How different do you think the show would have been with 10 episodes, and if they had been given a full budget (like GOT season 1 funding) and if Mat hadn't been recast? (SPOILERS)

[JeffTheWoodlandElf]

11 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

That is all well and good but by the end you have simply remade the fellowship which means you lose a ton of viewers who don't enjoy that kind of fantasy. 

A blogger I follow says it better than I could, and I don't want to parrot him like I came up with this stuff myself. 

 

"There is another good reason to hew to the books as closely as reasonable.  The books are really damn good.  Why do you think Amazon bought the rights?  The book series has sold tens of millions of copies and each new book hit #1.  It isn’t just that there is a large built-in audience of fans looking for a favorite story told in a different medium, it is that there is an even larger potential audience of future fans who would the story because it’s a great story."

 

"My biggest critique when I first picked up first book in middle school is that it tracks the plot of the first Lord of the Rings book too closely.  The additional focus on Aes Sedai and Aes Sedai politics and the early introduction of Tar Valon may be aimed at distinguishing the show from Lord of the Rings.  And it does, but it burns time that should have been spent on the main plot, and watering down the worldbuilding otherwise leads to a bigger problem—The Wheel of Time comes off as a very generic fantasy."

 

I add this: 

 

Remember that when Peter Jackson was adapting Fellowship in 2001, the story of a chosen one whisked away on a grand adventure by a wise wizard to face ultimate evil was already  tired. Jackson could have been totally justified in saying, "People have seen this before! Sure, it was good enough for the 50's, but this is 2001, and the people need to see something new and fresh!" 

 

But he didn't. He believed in the source material. 

 

So congrats, Rafe. You changed WoT to make it less generic and somehow only made it even more generic. Nice. 

[Jaysen Gore]

1 minute ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

Remember that when Peter Jackson was adapting Fellowship in 2001, the story of a chosen one whisked away on a grand adventure by a wise wizard to face ultimate evil was already  tired. Jackson could have been totally justified in saying, "People have seen this before! Sure, it was good enough for the 50's, but this is 2001, and the people need to see something new and fresh!" 

 

But he didn't. He believed in the source material. 

 

So congrats, Rafe. You changed WoT to make it less generic and somehow only made it even more generic. Nice. 

Not directed at you personally, but I am getting really, really tired of people using the "PJ didn't change LOTR, so why are they changing WOT". From my PoV, the thematic changes made in LOTR as a whole were much bigger and more impactful that the changes that have been made so far in WoT. They both made cuts and changes to the plots and characters, but we're not far enough in to know if Rafe is going to drop major themes; we know that Jackson did.

[JeffTheWoodlandElf]

17 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Not directed at you personally, but I am getting really, really tired of people using the "PJ didn't change LOTR, so why are they changing WOT". From my PoV, the thematic changes made in LOTR as a whole were much bigger and more impactful that the changes that have been made so far in WoT. They both made cuts and changes to the plots and characters, but we're not far enough in to know if Rafe is going to drop major themes; we know that Jackson did.

True. Also not directed at you personally, but I do want to clarify something about my original post. 

 

I'm only referring to the fact that LotR leans into its core story despite the cliches (which were already old hat by 2001) whereas WoT seems afraid, almost ashamed of them. Rafe tries so hard to differentiate WoT by emphasizing ultimately superficial things when he should have just owned that EotW is somewhat derivative and that's okay. That's exactly what Robert Jordan did, after all. Focus on taking a well-worn but well-loved story archetype and just do it really, really, really, well. 

 

This approach brings in people who don't normally like fantasy as well as fans. Worked for Marvel. Worked for Star Wars. Worked for LotR. 

[Jaysen Gore]

23 minutes ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

True. Also not directed at you personally, but I do want to clarify something about my original post. 

 

I'm only referring to the fact that LotR leans into its core story despite the cliches (which were already old hat by 2001) whereas WoT seems afraid, almost ashamed of them. Rafe tries so hard to differentiate WoT by emphasizing ultimately superficial things when he should have just owned that EotW is somewhat derivative and that's okay. That's exactly what Robert Jordan did, after all. Focus on taking a well-worn but well-loved story archetype and just do it really, really, really, well. 

 

This approach brings in people who don't normally like fantasy as well as fans. Worked for Marvel. Worked for Star Wars. Worked for LotR. 

Thanks for not taking what I said personally ? . I kind of agree with what you're saying, but I do think there's some justification for the change. 

 

I think the big reason he's afraid - and it is fear, with both him and Amazon - is that EOTW was published 11 years before the Fellowship of the Ring movie, to an audience (fantasy book fans) who are more than comfortable with LOTR knock offs, and exploring different takes on the same Chosen One trope.  But where WoT was read by maybe 5-8 million pre-existing fantasy fans in total (I guarantee anyone who finished WoT has read a LOT of fantasy), the LOTR movies were seen by more than 30 million (897 million / 3 million / $10 ticket = 30 million people), a lot of whom weren't even fantasy fans. A lot of those casual fans might be put off by or ignore something that was too derivative (see SW ep4 vs BSG v1, or Buck Rogers), making it less likely that a close telling of EOTW / tGH would survive until it could show what makes it unique. 

 

Then Shannara (another blatant rip off) flopped, and people raved about GoT because it wasn't LOTR, so there is more proof that there is an audience for fantasy, but that it needs to be different for the broad appeal required to fund it; Xena's audience won't pay the bills.  And worse, GOT had already established another direction they couldn't go.  So what they have decided to do was prioritize the introduction of the concepts that made WoT uniquely itself (the Women, the Magic, the diverse cultures, the Asian philosophy), while downplaying or delaying the similarities to LOTR.

 

People rightly enjoy the MCU because they keep it's soul; they rightly hate the DCU because they don't. It's why I'm so concerned about where WoT goes with it's themes; the plot and even the characters can change, but if they don't keep it's thematic heart, they won't survive.

 

Oh, and as I've said previously, WoT will have a major second repositioning to manage, since books 4-5 are as derivative of Dune as book 1 is of LOTR.  And the stories will be running at the exact same time; it'll be impossible to miss.

[Scarloc99]

1 hour ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

A blogger I follow says it better than I could, and I don't want to parrot him like I came up with this stuff myself. 

 

"There is another good reason to hew to the books as closely as reasonable.  The books are really damn good.  Why do you think Amazon bought the rights?  The book series has sold tens of millions of copies and each new book hit #1.  It isn’t just that there is a large built-in audience of fans looking for a favorite story told in a different medium, it is that there is an even larger potential audience of future fans who would the story because it’s a great story."

 

"My biggest critique when I first picked up first book in middle school is that it tracks the plot of the first Lord of the Rings book too closely.  The additional focus on Aes Sedai and Aes Sedai politics and the early introduction of Tar Valon may be aimed at distinguishing the show from Lord of the Rings.  And it does, but it burns time that should have been spent on the main plot, and watering down the worldbuilding otherwise leads to a bigger problem—The Wheel of Time comes off as a very generic fantasy."

 

I add this: 

 

Remember that when Peter Jackson was adapting Fellowship in 2001, the story of a chosen one whisked away on a grand adventure by a wise wizard to face ultimate evil was already  tired. Jackson could have been totally justified in saying, "People have seen this before! Sure, it was good enough for the 50's, but this is 2001, and the people need to see something new and fresh!" 

 

But he didn't. He believed in the source material. 

 

So congrats, Rafe. You changed WoT to make it less generic and somehow only made it even more generic. Nice. 

Personally Books 1 and 2 nearly put me off the series, the only reason I stuck with it was I had already bought the first 6 books (book six had just been released when I get the series in one hit). Book 1 has put off people I have leant it too because it is far too derivative, the good stuff that makes you stand up and go wow are delivered later on, the reveal about the age of legends, the reveal about Rand's parentage and the truth about the Aiel. 

So I am fully behind the changes that Rafe has made to the order things have happened, that doesn't mean I think it is perfect, I wouldn't have changed anything structurally but for me, the reveal at the start of episode 8 about the age of legends was far too low key and just didnt seem to shock or wow the friends I have who have never read the books in the way it did on the page, I also wish they had kept red snow for season 2, it almost feels like he wanted to get all the reveals out ASAP. 

Moving the Aes Sedai and the white tower to season 1 was fine, I have never been as gripped by the Caemlyn chapters in the book as many others have, in fact I can;t say I was as excited as many where to see it in season 1. I wanted to see Tar Valon and the white tower. 

There have been disappointments for me with some of the effects, the fight scenes and the sets. But I hope those things improve in season 2 so I am holding judgement until then. The changes to things like the seals, the bore etc, right now I am assuming none of that has changed Morraine just does not know as much as she thinks she does (and does not know as much as she knows in the books). I am fine with that, I actually prefer it, but I fully understand those who would prefer it all be laid out chapter and verse as is in the books. What is the point in guessing games when as a reader you know it all. Steppin I actually really liked. Personally I have read the books many many times, I know them all so so well and it is really nice to have something new to see and watch, a new side story to the main that shows something the books didn't. Again I respect those who want the TV show to reflect the books as closely as possible so do not want new storylines or side stories added but for me it was a wonderful fresh and new experiance of the world I have never had. 

The Final battle, my issues are around pacing, scripting and small niggles about the use of the one power but, I am again willing to sit and follow the journey and make an overall decisions once we are further in. Regarding the one power very little has been explained about the rules, that does not mean the rules do not exist, it simply means that decisions where made to drip feed the information to the viewer. I hope they reign in the power of Egwyne and Nyn early on, part of both there stories is being weaker at the start and then learning and understanding there own power. 

Right now as a book reader I am giving the series a 6, my non book reader friends have given it a solid 8/9 and my wife loves it with a 10, this includes friends and work mates who usually keep away from fantasy (one of them has never been able to get through a single lord of the rings movie end to end but she enjoyed WOT). That tells me that as a TV show it is doing what it needed to do for the non book reader. 

Everyone has there own opinion but I am strongly of the opinion that the main source material has not been thrown out. All the key points are there, The dragon is Rand, we have Aes Sedai in there ajahs, we have Warders, we have the main characters and as much as "changes" have been made to tone they are still the same shape as they are in the books (Perrin is still a blacksmith who speaks to wolves for instance). The one power is still tainted for men, there are foresaken and a dark lord and fades and trolllocs and ogier. The stuff that has been adjusted, non of it fundamentally changes the foundations of the story, and many of the assumptions made about things like talents, and strength in the power and needing to learn are just assumptions we don;t know where Rafe will take that in season 2. I think it is perfectly fine to challenge the things that we don't like in season 1 but until the thing has been ended it is hard to sit and say as a whole it will be awful when we have only experienced 1/8th. 

 

[JeffTheWoodlandElf]

3 minutes ago, Sir_Charrid said:

Personally Books 1 and 2 nearly put me off the series, the only reason I stuck with it was I had already bought the first 6 books (book six had just been released when I get the series in one hit). Book 1 has put off people I have leant it too because it is far too derivative, the good stuff that makes you stand up and go wow are delivered later on, the reveal about the age of legends, the reveal about Rand's parentage and the truth about the Aiel. 

Yeah this is exactly the point that I'm making. WoT was awesome before any of that stuff showed up. It was a somewhat derivative story executed masterfully. 

 

Now, if you're the type of reader who cares more about the "what" of a story than it's "how", the first few Wheel of Time books might not be for you. If you're the type of reader who thinks, "X is like Y but Y came first so therefore X is inferior for being less original," then the first few Wheel of Time books might not be for you. If you're the type of reader whose attention span is directly correlated to a story's "originality" (this does not exist btw), then the first few WoT books might not be fore you. 

 

This is lowest common denominator critique. The "how" matters more than the "what". Eye of the World and Eragon have a lot in common. The reason Wheel of Time is better is not that it came first, but that it was written by RJ. If the authors had been swapped and RJ had written Eragon in the 2000's after Christopher Paolini had done his take on EotW in the 90s, Eragon would be a better series than Wheel of Time. 

 

Rafe agrees with you. He thinks the first book is lame. That's why the first season has so much stuff from later books shoehorned in. But WoT was WoT before any of that stuff showed up on the scene. 

 

Rafe is a "what" person. WoTtv deserved a "how" person. 

[Jaysen Gore]

45 minutes ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

Yeah this is exactly the point that I'm making. WoT was awesome before any of that stuff showed up. It was a somewhat derivative story executed masterfully. 

 

Now, if you're the type of reader who cares more about the "what" of a story than it's "how", the first few Wheel of Time books might not be for you. If you're the type of reader who thinks, "X is like Y but Y came first so therefore X is inferior for being less original," then the first few Wheel of Time books might not be for you. If you're the type of reader whose attention span is directly correlated to a story's "originality" (this does not exist btw), then the first few WoT books might not be fore you. 

 

This is lowest common denominator critique. The "how" matters more than the "what". Eye of the World and Eragon have a lot in common. The reason Wheel of Time is better is not that it came first, but that it was written by RJ. If the authors had been swapped and RJ had written Eragon in the 2000's after Christopher Paolini had done his take on EotW in the 90s, Eragon would be a better series than Wheel of Time. 

 

Rafe agrees with you. He thinks the first book is lame. That's why the first season has so much stuff from later books shoehorned in. But WoT was WoT before any of that stuff showed up on the scene. 

 

Rafe is a "what" person. WoTtv deserved a "how" person. 

I know what you're saying, the only thing I'd point out is that I've been beat over the head on this board before (in the adaptation thread) about how big the drop off from EOTW to tGH to the rest of the book series likely was. Which means even among readers, too big a percentage of the audience abandoned the series because it was too derivative. 

 

The people who liked the EOTW and then finished all of WOT are a minority within a minority, and while I would love to be pandered to, I accept that they will make changes to try and expand the audience beyond that.

[expat]

Quote

Yeah this is exactly the point that I'm making. WoT was awesome before any of that stuff showed up. It was a somewhat derivative story executed masterfully. 

 

No it really wasn't executed masterfully. There were some interesting ideas in TEOTW which encouraged reading the next couple of volumes, but the first book had lots of flaws*.  Kind of like the show.  Flaws but some interesting ideas which could bloom in future seasons.

 

*My personal issues with the book was that I thought it was bloated, repetitive (e.g., Rand/Matt journey had lots of similar scenes), limited character development, decision to go to EOTW was weak, the ending was poor, and I disliked EF.  I felt that the characters there were too unrealistic perfect** all the while looking down on the folks (e.g., Coplins) from the wrong side of the track as lazy shiftless people.  Too much of a hint of mindless prejudice for me.

 

**I may be the only person who liked the change to Matt's parents because even in a town like EF, there would be people like his show parents.  It felt more realistic than the book.  Not that they were specifically Matt's parents, but that such people existed there.   

[Lethira the second]

9 hours ago, expat said:

**I may be the only person who liked the change to Matt's parents because even in a town like EF, there would be people like his show parents.  It felt more realistic than the book.  Not that they were specifically Matt's parents, but that such people existed there.   

 

People like Mat's show parents have existed, however, having spent some year in a small rural community that was far less cut off than the two rivers, I seriously doubt that such behaviour would have been accepted. 

 

People behaving like Mat's Father would likely been ostracized, his womanising would not have been tolerated.  This is a place that is run by both a village council and a woman's circle, it is clear from the books that pre/extra-marital sex were frowned upon.  Yes, Rafe is adapting things and has likely changed the attitudes to be more liberal but let's not throw the baby out with the proverbial bathwater.

[FlamingDice75]

On 1/3/2022 at 9:34 PM, ArrylT said:

According to this site  $1 in 2011 is now worth $1.24 today due to inflationary costs.

 

Assuming $6 million per GOT S1 episode that is today $7.4 million

 

https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2011?amount=6000000

 

Also no idea if GOT had to create their own production studio from the ground up (which was done for WoT).  

 

Anyways just noting between cost of inflation, cost of production & cost of covid measures (2 seperate covid stoppages on top of covid protocols in place) it seems reasonable to me to equate the budget amounts as being relatively similar.

 

I think WoT has had to spend more on production costs than GOT per episode.  For example GOT chose to (or got to) use a lot of pre-existing locations  whereas WOT has chosen to build from the ground up a lot of its locations - EF, SL & TV as key examples.   

 

You can view the list of locations filmed at here:

 

https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_filming_locations

 

Whether we agree on the value of the $ spent is subjective - just feel that WoT has had more unexpected & needed expenditures so the value per dollar may be less.   We'll see how S2 goes.  And time will give us more information on which a basis ones decisions can be made - a quick look at both Wiki pages can easily show that we have a much larger wealth of information on what was involved in GOT at this time.

 

WOT got $10,000,000 per episode.  TEN MILLION.  That's more in adjusted money than GOT by more than enough to have made a much better looking show.

 

The show runners burned in Rafe's own words, millions,  on wigs.  That is insanity.  

 

Amazon simply chose the wrong people to run the show.  Inexperienced and not actually fans of the source material.

[fra85uk]

Look at the Witcher to see how a high-budget good-looking fantasy series should be in 2021. 

[ArrylT]

54 minutes ago, fra85uk said:

Look at the Witcher to see how a high-budget good-looking fantasy series should be in 2021. 

 

Yes, so far I've been doing a comparison of the 2 shows and so far imo, after comparing 2 episodes of S1 Witcher to 2 episodes S1 Wheel of Time. the WoT show is getting a better value based on budget in terms of its look/sets/costuming/design/cinematography.   I will see if this will continue as I keep watching & comparing episode to episode.  Obviously we can all have different subjective takes on what a fantasy series should look like, but for me the Wheel of Time has the edge on looking better.  

Edited January 9, 2022 by ArrylT
clarification

[fra85uk]

1 minute ago, ArrylT said:

 

Yes, so far I've been doing a comparison of the 2 shows and so far imo, after comparing 2 episodes to 2 episodes. the WoT show is getting a better value based on budget in terms of its look/sets/costuming/design/cinematography.   I will see if this will continue as I keep watching & comparing episode to episode.  Obviously we can all have different subjective takes on what a fantasy series should look like.  

Well, for me there is no comparison, i am sad to say it but Witcher is miles above Wot (imho of course).

 

[ArrylT]

1 minute ago, fra85uk said:

Well, for me there is no comparison, i am sad to say it but Witcher is miles above Wot (imho of course).

 

 

That is what makes things great - the diversity of opinions.    The only bad part, for me, of your comment, is that you're sad to have to make that decision based on your criteria.   And technically that is not even really bad, and I have no wish to put words into your mouth, but it indicates you want to put WoT ahead of The Witcher.  Who knows, maybe after reviewing S2 and comparing it to S2 of The Witcher, you may find yourself altering your grade.   I will also say I am glad that plenty of people enjoy the Witcher - the more fantasy content out there the better!  

[FlamingDice75]

On 1/8/2022 at 5:32 AM, Sir_Charrid said:

I am starting to get more and more amused at the Rafe and Amazon are out to kill this, yes Amazon spent millions on the TV rights, have paid millions more per episode to film it and are not trying to make a great TV show, that is the thing I think people need to realise, this is a TV show and so, as a result you have to make changes and you have to do things differently. Every scene has a reason for being in the show, 

 

I'm more amused at anyone who thinks this show is going to magically get better in season 2.  It was poorly done for nearly the entirety of season one.  Poorly written.  Poorly directed, and often poorly acted.  The show runner has defiantly stated that his changes improved the story.  Changes were necessary to streamline the story adaption for the screen.  The changes made do not add to the story, and in fact remove most of the  character of the story.  Rafe decided he was going to "fix" the WOT and remake it in his image.

 

It would be shocking for season 2 to be any different from the first season.  Poorly made cuts, poorly made additions, wasted screen time on things that don't push the story forward.

[fra85uk]

27 minutes ago, ArrylT said:

 

That is what makes things great - the diversity of opinions.    The only bad part, for me, of your comment, is that you're sad to have to make that decision based on your criteria.   And technically that is not even really bad, and I have no wish to put words into your mouth, but it indicates you want to put WoT ahead of The Witcher.  Who knows, maybe after reviewing S2 and comparing it to S2 of The Witcher, you may find yourself altering your grade.   I will also say I am glad that plenty of people enjoy the Witcher - the more fantasy content out there the better!  

 I am sad because I largely prefer WoT books to Witcher books/games.

And when I see Geralt being so badass, when i see the fight scenes, when i see the nice directing that Witcher is giving, when I see that not everything needs to be claustrophobic for budget reasons, I think:

why on earth WoT-show is not as good with a similar budget?

Imho Witcher deserves the higher ratings that it got from basically every rating site.

 

[ArrylT]

2 minutes ago, fra85uk said:

 I am sad because I largely prefer WoT books to Witcher books/games.

And when I see Geralt being so badass, when i see the fight scenes, when i see the nice directing that Witcher is giving, when I see that not everything needs to be claustrophobic for budget reasons, I think:

why on earth WoT-show is not as good with a similar budget?

Imho Witcher deserves the higher ratings that it got from basically every rating site.

 

 

I personally find that 95% of the time I prefer the original source regardless of genre.   So Star Wars films over other Star Wars books/video games etc.  Final Fantasy video games over Final Fantasy movies/books. amd so forth. Having not read any Witcher books or played any Witcher games I cannot make that determination yet for that show.     

 

Anyways my comment is more on the cinematography, set design, costume design, sound design and all that.  And specifically when comparing to a specific criteria checklist for each show.   So far The Wheel of Time gets the edge.  ?

 

As per Lan vs. Geralt I've already somewhat shared my thoughts on them in fantasy adaptation thread.  I have no doubt people can & will have long debates on those 2 - much like there are debates on Han Solo vs. Indiana Jones or Harry Potter vs. Luke Skywalker and so forth.  ?  

 

Regardless, being sad, while currently disappointing (since obviously we would want everyone to enjoy the show), has the potential to allow you to change your mind down the road and make that choice.   I know  because I could not watch GOT after 3 episodes when I first tried to watch it.   I decided it was not for me, and I would not revisit until the book series was concluded.   Well still waiting for that to happen haha, and the pandemic hit, so I watched GOT and well 8 years later it turns out I enjoyed it - even the last seasons (although S8 GOT is way worse to me than WOT S1 in a variety of categories).   So perhaps down the road, coming from a different perspective, you'll have made a different decision.  

[Gothic Flame]

1 hour ago, FlamingDice75 said:

It would be shocking for season 2 to be any different from the first season.  Poorly made cuts, poorly made additions, wasted screen time on things that don't push the story forward.

*nods*

The first season becomes the foundation to be built upon. And this is a sand dune. 

[AdamA]

4 hours ago, fra85uk said:

Look at the Witcher to see how a high-budget good-looking fantasy series should be in 2021. 

Probably House of the Dragon, frankly. I think The Witcher in terms of overall quality of show beats Wheel of Time right now, but it pails in comparison to Game of Thrones just as much as Wheel of Time does in terms of just production quality. Less memorable music, unimpressive opening sequence, hit and miss creature effects where some monsters look great but some are cheesy, the dragons were horrible. Sets are worse, but a lot of that was Game of Thrones was able to use real cities and real castles for so many locations, which are always going to look better than a set no matter how much money you spend.

 

Something arguably heartening about The Witcher is it got a lot better between season one and season two, in large part because the fragmentation of the first season covering a bunch of novellas was difficult to adapt, so it's at least an existence proof that it is possible, in spite of the doom and gloom here seeming to insist shows never improve past season one. I've never watched it, but I see a lot of praise here for 1883 and I'll note the critical ratings improved tremendously for Yellowstone between the first season and every other season.

 

The less encouraging thing about Wheel of Time compared to The Witcher is The Witcher may have had a hit and miss first season, but it steadily got better and ended strong. Wheel of Time ended pretty weakly. The trend is not good, but a mediocre first season is not a death knell. These guys do need to learn how to spend money more effectively, though. The one reason I see for hope is I think they blew a bunch of their budget on the pilot, only to have much of it cut anyway, just to ensure the show would even get made at all. They're getting complete season orders for sure now, so at least they won't do that again.

Edited January 9, 2022 by AdamA

[JaimAybara]

10 episodes would be ideal if they were truly using that time to build up character arcs and plot points properly. I would’ve done ten episodes and book end the season with episodes that were like an hour and a half. (Yes, this would cost more of course), but the problem that arises, is they had already avoided telling main character plot points because they decided to make it a mystery. So it’s hard to truly know how giving them these extra episodes/time would have been beneficial and not just filler or dead space. 

[fra85uk]

2 hours ago, AdamA said:

Probably House of the Dragon, frankly. I think The Witcher in terms of overall quality of show beats Wheel of Time right now, but it pails in comparison to Game of Thrones just as much as Wheel of Time does in terms of just production quality. Less memorable music, unimpressive opening sequence, hit and miss creature effects where some monsters look great but some are cheesy, the dragons were horrible. Sets are worse, but a lot of that was Game of Thrones was able to use real cities and real castles for so many locations, which are always going to look better than a set no matter how much money you spend.

 

Something arguably heartening about The Witcher is it got a lot better between season one and season two, in large part because the fragmentation of the first season covering a bunch of novellas was difficult to adapt, so it's at least an existence proof that it is possible, in spite of the doom and gloom here seeming to insist shows never improve past season one. I've never watched it, but I see a lot of praise here for 1883 and I'll note the critical ratings improved tremendously for Yellowstone between the first season and every other season.

 

The less encouraging thing about Wheel of Time compared to The Witcher is The Witcher may have had a hit and miss first season, but it steadily got better and ended strong. Wheel of Time ended pretty weakly. The trend is not good, but a mediocre first season is not a death knell. These guys do need to learn how to spend money more effectively, though. The one reason I see for hope is I think they blew a bunch of their budget on the pilot, only to have much of it cut anyway, just to ensure the show would even get made at all. They're getting complete season orders for sure now, so at least they won't do that again.

The Witcher is more action-fantasy and the action is generally quite good, it is a nice selling point and it also has some humour. You could see that it was going to improve as it did.

WoT show does not Have one single real strength:

Action has been little and poorly done

Dialogues are weak

Drama is abysmal (Eg-Rand-Perrin triangle)

 

 

 

 

[Scarloc99]

7 hours ago, fra85uk said:

 I am sad because I largely prefer WoT books to Witcher books/games.

And when I see Geralt being so badass, when i see the fight scenes, when i see the nice directing that Witcher is giving, when I see that not everything needs to be claustrophobic for budget reasons, I think:

why on earth WoT-show is not as good with a similar budget?

Imho Witcher deserves the higher ratings that it got from basically every rating site.

 

I guess you have never read the Witcher books or played the game? You may love the tv show but if WOT was like it Morraine would be taking Rand to the dark Lord for her own gain and there would be 8 episodes made up with nothing related to the book other then a few random lines. There is no comparison between the 2 as an adaptation. 

[Scarloc99]

7 hours ago, FlamingDice75 said:

 

I'm more amused at anyone who thinks this show is going to magically get better in season 2.  It was poorly done for nearly the entirety of season one.  Poorly written.  Poorly directed, and often poorly acted.  The show runner has defiantly stated that his changes improved the story.  Changes were necessary to streamline the story adaption for the screen.  The changes made do not add to the story, and in fact remove most of the  character of the story.  Rafe decided he was going to "fix" the WOT and remake it in his image.

 

It would be shocking for season 2 to be any different from the first season.  Poorly made cuts, poorly made additions, wasted screen time on things that don't push the story forward.

And this is where others who also love the books fundamentally disagree with you. There where teething problems but for us it has improved the story and made it better for tv. They do not remove character and while there are issues they are not as fundamental as those like you claim. 
 

We are never going to agree you will stop watching or watch and continue complaining and others will love it and disagree. You are entitled to your opinion I won’t tell someone there opinion is wrong because it is there own but ultimately we won’t know until the series runs it’s course if it has been a success or failure commercially and that ultimately is the only  thing that defines if what Rafe did was any good. If the TV series gains wider appeal

then the books. 

[Scarloc99]

2 hours ago, fra85uk said:

The Witcher is more action-fantasy and the action is generally quite good, it is a nice selling point and it also has some humour. You could see that it was going to improve as it did.

WoT show does not Have one single real strength:

Action has been little and poorly done

Dialogues are weak

Drama is abysmal (Eg-Rand-Perrin triangle)

 

 

 

 

In your opinion in the opinion of everyone I know in person, book lovers and not, they really enjoy it. 

[Scarloc99]

5 hours ago, AdamA said:

Probably House of the Dragon, frankly. I think The Witcher in terms of overall quality of show beats Wheel of Time right now, but it pails in comparison to Game of Thrones just as much as Wheel of Time does in terms of just production quality. Less memorable music, unimpressive opening sequence, hit and miss creature effects where some monsters look great but some are cheesy, the dragons were horrible. Sets are worse, but a lot of that was Game of Thrones was able to use real cities and real castles for so many locations, which are always going to look better than a set no matter how much money you spend.

 

Something arguably heartening about The Witcher is it got a lot better between season one and season two, in large part because the fragmentation of the first season covering a bunch of novellas was difficult to adapt, so it's at least an existence proof that it is possible, in spite of the doom and gloom here seeming to insist shows never improve past season one. I've never watched it, but I see a lot of praise here for 1883 and I'll note the critical ratings improved tremendously for Yellowstone between the first season and every other season.

 

The less encouraging thing about Wheel of Time compared to The Witcher is The Witcher may have had a hit and miss first season, but it steadily got better and ended strong. Wheel of Time ended pretty weakly. The trend is not good, but a mediocre first season is not a death knell. These guys do need to learn how to spend money more effectively, though. The one reason I see for hope is I think they blew a bunch of their budget on the pilot, only to have much of it cut anyway, just to ensure the show would even get made at all. They're getting complete season orders for sure now, so at least they won't do that again.

I mean season 2 wasn’t based on any of the source material so that might be why you enjoyed it more.