies to convey some things as well as the books, just like we would never expect the books to convey visual imagery as well as a movie

Edited December 21, 2021 by king of nowhere

[Ralph]

22 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

I'm reading a lot of criticism, some of it legitimate. "this character arc is cut short" "the worldbuilding is too sketchy" "this thing is not well explained" "this interaction between characters is not explored enough".

And the answer is always the same: "tv has limited time, the story has to be adapted for it".

 

Other tv adaptation of epic fantasy suffer from the same issues. The witcher has much sketchier worldbuilding than the books, and it's already much easier to adapt because it has less characters. LotR has virtually no worldbuilding, just a bunch of elements that are randomly introduced in the plot; there's very little of the vast world created by Tolkien. Can't speak for GoT because I didn't watch it, but I bet it had the same issues with streamlining storylines. Harry Potter doesn't count, it's got a small cast of characters and world, it's a different kind of fantasy.

Epic fantasy is founded on three main points: a large, extensive, detailed world. Lots of characters. A complex storyline.

None of that fits with the tight time budget of a movie. So I'm coming to think that maybe the reason fantasy doesn't work well on tv is not for any fault of the screenwriters, or even of the meddling executives, but it's a fault of the tv medium itself.

 

Everything that makes epic fantasy "epic" is built on time. Lots of characters. A detailed world. A well-considered magic. And interactions. Lots and lots of interactions. Interactions between cultures, interactions between characters, interaction between magic and characters and society. And all of that requires loads and loads of pages to explore. And all of that has a very steep learning curve where we are introduced to the world, the characters, the magic. We have to learn all that stuff, putting in the kind of effort normally required for a university exam.

The reward is that we get to experience this world and this story, in detail that cannot be achieved by anything else.

 

A movie can't do any of that. Even a long tv show, with dozens of episodes, still won't have time to do justice to this complexity. And so it has to streamline, streamline, cut, reduce, streamline.

there's only two things that tv does well: action and scenery (and fanservice, but let's not go there). Everything else, books do best. Take LotR. Actually seeing the fighting was awesome; the characters? book version was much better. the worldbuilding? was there even an actual worldbuilding in the movies? i got the impression there were 2 cities, with wilderness in between.

take WoT itself: the highlights? the blood snow, the logain fight. all action scenes.

 

Compare with a james bond movie. The world is our world, everyone knows that. If james bond is fighting against the soviets, everyone knows who the soviets are and what do they stand for. everyone knows why james bond is fighting them. so they can put in some 10 minutes introduction, and then have the rest of the movie consisting of nothing but fighting and chase scenes.

Compare with a superhero movie. There's a main character who's explored a little bit. the world is our own, except with superpowered people. short introduction, then it's people fighting all the time. plot elements are introduced mostly out of the blue.

Those are successful movies. vastly more successful than the most successful fantasy adaptations. those movies use what tv does well, and what tv does well is not epic fantasy. novelizations of those movies were not successful, because those stories are not what books do well.

 

I'd like to put in a good conclusion, but can't really find one.

"love this show, because its the best possible, and its flaws are caused by tv" - well, it works for me, but it's not much of a rousing speech.

"fantasy is not suited to tv adaptation, so they should stop trying"? nope, i'm still glad there are those adaptations

"they should invent a new mixed media where you read a book, then the book stops for the fight scenes and you have a video only for those"? dunno, that could actually be interesting, but i'm not much sold on it. actually, by having both a book and adaptation, I can already take the best of both and build a headcanon on it.

 

not knowing how to end, I'll just reinstate the thesis: tv has inherent limitations when adapting epic fantasy. it cannot possibly do anything better than a passable job at it.

 

 

 

Strong point well made ?

[DaddyFinn]

TV can make a vast, time and effort consuming series into a more compact one that is easier to digest in our "hectic" world.

[Spiritweaver1]

3 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

I'm reading a lot of criticism, some of it legitimate. "this character arc is cut short" "the worldbuilding is too sketchy" "this thing is not well explained" "this interaction between characters is not explored enough".

And the answer is always the same: "tv has limited time, the story has to be adapted for it".

 

Other tv adaptation of epic fantasy suffer from the same issues. The witcher has much sketchier worldbuilding than the books, and it's already much easier to adapt because it has less characters. LotR has virtually no worldbuilding, just a bunch of elements that are randomly introduced in the plot; there's very little of the vast world created by Tolkien. Can't speak for GoT because I didn't watch it, but I bet it had the same issues with streamlining storylines. Harry Potter doesn't count, it's got a small cast of characters and world, it's a different kind of fantasy.

Epic fantasy is founded on three main points: a large, extensive, detailed world. Lots of characters. A complex storyline.

None of that fits with the tight time budget of a movie. So I'm coming to think that maybe the reason fantasy doesn't work well on tv is not for any fault of the screenwriters, or even of the meddling executives, but it's a fault of the tv medium itself.

 

Everything that makes epic fantasy "epic" is built on time. Lots of characters. A detailed world. A well-considered magic. And interactions. Lots and lots of interactions. Interactions between cultures, interactions between characters, interaction between magic and characters and society. And all of that requires loads and loads of pages to explore. And all of that has a very steep learning curve where we are introduced to the world, the characters, the magic. We have to learn all that stuff, putting in the kind of effort normally required for a university exam.

The reward is that we get to experience this world and this story, in detail that cannot be achieved by anything else.

 

A movie can't do any of that. Even a long tv show, with dozens of episodes, still won't have time to do justice to this complexity. And so it has to streamline, streamline, cut, reduce, streamline.

there's only two things that tv does well: action and scenery (and fanservice, but let's not go there). Everything else, books do best. Take LotR. Actually seeing the fighting was awesome; the characters? book version was much better. the worldbuilding? was there even an actual worldbuilding in the movies? i got the impression there were 2 cities, with wilderness in between.

take WoT itself: the highlights? the blood snow, the logain fight. all action scenes.

 

Compare with a james bond movie. The world is our world, everyone knows that. If james bond is fighting against the soviets, everyone knows who the soviets are and what do they stand for. everyone knows why james bond is fighting them. so they can put in some 10 minutes introduction, and then have the rest of the movie consisting of nothing but fighting and chase scenes.

Compare with a superhero movie. There's a main character who's explored a little bit. the world is our own, except with superpowered people. short introduction, then it's people fighting all the time. plot elements are introduced mostly out of the blue.

Those are successful movies. vastly more successful than the most successful fantasy adaptations. those movies use what tv does well, and what tv does well is not epic fantasy. novelizations of those movies were not successful, because those stories are not what books do well.

 

I'd like to put in a good conclusion, but can't really find one.

"love this show, because its the best possible, and its flaws are caused by tv" - well, it works for me, but it's not much of a rousing speech.

"fantasy is not suited to tv adaptation, so they should stop trying"? nope, i'm still glad there are those adaptations

"they should invent a new mixed media where you read a book, then the book stops for the fight scenes and you have a video only for those"? dunno, that could actually be interesting, but i'm not much sold on it. actually, by having both a book and adaptation, I can already take the best of both and build a headcanon on it.

 

not knowing how to end, I'll just reinstate the thesis: tv has inherent limitations when adapting epic fantasy. it cannot possibly do anything better than a passable job at it.

 

 

Your points are well made but they ignore one key point.  That is how the human mind works.  Most of us process most of our world visually.   Well done cinematography will be equivalent to RJ's word output.  The generally quoted ratio is 1 picture per 1000 words.   The problem is that current streaming business models don't allow enough time or resources to make a true masterpiece.  One of my perceived show self inflicted problems is that the show team spends time making up material instead of pruning and sharpening the existing material.  They also need at least double the episodes they are planning. If this is a success we may  see more episodes or more seasons going forward.   Sure characters and plot arcs will need to be cut but I believe that if I had Jeff Bezos's money and the rights I could make a significantly better show than what we see so far.  I have hopes for the future of this show.  I think everybody involved is talented and it will improve as it goes forward.    In summary there is no inherent reason TV can't be epic unless you insist on watching on your iPhone.   I do agree there are hurdles which you discuss above very well.

[Mailman]

GoT would argue against this going strong after 6 seasons and only began to struggle after running out of source material, hell even the rubbish seasons still got big numbers. I have no doubt that they could have still been a ratings success going into 12 seasons if they had maintained the quality.

 

With quality source material and the will to bring that material to the screen theres no reason that it cant happen. It may even come down to rather than filming a 8 or 10 episode run you increase the season size to 15 or 16 episodes a season and having a smaller number of seasons.

[Jaysen Gore]

The thing I find is that certain genres work best in certain formats. Some ideas, like crime thrillers for example, can work well in many. But consider:

 - Hard Science Fiction that is built around a concept or two that usually can't even support a whole movie or novel; the short story or novella is their best option. Once that one idea has been explored, the story ends, and it's hard to continue once the premise has been explored. I hear that Foundation was radically altered for TV because the original premise was 90 pages, without on screen climaxes.

 - A good horror story can idea usually only sustain a short novel or single movie (or less). While there's been many entire movie series based on a single horror idea, they are either repetitive copies of the original idea, or fall off in quality quickly. Slasher flicks are a great example.

 - Superheroes and their multi-genre ilk  - including Space Opera like Star Wars / Trek, the Expanse or Babylon 5, or S&S like Xena, Conan and the Witcher - are episodic in nature, and best suited to periodic story telling - comics, movie serials, or television. The MCU is this on the big screen, but they still have 4-5 episodes a year. "Tune in next week" is the driver of the business model, and is predicated on all of the toys being back in the box at the end of the week. 

 

With epic fantasy, like LoTR, Malazan, or The Wheel of Time, the issues are mainly a singular story, number of characters and elapsed time. The story evolves over years, with a cast of 100's (or more), and detailed descriptions of the entire world. The only format that really supports that is serial novels. And Guy Gavriel Kay is the only Epic Fantasy writer I know who can do the job in one book, and even he uses a shared universe most of the time. but most aim for that 7,000-10,000 page mark in their stories.

 

Movies suck at showing the passage of time. LOTR had 12 hours, and still didn't come close to representing the approximately 450 of 540 days that are shown in the books. TV sucks without natural break points, because it's hard to follow week to week. Comics move too slow, and short stories aren't cohesive enough. The mini-series is a great format for a great complex novel (Dune, Shogun), but move beyond that, and you're lost.

 

On the "it's all one single story" issue, using a Wheel of Time example, the ultimate payoff of Perrin killing his wife in a rage should be

Spoiler

his cold blooded killing of another woman, who represents the very last on-screen death in the series, and that happens because he thinks that she needs killing.

That's 8 seasons, 64 episodes, and maybe 10 years to get the payoff of a a single plot point. If you don't re-consume the content between the start and the end, there's no way you catch the symmetry.

 

Any time a creative idea is adapted outside it's natural medium, it's less than ideal. That doesn't mean it can't be great, because switching media after the fact allows for post facto editing, but it will never be what it was in its original form.

 

And my last comment at this point - as written, ASOIAF is not epic fantasy. We have no written evidence of a single cohesive epic story. We have amazing characters, and independent stories we expect to be woven together, but to date, Martin has not actually done the work to bring them together.  Like so many fears about the WoT series, we can't assume what we fear / hope will happen will actually happen. Until the multiple threads of the story unite in a singular climax, it wouldn't be recognized as epic fantasy in court. The Game of Thrones TV show highlighted the weaknesses of trying to create epic fantasy in a medium for which it is ill suited - ultimately, you can't know until after the fact which plot points matter, and which ones don't.

[dwn]

Fantasy and Sci-Fi have some extra hurdles to clear, compared to other genres:

• A lot of people don't take them seriously, which can be a huge problem when dealing with the wider TV audience.
• They're often more fundamentally imaginative, and ask more of the reader/viewer to properly engage with the ideas, lore and worldbuilding.
• Since they often deal with entirely new worlds, the budget for costumes, sets and visual effects goes through the roof.

[Jaysen Gore]

36 minutes ago, Dead Warder said:

Not a single TV/Movie adaptation can compare if the original source is a novel... and that is only assuming that the adaptation is making it's best 1:1 translation (minus character internal dialogues). The only one I know of that ever came close was Frank Miller's Sin City. Not HBO, Netflix, MCU, Paramount... no one.

 

Otherwise, yes - television is compatible with epic fantasy, especially if the source is it's original self and not based off of another medium. But even then, with all the constraints and limitations, they are still compatible if it's a re-creation. The reason is because the experience is all personally subjective.

 

I'll repeat though, if the screen deptictions are attempting to perform a mirror translation from a book source, then that in itself is an absolute impossibility. Any attempt to do so will, and has caused, division amongst it viewers.

 

 

And if i may point out, while I love Frank Miller, Comic books are nothing more than story boards for movies. And where Sin City worked for its intended audience, Watchmen - which followed the same creative approach - was a bloody disaster.

[ArrylT]

5 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

"they should invent a new mixed media where you read a book, then the book stops for the fight scenes and you have a video only for those"? dunno, that could actually be interesting, but i'm not much sold on it. actually, by having both a book and adaptation, I can already take the best of both and build a headcanon on it.

 

not knowing how to end, I'll just reinstate the thesis: tv has inherent limitations when adapting epic fantasy. it cannot possibly do anything better than a passable job at it.

 

 

 

I think eventually this is where we are headed as seen by things like the MCU, Harry Potter and Walking Dead & Star Wars.   

 

Basically part of the story will be told on tv, part on movies, part on comic book and so forth.    It wont just be adapting book to a new medium, it will be more like a tree with roots going in various directions, and the story you're most interested in will determine your choice of medium.

 

Eventually we may get to the point, like in Inception, or Ready Player One, where people will be virtually immersed into the story for days on end.     And then yeah, the massive volume of epic fantasy out there will suddenly have its hey day - because it will truly be customized for each individual customer.   

 

Not happy with the look of one of your favorite characters - touch a button and you'll be able to swap out for a new actor.  

[Jaysen Gore]

1 hour ago, Mailman said:

GoT would argue against this going strong after 6 seasons and only began to struggle after running out of source material, hell even the rubbish seasons still got big numbers. I have no doubt that they could have still been a ratings success going into 12 seasons if they had maintained the quality.

 

With quality source material and the will to bring that material to the screen theres no reason that it cant happen. It may even come down to rather than filming a 8 or 10 episode run you increase the season size to 15 or 16 episodes a season and having a smaller number of seasons.

While I don't disagree with your premise, production realities enter into this as well. Cast salaries being the biggest one. I am firmly convinced the reason there's so much talk about 8 WoT seasons is because the production has contract options for the main cast for that long, and not one episode more. The last thing they'd risk is, say, Josha becoming the next Brad Pitt, and needing to sign him at market rates for the last season.  The cast of Friends got up to a million per episode each, before it ended. Now imagine that when your cast is 60, instead of 6.

[Mailman]

17 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

While I don't disagree with your premise, production realities enter into this as well. Cast salaries being the biggest one. I am firmly convinced the reason there's so much talk about 8 WoT seasons is because the production has contract options for the main cast for that long, and not one episode more. The last thing they'd risk is, say, Josha becoming the next Brad Pitt, and needing to sign him at market rates for the last season.  The cast of Friends got up to a million per episode each, before it ended. Now imagine that when your cast is 60, instead of 6.

I dont think you can go into something like this without a firm idea on length. Look at GoT you had martin fighting for 12 seasons, others fighting for 10 and it ended up at 8. Thats also why I think its more likely that you extend the number of episodes within a season from 8 to 12+. You lock in the talent for the series length with base salaries and increases depending on popularity. 

 

This is what went wrong with GoT they started it without knowledge of how to proceed beyond around season 6 and it basically destroyed the entire series.

 

You cant start a epic fantasy series without knowing where it is going how its getting there and how to end it. So for that you have to have a minimum number of episodes that can achieve that. 

 

Im sure they have this set up for a certain number of seasons but what they have given the world is a gutted WoT that does not even remotely resemble the books and is basically piggy backing them on the books name. What you have is a homage to LoTr being gutted of its story and churned out. 

[ForsakenPotato]

I think it depends a lot on what you aim to get out of fantasy whether or not it succeeds on screen. There's loads of folks who liked GoT or LotR and will never read the books because the show or movie is already the version of epic fantasy they like.

 

Easier to do in a book:

- get into lots of side characters and side stories that help make the world feel real and lived in, but don't ultimately relate to the main plot.

- inner dialogue of characters. I think it's a big driver for a lot of the changes in adaptions or why some characters end up feeling very different onscreen. It's much easier to adapt books like Harry Potter where there is only one character this needs to be done for -- we never saw Ron or Hermione's POV in the books so there's no extra explaining they need to do in the movies they didn't also do in the books.

- things that are either impractical for actors or just don't need to actually make sense. What is "an ageless face"? I never thought about it while reading but...yeah it probably doesn't work with real people in a show

 

Easier to do on screen:

- pop culture references. Everyone has favorite lines in a book, but when done on screen at the right moment it just becomes part of general culture. Everyone knows who yells "you shall not pass!" -- probably even folks who haven't seen that movie.

- Big battles. Big battle scenes can be done effectively in books but usually through the eyes of a few characters getting across the general level of mayhem. You can see the whole thing on screen without loads of paragraphs of "he ducked to the left then stabbed to the right etc etc".

- a really great performance by a really great actor can, in my opinion, add a level of depth and emotion to a character or scene that is more nuanced than the equivalent scene on the page.

- a good score!

 

Despite the inevitable comparisons between GoT and WoT they are very different types of fantasies and need to be very different types of shows. Much of GoT is people in rooms or on horseback talking about politics, war, revenge and family wealth. Whole chapters or episodes have no magic stuff or lore or prophecy. Imho this is part of why it was so popular -- it's a mostly non-fantastical story that happens to be in a fantasy setting.

 

WoT seems more challenging to me to adapt than most of what has come before it. It has more characters and places as a whole, it has magic constantly (and furthermore not every character can see or feel the magic the same way) and some of it is totally internal (i.e. warder bonds), it has more and longer source material, and a lot of the character conflict is completely internal (i.e. Rand trying to decide if he's mad or not, Perrin not knowing who he can trust to know about the wolf stuff, Mat and the dice rolling in his head, etc). I don't know yet if I agree with a lot of the changes that have been made for WoT to fit the TV series, but it makes sense to me that it requires a ton more changes than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones did.

[Jaysen Gore]

38 minutes ago, Mailman said:

I dont think you can go into something like this without a firm idea on length. Look at GoT you had martin fighting for 12 seasons, others fighting for 10 and it ended up at 8. Thats also why I think its more likely that you extend the number of episodes within a season from 8 to 12+. You lock in the talent for the series length with base salaries and increases depending on popularity. 

 

This is what went wrong with GoT they started it without knowledge of how to proceed beyond around season 6 and it basically destroyed the entire series.

 

You cant start a epic fantasy series without knowing where it is going how its getting there and how to end it. So for that you have to have a minimum number of episodes that can achieve that. 

 

Im sure they have this set up for a certain number of seasons but what they have given the world is a gutted WoT that does not even remotely resemble the books and is basically piggy backing them on the books name. What you have is a homage to LoTr being gutted of its story and churned out. 

I agree with everything you say in this except the last paragraph; I think the show is still demonstrably WoT. Setting, plot, a version of the history, more than 80% of the character's personalities. It has certainly been pruned, but for the most part, I think most of it is still there, especially when I account for the adjustments I knew they would make switching to TV (Lan isn't the Creator, Who is the dragon, externalizing Perrin's inner conflict, even highlighting the homosexual relationships) But I know you don't share my opinion.

[Mailman]

7 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

I agree with everything you say in this except the last paragraph; I think the show is still demonstrably WoT. Setting, plot, a version of the history, more than 80% of the character's personalities. It has certainly been pruned, but for the most part, I think most of it is still there, especially when I account for the adjustments I knew they would make switching to TV (Lan isn't the Creator, Who is the dragon, externalizing Perrin's inner conflict, even highlighting the homosexual relationships) But I know you don't share my opinion.

Things that worry me in this are for example Perrins wife as the this externalizing of his conflict. Ok you have decided to go this path for better or worse.

1 Don't make her a Blacksmith the scene could have still occurred in the forge but it could have been her going to find him which would have actually fit better with later developments in that he was distant (again not agreeing with the later developments).

2 Don't then lessen this by introducing a apparent unrequited love towards Egwene as the reason he was married to that wife.

 

This feels like a unthought out story line and they are not sure where they are going with the character before hand.

[Jaysen Gore]

30 minutes ago, Mailman said:

Things that worry me in this are for example Perrins wife as the this externalizing of his conflict. Ok you have decided to go this path for better or worse.

1 Don't make her a Blacksmith the scene could have still occurred in the forge but it could have been her going to find him which would have actually fit better with later developments in that he was distant (again not agreeing with the later developments).

2 Don't then lessen this by introducing a apparent unrequited love towards Egwene as the reason he was married to that wife.

 

This feels like a unthought out story line and they are not sure where they are going with the character before hand.

1. I agree that I would not have done it the way they did - and I know who Kyle Rayner is, so I've been dealing with this concept for a long time - but it was going to happen somehow.

 

2. I don't think we know what they're doing with Egwene and Perrin yet. But unlike D&D, I am not at the point where I don't think they know what they're doing, so they get the benefit of the doubt.  I may not agree with them, but for enough of their changes I think I can see why they've made them. By comparison. the last two GoT seasons were just WTF?! and I'm nowhere near that in WoT.

 

I'll use an example with probably my biggest complaint - Steppin. I think entirely too much time was given to him, and they could have told it much more efficiently. BUT...this one issues storyline supports and informs the following:

Spoiler

Alannah Bonding Rand against his will, and her death at Shayol Ghul as a threat

Gawyn's death impacting Egwene at Merrilor

Lan losing his mind when Moiraine dies

Gareth Bryne's death 

Elayne and Brigitte

even Rand and the 3 women

So they had to give it a lot of time and emphasis to make it stick in people's - especially non-readers' - minds, because it matters a lot to things a decade from now.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Jaysen Gore

[UOweTamASword]

41 minutes ago, Mailman said:

Things that worry me in this are for example Perrins wife as the this externalizing of his conflict. Ok you have decided to go this path for better or worse.

1 Don't make her a Blacksmith the scene could have still occurred in the forge but it could have been her going to find him which would have actually fit better with later developments in that he was distant (again not agreeing with the later developments).

2 Don't then lessen this by introducing a apparent unrequited love towards Egwene as the reason he was married to that wife.

 

This feels like a unthought out story line and they are not sure where they are going with the character before hand.

I don’t understand how anyone thinks the show runners have some master plan for the changes they’re making to the lore. Disney didn’t even plan out the sequel trilogy for Star Wars, yet you think a guy who wrote a few episodes of a so-so show is masterminding “fixes” to RJ’s masterpiece?

 

The simple thing is to maybe stick to the material you have (which isn’t too shabby), within reason. But there’s nothing reasonable or rational about these changes - e.g. adding fanfic material like Stepin when you’re short on time already smh.

Edited December 21, 2021 by UOweTamASword

[TheChief]

19 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Don't make her a Blacksmith

I don’t understand why this is an issue. Seriously no idea. Why can’t Perrins newly-created-for-the-show wife be a blacksmith and how does that ruin the adaptation? Really confused here.

[Mailman]

13 minutes ago, TheChief said:

I don’t understand why this is an issue. Seriously no idea. Why can’t Perrins newly-created-for-the-show wife be a blacksmith and how does that ruin the adaptation? Really confused here.

Woman in middle age societies are almost never going to be Blacksmiths they lack the strength to complete the work as efficiently as men and for a character that literally is in the show for 5 minutes it was a choice simply made to appeal to todays sensibilities.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Mailman

[TheChief]

2 minutes ago, Mailman said:

Woman in feudal society are almost never going to be Blacksmiths they lack the strength to complete the work as efficiently as men and for a character that literally is in the show for 5 minutes it was a choice simply made to appeal to todays sensibilities.

Okay, so these women were physically weaker than they are in “modern” ages. Is there a reason for that? Still not following. 

 

so then the maidens of the spear? Are they physically weak but have something else going on? Like super speed or something? How would you explain that?

[Jaysen Gore]

2 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

I don’t understand how anyone thinks the show runners have some master plan for the changes they’re making to the lore. Disney didn’t even plan out the sequel trilogy for Star Wars, yet you think a guy who wrote a few episodes of a so-so show is masterminding “fixes” to RJ’s masterpiece?

 

The simple thing is to maybe stick to the material you have (which isn’t too shabby), within reason. But there’s nothing reasonable or rational about these changes - e.g. adding fanfic material when you’re short on time already smh.

 

My working premise remains that Rafe Judkins proposed and had Amazon accept an 8 season 64+ hour $10 million per episode treatment (excluding marketing) of the Wheel of Time that outlines the overall and character specific plots, episode breakdowns, estimated cast costs, location costs, production budgets, timelines, concerns and risks before season 1 was even greenlit. The whole series is probably already approved contingent on the success of seasons 1 and 2. He basically asked Amazon for $320 million ($10 million per episode and doubled for marketing) with an option for $960 million more dollars to produce the entire Wheel of Time (about the cost of a SW trilogy). The Wheel of Time is going to cost more than $1 Billion over 8 years. There's no way there isn't a VERY detailed plan, that outlines exactly what's going on the screen. And as a result, exactly what they're changing from the books.

 

THAT's why I think they have some master plan.  Because for $1 Billion, there has to be.

 

This isn't Star Wars, with a built in audience but no plot - their lack of foresight shows - they've told the same basic story 4 times in 9 movies. It's not Children of Dune. a true sequel we may never see.  This is the Wheel of Time - a true, self-contained singular story entity. Amazon knows that if Season 2 is successful, there's a market, and they're on the hook until season 8, because there's no good place to stop

 

The "fan fic material" is added now, to avoid explaining it later when it matters, and to give depth to the world. Without Logain, we don't know why Rand being able to channel is so dangerous; without Steppin we don't know why Lan goes stark raving mad. It's TV, you can't just have Thom or Loial recite the Karatheon Cycle or the Great Hunt in plain chant, and consider it exposition. it won't fly. Hence, show don't tell, and making up scenes that aren't in the books

[Mailman]

3 minutes ago, TheChief said:

Okay, so these women were physically weaker than they are in “modern” ages. Is there a reason for that? Still not following. 

 

so then the maidens of the spear? Are they physically weak but have something else going on? Like super speed or something? How would you explain that?

No they are still physically weaker but the reliance on survival has been lessened allowing women to branch out into alternate fields.

 

No the maidens would still be weaker than the men but they have trained and would not seek to battle as a pure test of strength.

 

Its just a fact of nature that women are not as strong as men, when in a society that does not have modern advantages this leads to people naturally filling roles that are more suited to there strengths. 

[Jaysen Gore]

30 minutes ago, TheChief said:

I don’t understand why this is an issue. Seriously no idea. Why can’t Perrins newly-created-for-the-show wife be a blacksmith and how does that ruin the adaptation? Really confused here.

This wasn't me - I have an issue with her being a wife, not a blacksmith.

[TheChief]

1 minute ago, Mailman said:

No they are still physically weaker but the reliance on survival has been lessened allowing women to branch out into alternate fields.

 

No the maidens would still be weaker than the men but they have trained and would not seek to battle as a pure test of strength.

 

Its just a fact of nature that women are not as strong as men, when in a society that does not have modern advantages this leads to people naturally filling roles that are more suited to there strengths. 

Why would the WoT universe  have barriers to women being blacksmith’s if they wanted to? If maidens could be warriors, and women are strong enough to be blacksmiths today, I honestly don’t see the issue. I know exactly 1 full time blacksmith, and she has no problems “completing her work”, some of which is very large. And Perrin’s wife has Perrin to help. So what’s the barrier in the WoT world?

[Mailman]

3 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

 

My working premise remains that Rafe Judkins proposed and had Amazon accept an 8 season 64+ hour $10 million per episode treatment (excluding marketing) of the Wheel of Time that outlines the overall and character specific plots, episode breakdowns, estimated cast costs, location costs, production budgets, timelines, concerns and risks before season 1 was even greenlit. The whole series is probably already approved contingent on the success of seasons 1 and 2. He basically asked Amazon for $320 million ($10 million per episode and doubled for marketing) with an option for $960 million more dollars to produce the entire Wheel of Time (about the cost of a SW trilogy). The Wheel of Time is going to cost more than $1 Billion over 8 years. There's no way there isn't a VERY detailed plan, that outlines exactly what's going on the screen. And as a result, exactly what they're changing from the books.

 

THAT's why I think they have some master plan.  Because for $1 Billion, there has to be.

 

This isn't Star Wars, with a built in audience but no plot - their lack of foresight shows - they've told the same basic story 4 times in 9 movies. It's not Children of Dune. a true sequel we may never see.  This is the Wheel of Time - a true, self-contained singular story entity. Amazon knows that if Season 2 is successful, there's a market, and they're on the hook until season 8, because there's no good place to stop

 

The "fan fic material" is added now, to avoid explaining it later when it matters, and to give depth to the world. Without Logain, we don't know why Rand being able to channel is so dangerous; without Steppin we don't know why Lan goes stark raving mad. It's TV, you can't just have Thom or Loial recite the Karatheon Cycle or the Great Hunt in plain chant, and consider it exposition. it won't fly. Hence, show don't tell, and making up scenes that aren't in the books

Im sure that there is a master plan im with you on that but if we look at the steppin part a couple of questions come to mind.

Even with a accelerated timeline Lan wont go crazy before im guessing season 4ish from Moiraines death thats a long way off. Thats plenty of time to learn the lore of the warders without 1 massive exposition dump.

Are they going to remove Rosamund Pike the clear lead actor of the series. If so for nearly half of its run.

Not all exposition is bad you just cant make it overwhelming. Plently of chances to show the fall of a Aes Sedai and the effect it has on a warder.

I would have much rather LTT vs Ishmael as the shown proof of the danger of tainted saidin than using Logain.

[TheChief]

11 minutes ago, Mailman said:

in a society that does not have modern advantages this leads to people naturally filling roles that are more suited to there strengths. 

Oh, so what are the “modern advantages” we have today that allow women now to be blacksmiths?

 

I have an idea, but would like to hear what yours is.