Is tv incompatible with epic fantasy?

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

11 hours ago, ForsakenPotato said:

hings 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

Liandrins face looked like a fairly good pattern if they had been trying for the ageless face look - tightened to what looks like a point of physical pain as if Botox'd excessively. 

[TheDreadReader]

18 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".

 

 

Some of this is time and some of it is tv (and movies) are structured differently.  

 

 

18 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

 

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.

 

 

Or, the fault is with the way books are written.  Some books are written in a way that makes it easier to adapt than others.

 

An example using WOT.

 

Book 1 is well structured for a movie adaptation.

Book 2 is well structured for a movie adaptation.

Book 3 is well structured for a movie adaptation.

 

Books 1 through 3 are not well structured for a trilogy adaptation.  

 

The remainder of the books are not particularly well structured for movie adaptations on their own but are well suited for a tv series adaptation because of the structural differences between movies and tv.

 

Two really good comparisons are the differences between the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie vs. the Buffy tv show.  And, the differences between the Firefly tv series and the Serenity movie.  They are both similar and different in their own ways because of the different formats.

 

 

18 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

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

 

Only if you privilege "detail" as the driving force of what is good.   There are other elements that readers/viewers can use to decide whether a story is good or not.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

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.

 

Also, compare the differences between James Bond movies and the books (admittedly I haven't read any of those books in a long long time).   One of the challenges here, is that the James Bond films have, for the majority of viewers, successfully detached themselves from the books and are generally treated as a separate thing.

 

18 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

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.

 

And, yet... comic books have endless revisions, alterations, detail, alternate takes, etc and any one series or films must include only a subset of the source material.   On a fundamental, level fans of those movies have to accept structural changes and some disconnection from the underlying source material (due to its sheer volume).

 

 

 

18 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

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.

 

They are also iterative successes.  Comic book tv series and movies have gone through multiple iterations to get where they are today.  Just look at Batman.   The Adam West series, to the 80/90's version, the Dark Knight series, and the latest batch.   Each was successful in their time and in what they were trying to do but are different in many ways.

 

 

18 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

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

 

 

 

Here are four factors that I would consider...

 

1.) Time.

2.) Underlying structure of different media formats.

3.) (Dis)connection from the source / acceptance of changes from the source material / considering the show and the book as different things.

4.) Iterations and Lifecycles within societies and the "marketplace"

 

Adding a fifth even if I didn't touch on it above...  5.) Technologies & filmmaking tools.

 

 

 

 

[Jaysen Gore]

25 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

You don’t think they’re masterminds but just read the previous posts, including the one below, and you’ll see that many do hold to the false theory that there is a master plan for this series with payoffs to all of these changes.

 

In reality you have writers who are making stuff up that sounds good and, no, I didn’t call them stupid, but have they thought things out as far as Jordan did? Absolutely not. So why make the changes, when you’ve got something better?

 

“Is it so hard to believe that all of the people involved in the show are also artists with their own ideas for how best to tell this story?”

 

I mean, this is the whole crux of the issue. Their ideas aren’t what’s been validated by tens of millions of fans. They’re trading supposedly stuff to payoff in season 3, while sacrificing character development for the main cast in season 1.

 

None of the changes so far have been necessary for the medium imo. But many indisputably had zero purpose, like making Mat’s parents deadbeats and him a reluctant thief. Am I supposed to believe a young man can’t be mischievous unless he’s got a gritty backstory? Smh And don’t get me started on Perrin’s unrequited love, after that I’d lay money down more of the writers have finished the Twilight series than WoT.

 

 

 

@Ralph basically debunked this theory. When asked if they had a plan, they basically said they didn’t develop what sounds like a very rough sketch until after they’d finished season 1!

 

Which honestly makes sense with how Hollywood treats these things. Just look at how the Game of Thrones guys pitched it, the only details they gave were on the pilot, episode 1! It’s much more important to tell the studio execs what they want to hear, than make a long plan that exec’s will just make their assistants read.

You could be right, and I could be wrong. If the series gets picked up, we'll see, I guess. But I point you to Bablyon 5 where someone in Hollywood with a singular story vision was able to create foreshadowing years in advance, and even reduce filming costs by canning shots years before they were needed. So Hollywood is capable of it.

 

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that every change is bad because it's then not what's in the book. There are things in the books I definitely hope they change, because the books are just bad in some parts (spanking, the slog, the general lack of threat from the Forsaken) 

 

Also, to say a change has "indisputably no purpose" when they have not yet shown what its purpose is disallows for even the possibility that have something in mind and know what they're doing. I can't defend the Perrin / Egwene thing, and await more from the show to highlight why they've put it in. With Mat and his family, I understand - but do NOT support - why they may have changed it; it gives Mat a farther distance to travel to become a hero (which they're doing with Lan, too), and I believe they felt prankster behavior that would be tolerated from an immature 18 year old is much less so from a man in his 20s with married friends. And aging up the kids was necessary to send the message that this isn't YA, which would have turned off a lot of potential viewers. Especially since they're not going for the HBO soft porn crowd. I'm not saying it was their rationale - I don't know - but I'm saying there could be one.

 

And I would also challenge your premise of "validated by tens of millions of fans". If even 8 million people read the entire series, I'd be shocked - see the number crunching in the book readers thread. So, from a Hollywood perspective, it is much more important to make something that appeals to the broader audience because if they gain 2 viewers for every reader then lose, that's a win. Sure they want to keep the 8 million, but If they have to piss off 1 million readers to hit 10 million viewers, they'll do it.  Because they already know that if only book readers watch this, it won't get made.

 

I get it; I would also prefer a closer adaptation to the novels than we've gotten to date.  But it would be disingenuous of me to sit here desperately hoping for them to make some changes I want, and then hate on them for making changes I don't. And on a longer timeline, I'm hoping they've made the changes now, so they don't have to make them later to greater effect or disruption. I'm being optimistic, because I can see a way forward. 

[TheMountain]

A couple things:

 

1. I strongly disagree that there is no worldbuilding in Lord of the Rings. It just doesn't need a ton of clunky exposition, because the filmmakers succeeded in making it feel natural. Most of what is hinted at or showed on screen has the weight of Tolkien's work behind it. The statues of the Argonauth, Weathertop, the initial animosity between Legolas and Gimli, etc. What's more, because the movies stick pretty well to the books overall, you can read all of Tolkien's works and consider it canon or simply a more full telling of the story. Hopefully Amazon's show continues with this tradition.

2. The show really dropped the ball on pacing with Episode 5 and 6, which were almost complete inventions. I really think you could have had a solid adaptation in 8 episodes, had Rafe used the time more wisely.

Edited December 21, 2021 by TheMountain

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, UOweTamASword said:

But many indisputably had zero purpose, like making Mat’s parents deadbeats and him a reluctant thief.

Indisputably? Wrong. I understand the purpose completely. They want us to understand that Mat is troubled by the idea that he is not a good person when, in fact, he is a good person. They want us to know that he is ashamed of his parents, but loves his sisters. 

 

Was this Mat's story in the books? No. Was Mat's character consistent in the books? Also, no. We got about three different versions of Mat. 

 

Was changing his story a good choice? We don't know. It may pay off. It may not. But there was absolutely a purpose to the change.

[Elder_Haman]

6 minutes ago, TheMountain said:

It just doesn't need a ton of clunky exposition, because the filmmakers succeeded in making it feel natural.

Eh, slight disagree here. It's more that the LotR story doesn't require much worldbuilding. Apart from the nature of the One Ring and the broad outlines, the worldbuilding has very little to do with the actual story. The "lore" in the LotR movies is just the background against which the players play - sort of a matte painting.

 

In WoT, the worldbuilding is intrinsic to the characters and the plot. You not only have to explain it, but you have to incorporate it into nearly everything. For example: in LotR, the magic is mysterious, vague, and rarely seen. In WoT, the magic is ubiquitous and central to how the characters interact. So while LotR is like a series of matte paintings, WoT's lore is like an immersive video game design.

 

 

[TheMountain]

10 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Eh, slight disagree here. It's more that the LotR story doesn't require much worldbuilding. Apart from the nature of the One Ring and the broad outlines, the worldbuilding has very little to do with the actual story. The "lore" in the LotR movies is just the background against which the players play - sort of a matte painting.

 

In WoT, the worldbuilding is intrinsic to the characters and the plot. You not only have to explain it, but you have to incorporate it into nearly everything. For example: in LotR, the magic is mysterious, vague, and rarely seen. In WoT, the magic is ubiquitous and central to how the characters interact. So while LotR is like a series of matte paintings, WoT's lore is like an immersive video game design.

 

 

Sure, if one is only comparing the magic systems. Worldbuilding is much more than just magic though. Where Tolkien excelled was in the creation of languages, cultures, legends, religion and histories. There are volumes and volumes of worldbuilding he wrote before ever getting started on LotR. I know because I've read almost all of them.

 

RJ does an excellent job in showing you the tip of the iceberg and making you believe that there is a ton beloe the surface that simply isn't revealed. Brandon Sanderson actually talks about this as an important skill for epic fantasy in one of his podcasts. Where Tolkien was different is that he literally created the entire iceberg.

Edited December 21, 2021 by TheMountain

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, TheMountain said:

Where Tolkien excelled was in the creation of languages, cultures, legends, religion and histories. There are volumes and volumes of worldbuilding he wrote before ever getting started on LotR. I know because I've read almost all of them.

100%. I'm not arguing about whether Tolkien created vast amounts of lore. I've lived and breathed Tolkien since I was 5.

 

I'm talking about translating the stories to a visual medium. The LotR movies didn't have to incorporate nearly as much worldbuilding as WoT does to make sense. LotR was free to use broad strokes because - at the end of the day - it isn't necessary to understand Middle Earth intimately to understand Frodo's quest. The same isn't true of Randland.

[Ralph]

2 hours ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

 

None of the changes so far have been necessary for the medium imo. But many indisputably had zero purpose, like making Mat’s parents deadbeats and him a reluctant thief. Am I supposed to believe a young man can’t be mischievous unless he’s got a gritty backstory? Smh And don’t get me started on Perrin’s unrequited love, after that I’d lay money down more of the writers have finished the Twilight series than WoT.

 

Indisputably is indisputably the wrong word to use over here... 

 

2 hours ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

 

 

@Ralph basically debunked this theory. When asked if they had a plan, they basically said they didn’t develop what sounds like a very rough sketch until after they’d finished season 1!

 

 

Sorry, but that is not what they said. RJII has said several times that he planned the whole series before starting. All I said was he never planned episode by episode, or even season by season. 

[UOweTamASword]

1 hour ago, Jaysen Gore said:

You could be right, and I could be wrong. If the series gets picked up, we'll see, I guess. But I point you to Bablyon 5 where someone in Hollywood with a singular story vision was able to create foreshadowing years in advance, and even reduce filming costs by canning shots years before they were needed. So Hollywood is capable of it.

 

I fundamentally disagree with the premise that every change is bad because it's then not what's in the book. There are things in the books I definitely hope they change, because the books are just bad in some parts (spanking, the slog, the general lack of threat from the Forsaken) 

 

Also, to say a change has "indisputably no purpose" when they have not yet shown what its purpose is disallows for even the possibility that have something in mind and know what they're doing. I can't defend the Perrin / Egwene thing, and await more from the show to highlight why they've put it in. With Mat and his family, I understand - but do NOT support - why they may have changed it; it gives Mat a farther distance to travel to become a hero (which they're doing with Lan, too), and I believe they felt prankster behavior that would be tolerated from an immature 18 year old is much less so from a man in his 20s with married friends. And aging up the kids was necessary to send the message that this isn't YA, which would have turned off a lot of potential viewers. Especially since they're not going for the HBO soft porn crowd. I'm not saying it was their rationale - I don't know - but I'm saying there could be one.

 

And I would also challenge your premise of "validated by tens of millions of fans". If even 8 million people read the entire series, I'd be shocked - see the number crunching in the book readers thread. So, from a Hollywood perspective, it is much more important to make something that appeals to the broader audience because if they gain 2 viewers for every reader then lose, that's a win. Sure they want to keep the 8 million, but If they have to piss off 1 million readers to hit 10 million viewers, they'll do it.  Because they already know that if only book readers watch this, it won't get made.

 

I get it; I would also prefer a closer adaptation to the novels than we've gotten to date.  But it would be disingenuous of me to sit here desperately hoping for them to make some changes I want, and then hate on them for making changes I don't. And on a longer timeline, I'm hoping they've made the changes now, so they don't have to make them later to greater effect or disruption. I'm being optimistic, because I can see a way forward. 

 

I think this may be the fundamental disconnect for a lot of people who dislike the show and those who defend it: "the books are just bad in some parts".

 

There are legitimately many who apparently read the entire Wheel of Time and even call it their favorite series, who apparently were hoping for it to be fixed or changed. I don't feel I'm alone in saying that I liked the series very much as it was and is, and didn't expect or hope for *anything* to be fixed when they adapted it to the screen.

 

That doesn't mean I demand a 1:1 adaptation (let's get that strawman out of the way), but there weren't parts of the books I read and ever said: "Well, man, Jordan messed up big time there! Wish I could change it to something better." Did I agree with literally everything that happened or think it was a perfect masterpiece above critique? No, but then again I didn't want to read my personal utopia, I want to experience another world and respected Jordan's singular and genuine vision, flaws and all.

 

I'm not sure we can reconcile those viewpoints honestly. I guess I should be happy some people are getting the WoT they wanted all along, and I should just be happy I already got mine in print form.

 

On the "indisputably" thing, read what I say to others below who took issue with the wording.

 

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

Indisputably? Wrong. I understand the purpose completely. They want us to understand that Mat is troubled by the idea that he is not a good person when, in fact, he is a good person. They want us to know that he is ashamed of his parents, but loves his sisters. 

 

Was this Mat's story in the books? No. Was Mat's character consistent in the books? Also, no. We got about three different versions of Mat. 

 

Was changing his story a good choice? We don't know. It may pay off. It may not. But there was absolutely a purpose to the change.

 

When I said "indisputably", in the context of the conversation I was having I meant that they indisputably had no purpose that was made necessary when translating from the written medium to the film medium. Obviously everything you do could have a purpose when interpreted with infinite understanding, so "indisputably" will always be disputed when viewed in that lens.

 

I think Mat stealing the dagger and being a jerk about it gets that point across very clearly already that Mat is flawed and has reasons to doubt himself, but I suppose some did not. I have no idea what you mean about "three different versions of Mat", unless you're talking about Jordan's version and Sanderson's, who I agree are two different people. But that's not Sanderson's fault, I don't think anyone could write Mat the way Jordan did as well as he did.

 

13 minutes ago, Ralph said:

 

Indisputably is indisputably the wrong word to use over here... 

 

Sorry, but that is not what they said. RJII has said several times that he planned the whole series before starting. All I said was he never planned episode by episode, or even season by season. 

 

See my above comment on "indisputably".

 

What you quoted Rafe as saying was: "between Season One and Two we made a rough map of how the series could break down into seasons." First of all, that does debunk the episode by episode theory that I was responding to.

 

Second of all, no idea what issue you're taking with my paraphrase of it. If they haven't even bothered to make a "rough map" to break down what books would go into what seasons and how, then how could Rafe be said to have "planned the whole series before starting"?? The two concepts seem entirely at odds.

 

Unless you mean he had a general outline of the overall plot: in which case, no kidding, we all have a copy of that on our bookshelves!

[Ralph]

5 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

I think this may be the fundamental disconnect for a lot of people who dislike the show and those who defend it: "the books are just bad in some parts".

 

There are legitimately many who apparently read the entire Wheel of Time and even call it their favorite series, who apparently were hoping for it to be fixed or changed. I don't feel I'm alone in saying that I liked the series very much as it was and is, and didn't expect or hope for *anything* to be fixed when they adapted it to the screen.

 

That doesn't mean I demand a 1:1 adaptation (let's get that strawman out of the way), but there weren't parts of the books I read and ever said: "Well, man, Jordan messed up big time there! Wish I could change it to something better." Did I agree with literally everything that happened or think it was a perfect masterpiece above critique? No, but then again I didn't want to read my personal utopia, I want to experience another world and respected Jordan's singular and genuine vision, flaws and all.

 

I'm not sure we can reconcile those viewpoints honestly. I guess I should be happy some people are getting the WoT they wanted all along, and I should just be happy I already got mine in print form.

 

I loved the books, and would be happy to see it all on screen. But I understand why they are changing things and am enjoying it as is. 

 

I think we should stop trying to look for a fundamental difference between those who like it and those who don't. There are all types of readers in all camps. 

 

5 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

On the "indisputably" thing, read what I say to others below who took issue with the wording.

 

 

When I said "indisputably", in the context of the conversation I was having I meant that they indisputably had no purpose that was made necessary when translating from the written medium to the film medium. Obviously everything you do could have a purpose when interpreted with infinite understanding, so "indisputably" will always be disputed when viewed in that lens.

 

I think Mat stealing the dagger and being a jerk about it gets that point across very clearly already that Mat is flawed and has reasons to doubt himself, but I suppose some did not. I have no idea what you mean about "three different versions of Mat", unless you're talking about Jordan's version and Sanderson's, who I agree are two different people. But that's not Sanderson's fault, I don't think anyone could write Mat the way Jordan did as well as he did.

 

This is also disputable. 

 

5 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

 

See my above comment on "indisputably".

 

What you quoted Rafe as saying was: "between Season One and Two we made a rough map of how the series could break down into seasons." First of all, that does debunk the episode by episode theory that I was responding to.

 

Second of all, no idea what issue you're taking with my paraphrase of it. If they haven't even bothered to make a "rough map" to break down what books would go into what seasons and how, then how could Rafe be said to have "planned the whole series before starting"?? The two concepts seem entirely at odds.

 

Unless you mean he had a general outline of the overall plot: in which case, no kidding, we all have a copy of that on our bookshelves!

 

Because I assume planned which points would def shown, which major changes would be made, which major points may have to be missed, etc. Just not exactly season by season. 

 

Sorry not the same

[UOweTamASword]

26 minutes ago, Ralph said:

 

I loved the books, and would be happy to see it all on screen. But I understand why they are changing things and am enjoying it as is. 

 

I think we should stop trying to look for a fundamental difference between those who like it and those who don't. There are all types of readers in all camps. 

 

 

This is also disputable. 

 

 

Because I assume planned which points would def shown, which major changes would be made, which major points may have to be missed, etc. Just not exactly season by season. 

 

Sorry not the same

 

I didn't say all who like it or don't have the same fundamental difference(s). I just said that this is a fundamental difference for "a lot of" people and if you don't recognize it then you'll just be talking past each other.

 

One person wants the story to be fixed/changed and the other doesn't, of course those two groups of people will disagree on the merits (or lack thereof) of altering the story. I think @Jaysen Gore said it very well: "it would be disingenuous of me to sit here desperately hoping for them to make some changes I want, and then hate on them for making changes I don't". The emphasis mine. Here I am desperately hoping they change as little as they can get away with, so we're approaching every change with the exact opposite mindset.

 

Its like two people observe a change and are thinking: "This might mean they'll change something else further down the road." To one person, this is great news and hopeful. To another, this is bad news and worrisome.

 

Ah, I wouldn't be shocked if Rafe had a general idea in his head of what he wanted to cut/add throughout. He's even expressed as such on Twitter in small ways (he wants to introduce LGBTQ here, feminism there, etc.). To me that's nowhere near planning "the whole series before starting". Just like with the indisputably topic, here we are probably arguing semantics rather than meaningful ideas.

 

If Amazon ever leaks his pitch/treatment, probably 10+ years from now, I'll be quite surprised if its half as detailed as what many here are hoping and assuming.

Edited December 21, 2021 by UOweTamASword

[Jaysen Gore]

1 hour ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

I think this may be the fundamental disconnect for a lot of people who dislike the show and those who defend it: "the books are just bad in some parts".

 

There are legitimately many who apparently read the entire Wheel of Time and even call it their favorite series, who apparently were hoping for it to be fixed or changed. I don't feel I'm alone in saying that I liked the series very much as it was and is, and didn't expect or hope for *anything* to be fixed when they adapted it to the screen.

 

That doesn't mean I demand a 1:1 adaptation (let's get that strawman out of the way), but there weren't parts of the books I read and ever said: "Well, man, Jordan messed up big time there! Wish I could change it to something better." Did I agree with literally everything that happened or think it was a perfect masterpiece above critique? No, but then again I didn't want to read my personal utopia, I want to experience another world and respected Jordan's singular and genuine vision, flaws and all.

 

I'm not sure we can reconcile those viewpoints honestly. I guess I should be happy some people are getting the WoT they wanted all along, and I should just be happy I already got mine in print form.

 

<<Snip>>

It probably is impossible to reconcile, because they're opinions. That doesn't make people on either side enemies, or the showrunners guilty of killing childhood dreams. And it doesn't make this worth debating, because art is always subject to interpretation

 

I also have and can enjoy the books whenever I want, and I do think it's one of the best Fantasy series every written.  But I also accept that simply converting from novel to screen will generate a number of changes, scaling from the ruby in the haft instead of the pommel because it looks better on screen, to armies one-tenth the size because of the realities of production. We also know that the story will be broken into pieces differently for dramatic tension, since we're not getting a 1 book to 1 season adaptation. And yes, we know they will add "hollywood-isms" to give viewers a way in to this complex world

 

With all those changes, IMO, also comes an golden opportunity that shouldn't be missed - namely the ability to do an editorial pass on The Wheel of Time as a single work of art, instead of an independent series of novels that had their own narrative structures, and were locked when published.  That could entail adding earlier set pieces that better illustrate key concepts (showing Logain instead of a throw away line), small things that may serve as Foreshadowing (Birgitte doll), to shifting critical plot lines to a later point in the series so that a character doesn't evolve for books on end (Perrin). No author of a multibook series has the luxury of doing a two pass edit for the entire series, and each individual book in it before releasing the first book.  

 

I'm not saying change for change sake, I'm saying start with what Jordan wrote, figure out how much you can keep in the time you have, rearrange those pieces into as balanced, cohesive and faithful narrative as you can, and then fit in more stuff - created or not - that helps you hold that new structure in place and tell the best story you can.  I get it - the last piece is where the problem is, but if they keep the bulk of it, I'm not going to complain about Aes Sedai not wearing shawls.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Jaysen Gore

[UOweTamASword]

5 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

It probably is impossible to reconcile, because they're opinions. That doesn't make people on either side enemies, or the showrunners guilty of killing childhood dreams. And it doesn't make this worth debating, because art is always subject to interpretation

 

I also have and can enjoy the books whenever I want, and I do think it's one of the best Fantasy series every written.  But I also accept that simply converting from novel to screen will generate a number of changes, scaling from the ruby in the haft instead of the pommel because it looks better on screen, to armies one-tenth the size because of the realities of production. We also know that the story will be broken into pieces differently for dramatic tension, since we're not getting a 1 book to 1 season adaptation. And yes, we know they will add "hollywood-isms" to give viewers a way in to this complex world

 

With all those changes, IMO, also comes an golden opportunity that shouldn't be missed - namely the ability to do an editorial pass on The Wheel of Time as a single work of art, instead of an independent series of novels that had their own narrative structures, and were locked when published.  That could entail adding earlier set pieces that better illustrate key concepts (showing Logain instead of a throw away line), small things that may serve as Foreshadowing (Birgitte doll), to shifting critical plot lines to a later point in the series so that a character doesn't evolve for books on end (Perrin). No author of a multibook series has the luxury of doing a two pass edit for the entire series, and each individual book in it before releasing the first book.  

 

I'm not saying change for change sake, I'm saying start with what Jordan wrote, figure out how much you can keep in the time you have, rearrange those pieces into as cohesive narrative as you can, and then fit in more stuff - created or not - that helps you hold that new structure in place and tell the best story you can.  I get it - the last piece is where the problem is, but if they keep the bulk of it, I'm not going to complain about Aes Sedai not wearing shawls.

 

Your post (and third paragraph in particular) is hard to disagree with because its all about adding to the lore or making minor alterations, not changing it or cutting "bad" parts out. Its a bit different in tone from the ""the books are just bad in some parts" quote from before though, and cutting/changing parts you find "bad" like your examples from before.

 

That's what I see happening in the show and what people take issue with. Very few had issue with say, that scene where Logain healed that person despite the taint telling him to kill them. That's consistent with his character (likeable and deep down not a bad person) and even added to it. But say, making Lan less stoic and the kind of guy who would get on his knees and sob/scream like a baby in front of everyone - that's not adding to any lore, that's just change for the sake of it. And if you found Lan's stoicism problematic and "toxic" in the books, its good, but if not, you are probably totally bewildered.

 

As I said in my reply to Ralph, if you're "desperately hoping" for change/fixes, these changes are hopeful for you. But if you're not, these changes are just a sign of more to come, and that's not a good thing. So we're not enemies, but our viewpoints on the show are bound to be night and day.

 

That said, I don't see you as my enemy and I hope it didn't come across that way. It is a small silver lining to me that you and others are getting the edited Wheel of Time you apparently wanted, even if I never wanted those edits and find them so distasteful that I can't watch them.

[Theseus78]

4 hours ago, UOweTamASword said:

In reality you have writers who are making stuff up that sounds good and, no, I didn’t call them stupid, but have they thought things out as far as Jordan did? Absolutely not. So why make the changes, when you’ve got something better?

 

Except that they've explicitly said that they think these changes through, and have consultants that they ask about the long-term implications of changes.

[Ralph]

18 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

 

As I said in my reply to Ralph, if you're "desperately hoping" for change/fixes, these changes are hopeful for you. But if you're not, these changes are just a sign of more to come, and that's not a good thing. So we're not enemies, but our viewpoints on the show are bound to be night and day.

Not sure if that was meant to be about me, but I (and many others) were not desperately hoping for these things to be changed, or even happy they were changed. But we are able to try to understand why the show runners wanted to change it, and reconcile ourselves with that, and enjoy the show. 

 

18 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

That said, I don't see you as my enemy and I hope it didn't come across that way. It is a small silver lining to me that you and others are getting the edited Wheel of Time you apparently wanted, even if I never wanted those edits and find them so distasteful that I can't watch them.

 

Sorry! I am very sad that you can't.

Not because everyone enjoying it "apparently wanted", but because we are able to accommodate ourselves with the changes and enjoy the show 1) in itself, and 2) (for some of us) as a story that has within it the main points of WOT, with relatively minor changes as regards the overarching story. 

 

I am sorry they are so distasteful for you that you can't enjoy it. 

[UOweTamASword]

2 minutes ago, Theseus78 said:

Except that they've explicitly said that they think these changes through, and have consultants that they ask about the long-term implications of changes.

 

Thinking things through is really a spectrum and so it doesn't mean much on its own. I can move a piece in a game of Chess and think the move ahead 1 turn. Or I can think it ahead 10 turns or more. I can't ever think it through to the end of the game unless I'm very near Checkmate. Either way I correctly claim to have "thought it through" and you have no idea what I really meant by that until you see me lose horribly or win brilliantly.

 

Jordan already played the game to Checkmate, so we know the fruits of his thinking it through. Most of us liked it and agree he won brilliantly. Why change a winning strategy?

 

And regarding "consultants" - we already know from Sanderson that they've ignored their most qualified consultant in certain instances, if they can brush Sanderson's opinion off they can brush anybody off. And from the way he talked (my interpretation), they brought him in the process when the scripts were almost entirely complete so it really sounded like he was there to make minor tweaks.

[Sabio]

I think an epic fantasy series can be made into a good TV show.  But alot of things have to be taken into account.  How many books are you dealing with, how much time will you have to show it, what's your budget etc..  A series like GOT where the person who made it has TV experience can write a series and make it easier to adapt.  When he made GOT he probably was thinking of it becoming a series TV later on.  When WOT was mad, RJ at the time probably never thought about it becoming a series.  Anytime a book is made into a series you have to accept there will be some changes, it's simply impossible to go into such depth and detail in a TV show as you can in a book.

[Jaysen Gore]

3 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

Your post (and third paragraph in particular) is hard to disagree with because its all about adding to the lore or making minor alterations, not changing it or cutting "bad" parts out. Its a bit different in tone from the ""the books are just bad in some parts" quote from before though, and cutting/changing parts you find "bad" like your examples from before.

 

That's what I see happening in the show and what people take issue with. Very few had issue with say, that scene where Logain healed that person despite the taint telling him to kill them. That's consistent with his character (likeable and deep down not a bad person) and even added to it. But say, making Lan less stoic and the kind of guy who would get on his knees and sob/scream like a baby in front of everyone - that's not adding to any lore, that's just change for the sake of it. And if you found Lan's stoicism problematic and "toxic" in the books, its good, but if not, you are probably totally bewildered.

 

As I said in my reply to Ralph, if you're "desperately hoping" for change/fixes, these changes are hopeful for you. But if you're not, these changes are just a sign of more to come, and that's not a good thing. So we're not enemies, but our viewpoints on the show are bound to be night and day.

 

That said, I don't see you as my enemy and I hope it didn't come across that way. It is a small silver lining to me that you and others are getting the edited Wheel of Time you apparently wanted, even if I never wanted those edits and find them so distasteful that I can't watch them.

For context, here's a few changes I'm desperately hoping get made. And they are definitely cutting away

- eliminate the Shaido at Dumai's Wells. Just gone.

- radically shorten Perrin's 3 book hunt for Faile

- greatly reduce Elayne's political games in Camelyn

- eliminate the resurrected Forsaken

I'll start with just that, and see how much of what's left I can fit in 8 seasons. If I still need more, than Morgase dies at Rahvin's hands, there's no WT embassy to the BT, and people get on and off boats, but don't spend time on them learning to channel.

 

From there, rebalance / schedule the remaining storylines so characters have a smooth arc over the length of the series, and maybe make changes to respond to the above pruning.

 

The Lan change, as I posted elsewhere, I knew was coming, and I include here as a Hollywood-ism. I don't like it, or Mat's family changes. But I have known since LoTR and the first DCU movies that this is always going to happen. Stoicism is not tolerated, and heroes cannot appear on screen fully formed. It's against the Hollywood rules of engagement. I'm neutral on the Who Is the Dragon stuff, and while I despised Layla's fridging, the harsh truth is it does crudely fix the problem of externalizing Perrin's inner conflict.

[Spiritweaver1]

15 hours 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. 

Really now.  Are you sure that what you meant to say is that women aren't as strong as men.  There are plenty of women who are stronger than most men in our culture today.  Perhaps you meant to say that the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women.  The fact is that muscle strength, like every other human characteristic, manifests in a bellcurve range in the sexes.  I would also posit that the aiel spear fighting methods actually favor a trained woman where speed and agility would matter more than pure strength.  

 

Cultures have a tendency to force people into roles that fit the ideals of the culture. Caste system anyone? That is why, IMHO, the  most advanced cultures are those who let people flourish and find productive work that best fits their desires and abilities regardless of where they started or what group they started from.  I loved RJ's idea of the maidens of the spear.  Of course he stole it from the Greeks.  

 

[TheDreadReader]

 

2 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

 

Thinking things through is really a spectrum and so it doesn't mean much on its own. I can move a piece in a game of Chess and think the move ahead 1 turn. Or I can think it ahead 10 turns or more. I can't ever think it through to the end of the game unless I'm very near Checkmate. Either way I correctly claim to have "thought it through" and you have no idea what I really meant by that until you see me lose horribly or win brilliantly.

 

 

Kind of like how the show laid the groundwork for a conversation in episode 6 back in episode 1.

 

Whether you like that particular thread is independent of them actually having done the work.

 

 

 

[UOweTamASword]

2 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Not sure if that was meant to be about me, but I (and many others) were not desperately hoping for these things to be changed, or even happy they were changed. But we are able to try to understand why the show runners wanted to change it, and reconcile ourselves with that, and enjoy the show. 

 

 

Sorry! I am very sad that you can't.

Not because everyone enjoying it "apparently wanted", but because we are able to accommodate ourselves with the changes and enjoy the show 1) in itself, and 2) (for some of us) as a story that has within it the main points of WOT, with relatively minor changes as regards the overarching story. 

 

I am sorry they are so distasteful for you that you can't enjoy it. 

 

"Desperately hoping" is a direct quote from Jaysen Gore, not you. I'm aware that not all people who like or dislike the show think the exact same or even a similar way, we agree strongly on that!

 

I'm happy you are enjoying it, and I'm happy we can discuss our opinions respectfully. Those "minor changes" you mention being a very disputable perspective, however, and subject to much debate! ?

 

6 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

For context, here's a few changes I'm desperately hoping get made. And they are definitely cutting away

- eliminate the Shaido at Dumai's Wells. Just gone.

- radically shorten Perrin's 3 book hunt for Faile

- greatly reduce Elayne's political games in Camelyn

- eliminate the resurrected Forsaken

I'll start with just that, and see how much of what's left I can fit in 8 seasons. If I still need more, than Morgase dies at Rahvin's hands, there's no WT embassy to the BT, and people get on and off boats, but don't spend time on them learning to channel.

 

From there, rebalance / schedule the remaining storylines so characters have a smooth arc over the length of the series, and maybe make changes to respond to the above pruning.

 

The Lan change, as I posted elsewhere, I knew was coming, and I include here as a Hollywood-ism. I don't like it, or Mat's family changes. But I have known since LoTR and the first DCU movies that this is always going to happen. Stoicism is not tolerated, and heroes cannot appear on screen fully formed. It's against the Hollywood rules of engagement. I'm neutral on the Who Is the Dragon stuff, and while I despised Layla's fridging, the harsh truth is it does crudely fix the problem of externalizing Perrin's inner conflict.

 

I can't say I agree with any of those changes, although I appreciate your perspective. I'm even one of those people who enjoys reading the later books including Elayne and Perrin parts, in no small part because I know its some of the last pages Jordan ever wrote.

 

I certainly wouldn't hope in particular they don't eliminate resurrected Ishamael aka Moridin, I thought he was awesome and pretty integral. And the very idea of the DO being able to resurrect them was pretty cool on its own. You probably didn't mean him, did you?

[UOweTamASword]

16 minutes ago, TheDreadReader said:

 

 

 

Kind of like how the show laid the groundwork for a conversation in episode 6 back in episode 1.

 

Whether you like that particular thread is independent of them actually having done the work.

 

 

 

As in Chess, you can plan a move out many turns ahead and "succeed" in that minor tactic, but if you gain a pawn and lose a rook, did you really "succeed"? That is to say: its the overall strategy that determines whether you're successful and thought the game through thoroughly enough.

 

In this case, we all get to determine whether each move and the overall show is successful on our own.

 

I only lament that they didn't stick closer to the winning strategy that Jordan quite beautifully drew up. Others might say Jordan lost or that he could've won more efficiently. To each their own!

Edited December 21, 2021 by UOweTamASword

[Theseus78]

22 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

And regarding "consultants" - we already know from Sanderson that they've ignored their most qualified consultant in certain instances, if they can brush Sanderson's opinion off they can brush anybody off. And from the way he talked (my interpretation), they brought him in the process when the scripts were almost entirely complete so it really sounded like he was there to make minor tweaks.

[Jaysen Gore]

3 minutes ago, UOweTamASword said:

<snip>

I can't say I agree with any of those changes, although I appreciate your perspective. I'm even one of those people who enjoys reading the later books including Elayne and Perrin parts, in no small part because I know its some of the last pages Jordan ever wrote.

 

I certainly wouldn't hope in particular they don't eliminate resurrected Ishamael aka Moridin, I thought he was awesome and pretty integral. And the very idea of the DO being able to resurrect them was pretty cool on its own. You probably didn't mean him, did you?

I still read them when I do re-reads as well. But if you tell me I have to turn 14 books into 64 episodes, drastic cuts need to be made, and IMO, those story arcs were redundant and repetitive.

 

And no, I didn't really consider Ishamael in that, mainly since Moridin has little to do with the mid-book plotlines. And I guess I had envisioned him rescuing instead of killing Lanfear, and not having Graendal killed just to put her in an ugly body. So I guess it's more the concept of Ara / Osan that I would drop, and just find a way not to kill the others.