How different is too different?

[Cauthonfan4]

1 minute ago, Andra said:

since he hasn't listened to ANYONE'S feedback

he barely listened to Brandon Sanderson of all people and barely consulted him for the second half of the season (and didn't consult him for the last 2 episodes at all, and it shows).

[VooDooNut]

Just now, Andra said:

 

It's a moot point, since he hasn't listened to ANYONE'S feedback - mine, yours, or any other fan's.

Nor is he obliged to. If the show fails, it fails. That's still on him and the rest of the company. Personally, I hope the show succeeds enough financially that all 8 seasons are produced, but that success certainly won't be hinged on my opinions.

 

4 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

How about we start with why Rafe thinks it was okay to rewrite the story in the first place? the original argument was that fans can't provide the author feedback on how to write it, but Rafe seems to have no problem with telling Robert what to do.

Robert Jordan's The Wheel Of Time: A product created by Robert Jordan (let's set Brandon Sanderson's involvement aside for a moment.)

 

Amazon's adaptation/based on television series The Wheel Of Time: A product created by Rafe&Co, inspired by their interpretation of Robert Jordan's epic fantasy series.

 

Rafe isn't trying to rewrite the books, and Robert Jordan isn't crawling out of his grave to give feedback on the show. They are two separate properties.

[Cauthonfan4]

5 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

Nor is he obliged to. If the show fails, it fails. That's still on him and the rest of the company.

and how would you respond if your employee failed to listen to feedback and failed a project because of it? right now Rafe of Time isn't looking so good. Amazon advertised it as the next Game of Thrones and the 7.2 on IMDB doesn't show that. It's alienated a large part of the core audience, who won't be around for season 2, and it's not standing up to Game of Thrones standards (unless you mean seasons 5 - 8 Standards).

5 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

Amazon's adaptation/based on television series The Wheel Of Time: A product created by Rafe&Co, inspired by their interpretation of Robert Jordan's epic fantasy series.

 

they should just rename it at that point if they have to put in that many caveats.

5 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

Rafe isn't trying to rewrite the books, and Robert Jordan isn't crawling out of his grave to give feedback on the show. They are two separate properties.

except he literally said "i'm gonna write it how robert would write it today". so he is in fact "Rewriting them".

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by Cauthonfan4

[Katherine]

I think we have to be fair though...... 

 

 

Right now WoT is well reviewed (overall), had millions of viewers, and an 82% critics score (64% audience) on Rotten Tomatoes. 

 

Amazon is happy. Rafe's job is to make them happy. Not those of us on this or other forums. 

 

 

However, Season 2 will be the test. Will enough of those viewers return to keep Amazon happy? I doubt it. 

[VooDooNut]

Just now, Cauthonfan4 said:

and how would you respond if your employee failed to listen to feedback and failed a project because of it? right now Rafe of Time isn't looking so good. Amazon advertised it as the next Game of Thrones and the 7.2 on IMDB doesn't show that.

they should just rename it at that point if they have to put in that many caviots.

except he literally said "i'm gonna write it how robert would write it today". so he is in fact "Rewriting them".

 

I don't base my opinion of the show off of IMDB ratings (or any ratings), but I won't stop others from doing so.

 

If Rafe did say the above, I still take the stance that he spoke in error. He can't be Robert Jordan because he isn't Robert Jordan.

 

Just now, Katherine said:

I think we have to be fair though...... 

 

 

Right now WoT is well reviewed (overall), had millions of viewers, and an 82% critics score (64% audience) on Rotten Tomatoes. 

 

Amazon is happy. Rafe's job is to make them happy. Not those of us on this or other forums. 

 

 

However, Season 2 will be the test. Will enough of those viewers return to keep Amazon happy? I doubt it. 

Yep, we shall see.

[Jake Sykwalker]

5 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

i mean to be fair - season 1 got results (at least in viewer minutes), but how much of those results will carry over after all the people season 1 alienated don't watch season 2? 

I don't think Season 1 got nearly the support they expected.   Their much boosted by PR blitz average score isn't all that great and I doubt they can keep up the positive buzz after that last couple of episodes.  I'm betting that Amazon has put Rafe on notice for season 2.

 

I realize they had some good metrics for streaming, but it is like a famous sequel movie.  People flock to it at first, but when they find out it isn't good they bail.  I think that is the case here.  They got mega positive buzz at first through clever marketing (and some blatant review stuffing), but if you see most of the recent reviews and the number of people panning the last episodes it isn't looking good for season 2 having great numbers.

 

Also keep in mind for a while every time you turned on Prime video it prompted you to turn on WOT.  That is an easy way to help boost numbers.  The bad news of that is it only works effectively once. 

 

I don't want this series to fail and was super excited for it.  However the product so far has fallen extremely short of expectations for me.  Especially considering the budget they had. 

[Cauthonfan4]

3 minutes ago, Katherine said:

and an 82% critics score (64% audience) on Rotten Tomatoes.

64% is well received?

3 minutes ago, Katherine said:

Amazon is happy.

will they be happy when ratings plummet season 2?

[Andra]

27 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

i mean to be fair - season 1 got results (at least in viewer minutes), but how much of those results will carry over after all the people season 1 alienated don't watch season 2? 

The answer to that question will depend on a couple of trends, and how they balance out.

 

We know (or at least suspect) that there aren't enough original book fans for the show to rely even largely on them.  So Rafe (and Amazon) expect the non-readers to like it so much that they compensate for any loss of readers.

 

So these are the trends that matter:

Non-readers who liked it enough to keep watching, but have no intent to ever start on the books.  And who don't care about the opinions of readers.

Non-readers who liked it enough to start on the books, and then decide whether to keep watching based on that experience.  These people are much more likely to care about the opinions of friends and family who are readers.

 

Please note that, unlike for Game of Thrones (for various reasons), even the people in that first group most likely only watched in the first place because readers encouraged them to.

 

And what I think will be the deciding factor regarding the ultimate success of the series into the second season and beyond will be that second group. 

 

The trend that has been seen in that group is this:

Non-readers liking the show enough to start on the books now that the season is over, and hating what the show did to the story once they read the source material.

 

If the people who read the book after watching the show are alienated at the same rate as original readers, I think the show is dead.  Because the loss of them from the viewership will be greater than the gain from people who won't ever read it.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Andra

[Katherine]

9 minutes ago, Andra said:

The answer to that question will depend on a couple of trends, and how they balance out.

 

We know (or at least suspect) that there aren't enough original book fans for the show to rely even largely on them.  So Rafe (and Amazon) expect the non-readers to like it so much that they compensate for any loss of readers.

 

So these are the trends that matter:

Non-readers who liked it enough to keep watching, but have no intent to ever start on the books.  And who don't care about the opinions of readers.

Non-readers who liked it enough to start on the books, and then decide whether to keep watching based on that experience.  These people are much more likely to care about the opinions of friends and family who are readers.

 

Please note that, unlike for Game of Thrones (for various reasons), even the people in that first group most likely only watched in the first place because readers encouraged them to.

 

And what I think will be the deciding factor regarding the ultimate success of the series into the second season and beyond will be that second group. 

 

The trend that has been seen in that group is this:

Non-readers liking the show enough to start on the books now that the season is over, and hating what the show did to the story once they read the source material.

 

If the people who read the book after watching the show are alienated at the same rate as original readers, I think the show is dead.  Because the loss of them from the viewership will be greater than the gain from people who won't ever read it.

Correct, my point is that right now, Rafe has not real data that would convince him to change. I feel like the writing is on the wall. But season 2 will tell. 

 

[Jake Sykwalker]

11 minutes ago, Katherine said:

I think we have to be fair though...... 

 

 

Right now WoT is well reviewed (overall), had millions of viewers, and an 82% critics score (64% audience) on Rotten Tomatoes. 

 

 

I would not quote the RT scores as good.

 

1) Critics scores are mostly worthless.  Big businesses buy those all the time.  If you look into the critics comments many of them weren't that kind. 

 

2) 64% and falling on RT isn't very good.  If you dig into the comments they are getting raked over the coals.  What you are seeing is the positive blitz for the first 3 episodes and heavy promotion giving way to actual viewers.

[Cauthonfan4]

Just now, Jake Sykwalker said:

1) Critics scores are mostly worthless.  Big businesses buy those all the time.  If you look into the critics comments many of them weren't that kind. 

 

not only this but look at all the shows where the critics raved, but the audience hated it, or the critics hated, but the audience loved.

 

[Jake Sykwalker]

3 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

not only this but look at all the shows where the critics raved, but the audience hated it, or the critics hated, but the audience loved.

 

 

*cough* last jedi *caugh*

[Katherine]

18 minutes ago, Jake Sykwalker said:

I would not quote the RT scores as good.

 

1) Critics scores are mostly worthless.  Big businesses buy those all the time.  If you look into the critics comments many of them weren't that kind. 

 

2) 64% and falling on RT isn't very good.  If you dig into the comments they are getting raked over the coals.  What you are seeing is the positive blitz for the first 3 episodes and heavy promotion giving way to actual viewers.

Totally fair. 

 

My point remains that all of the data tells Amazon that WoT is a success. Rafe has no reason to change. 

 

Season 2 will be make or break. Personally, I think it will break. 

[Katherine]

16 minutes ago, Jake Sykwalker said:

 

*cough* last jedi *caugh*

Absolutely. This will follow the same course. The only difference is that DIsney lost money on Jedi and had to try to fix it with Rise (ugh). 

 

Amazon hasn't lost money yet. 

[Cauthonfan4]

5 minutes ago, Katherine said:

Amazon hasn't lost money yet. 

and when they do, book fans will be the one blamed.

[Juan Farstrider]

2 hours ago, VooDooNut said:

He can't write the show how Robert Jordan would have written it, because he isn't Robert Jordan. If he said this, I'd argue he misspoke, but I'm unfamiliar with the specific quote.

Not to nit-pick, but to say you would argue he misspoke but you're unfamiliar with the specific quote seems off to me. By misspoke I guess you mean he could have worded what he meant another way, which would be charitable but there's no need to characterize his quote you're not familiar with because you're not familiar with it. OK, I'm nit-picking. Sorry. But I'm spring-boarding off the nit that I picked to either dive or belly-flop. 

I think an honest assessment of the quote as it is attributed to him here (and perhaps not as he said it) would be "wow, that would be a crazy thing to say. I hope he misspoke or the specific context might put it in better light." I mean without any context, it assumes he's up to the task. Decent humility would have one not think that, and both decent public decency and clever public relations savvy would would have one never say that aloud. My number one off-the-cuff assessment of Rafe is that he's too young for this task. This is a kind of error the young make all the time. I think I remember saying stupid things I couldn't back up, so maybe I see myself in our ambitious show-runner. 

But, if the context is that he's writting it from a feminism point of view today as RJ would today, based on how he did it then from that perspective: well, that's off-base too probably. What kind of feminism does RJ reflect in the books, and how does he relate to it? Before even trying to to answer, I suspect Harriet has a lot to do with his view on it and his relationship with it, so there is a possible mediating factor that might need to be included.

But, is RJ offering a sort of 60s-70s view of feminism (where I'll remind everyone how the women on the original Star Trek series thought their short uniform-dresses were very women's lib, and women where soldiering on through an openly sexist world even if not everyone in that world was sexist. The nurse and the various yeomen (yeo-women? that's what they were) worked in spite of the leering. The whole gist of the Mary Tyler Moore show was that she was in her thirties and not married in an actual a career, standing up to a tough boss, and living alone even!), and his view on that (perhaps with Harriet's input)? The whole tension between men and women in the series (which also has a lot to do with mistrust sewn by the DO) sounds 70s-ish to me, not 90s-ish. Moraine is more Grace Slick than Mikki from Lush, imHo.

I don't know if Rafe is thinking about that, nor about what that view would be today or what that today would be. I don't think he can. But, I don't he isn't thinking along those lines at all. I think in artist circles today he has to address everytime he hears "oh, you're adapting that book series? Isn't it problematic?" and the best answer to that, to get passed all the gate-keepers and peer-keepers-down-ers, might be "yeah, but at it's core it's a great story with great women characters. the dynamic is outdated but for it's time it was progressive and even forward thinking." I don't think I'm misquoting Rafe here.  ;^)  I do suspect this little fake-dialogue is closer to the reality-- both in that he might not like this aspect of what he sees in the books but also that he has to work with people aren't going to be so onboard with sex-based differences everyone used to take for granted. 

[Andra]

25 minutes ago, Juan Farstrider said:

Not to nit-pick, but to say you would argue he misspoke but you're unfamiliar with the specific quote seems off to me. By misspoke I guess you mean he could have worded what he meant another way, which would be charitable but there's no need to characterize his quote you're not familiar with because you're not familiar with it. OK, I'm nit-picking. Sorry. But I'm spring-boarding off the nit that I picked to either dive or belly-flop. 

I think an honest assessment of the quote as it is attributed to him here (and perhaps not as he said it) would be "wow, that would be a crazy thing to say. I hope he misspoke or the specific context might put it in better light." I mean without any context, it assumes he's up to the task. Decent humility would have one not think that, and both decent public decency and clever public relations savvy would would have one never say that aloud. My number one off-the-cuff assessment of Rafe is that he's too young for this task. This is a kind of error the young make all the time. I think I remember saying stupid things I couldn't back up, so maybe I see myself in our ambitious show-runner. 

But, if the context is that he's writting it from a feminism point of view today as RJ would today, based on how he did it then from that perspective: well, that's off-base too probably. What kind of feminism does RJ reflect in the books, and how does he relate to it? Before even trying to to answer, I suspect Harriet has a lot to do with his view on it and his relationship with it, so there is a possible mediating factor that might need to be included.

But, is RJ offering a sort of 60s-70s view of feminism (where I'll remind everyone how the women on the original Star Trek series thought their short uniform-dresses were very women's lib, and women where soldiering on through an openly sexist world even if not everyone in that world was sexist. The nurse and the various yeomen (yeo-women? that's what they were) worked in spite of the leering. The whole gist of the Mary Tyler Moore show was that she was in her thirties and not married in an actual a career, standing up to a tough boss, and living alone even!), and his view on that (perhaps with Harriet's input)? The whole tension between men and women in the series (which also has a lot to do with mistrust sewn by the DO) sounds 70s-ish to me, not 90s-ish. Moraine is more Grace Slick than Mikki from Lush, imHo.

I don't know if Rafe is thinking about that, nor about what that view would be today or what that today would be. I don't think he can. But, I don't he isn't thinking along those lines at all. I think in artist circles today he has to address everytime he hears "oh, you're adapting that book series? Isn't it problematic?" and the best answer to that, to get passed all the gate-keepers and peer-keepers-down-ers, might be "yeah, but at it's core it's a great story with great women characters. the dynamic is outdated but for it's time it was progressive and even forward thinking." I don't think I'm misquoting Rafe here.  ;^)  I do suspect this little fake-dialogue is closer to the reality-- both in that he might not like this aspect of what he sees in the books but also that he has to work with people aren't going to be so onboard with sex-based differences everyone used to take for granted. 

I've seen a couple different versions of the quote, including one that specifically mentions "how RJ would write it today."  I'm not sure what interview that appeared in, but here's another version as quoted in Den Of Geek that makes the context clear:

“One of the things about the books is that they were probably quite, quite feminist in the ‘90s when they came out, and so I want to stay true to that and make them feel feminist for today,” Judkins says. “I think if we took some of the things that happened in the books and put them on screen today, they would not feel as feminist. There’s a 30-year gap between when those [first books] came out and the [series] end.” 

 

He is explicitly saying that it was feminist for its day, but not enough for today.

So he's taking it on himself to make it that way.  Even though it remains one of the most feminist of fiction properties - regardless of genre, or era.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Andra

[VooDooNut]

19 minutes ago, Juan Farstrider said:

Not to nit-pick, but to say you would argue he misspoke but you're unfamiliar with the specific quote seems off to me. By misspoke I guess you mean he could have worded what he meant another way, which would be charitable but there's no need to characterize his quote you're not familiar with because you're not familiar with it. OK, I'm nit-picking. Sorry. But I'm spring-boarding off the nit that I picked to either dive or belly-flop. 

I think an honest assessment of the quote as it is attributed to him here (and perhaps not as he said it) would be "wow, that would be a crazy thing to say. I hope he misspoke or the specific context might put it in better light." I mean without any context, it assumes he's up to the task. Decent humility would have one not think that, and both decent public decency and clever public relations savvy would would have one never say that aloud. My number one off-the-cuff assessment of Rafe is that he's too young for this task. This is a kind of error the young make all the time. I think I remember saying stupid things I couldn't back up, so maybe I see myself in our ambitious show-runner. 

But, if the context is that he's writting it from a feminism point of view today as RJ would today, based on how he did it then from that perspective: well, that's off-base too probably. What kind of feminism does RJ reflect in the books, and how does he relate to it? Before even trying to to answer, I suspect Harriet has a lot to do with his view on it and his relationship with it, so there is a possible mediating factor that might need to be included.

But, is RJ offering a sort of 60s-70s view of feminism (where I'll remind everyone how the women on the original Star Trek series thought their short uniform-dresses were very women's lib, and women where soldiering on through an openly sexist world even if not everyone in that world was sexist. The nurse and the various yeomen (yeo-women? that's what they were) worked in spite of the leering. The whole gist of the Mary Tyler Moore show was that she was in her thirties and not married in an actual a career, standing up to a tough boss, and living alone even!), and his view on that (perhaps with Harriet's input)? The whole tension between men and women in the series (which also has a lot to do with mistrust sewn by the DO) sounds 70s-ish to me, not 90s-ish. Moraine is more Grace Slick than Mikki from Lush, imHo.

I don't know if Rafe is thinking about that, nor about what that view would be today or what that today would be. I don't think he can. But, I don't he isn't thinking along those lines at all. I think in artist circles today he has to address everytime he hears "oh, you're adapting that book series? Isn't it problematic?" and the best answer to that, to get passed all the gate-keepers and peer-keepers-down-ers, might be "yeah, but at it's core it's a great story with great women characters. the dynamic is outdated but for it's time it was progressive and even forward thinking." I don't think I'm misquoting Rafe here.  ;^)  I do suspect this little fake-dialogue is closer to the reality-- both in that he might not like this aspect of what he sees in the books but also that he has to work with people aren't going to be so onboard with sex-based differences everyone used to take for granted. 

I think what I said above is being misinterpreted, and I agree I have no idea what the actually quote(s) are. I don't care what Rafe said or didn't day. My point was that he would be wrong to claim he can write something as if he were Robert Jordan. The only person capable of that is Robert Jordan. Robert Jordan would also be wrong to claim he can run a show as if he were Rafe Judkins. Hopefully I've articulated that better than before.

[Juan Farstrider]

Just now, VooDooNut said:

I think what I said above is being misinterpreted, and I agree I have no idea what the actually quote(s) are. I don't care what Rafe said or didn't day. My point was that he would be wrong to claim he can write something as if he were Robert Jordan. The only person capable of that is Robert Jordan. Robert Jordan would also be wrong to claim he can run a show as if he were Rafe Judkins. Hopefully I've articulated that better than before.

cool, thanks for the clarification. I did quote you, and throw a question at you (I think. I'd have to reread, but that's not the point I'm making anyway), but I really wanted to get my own riffs on the idea out there.

So, not 'misspoke' but maybe more like 'speaking above his pay-grade' or 'talking outta his $*&$&' ?

[Jake Sykwalker]

12 minutes ago, Andra said:

I've seen a couple different versions of the quote, including one that specifically mentions "how RJ would write it today."  I'm not sure what interview that appeared in, but here's another version as quoted in Den Of Geek that makes the context clear:

“One of the things about the books is that they were probably quite, quite feminist in the ‘90s when they came out, and so I want to stay true to that and make them feel feminist for today,” Judkins says. “I think if we took some of the things that happened in the books and put them on screen today, they would not feel as feminist. There’s a 30-year gap between when those [first books] came out and the [series] end.” 

 

He is explicitly saying that it was feminist for its day, but not enough for today.

So he's taking it on himself to make it that way.  Even though it remains one of the most feminist of fiction properties - regardless of genre, or era.

 

Wow, Rafe has quite an ego on him.  He gets to update feminism.  I'm pretty sure Robert Jordan didn't make the books with the idea that he was a vehicle for promoting feminism.  He was making interesting characters and interactions.

 

[expat]

Quote

And the TV show looks nothing like his story so maybe they should change the name. 

Entire characters are changed, the world cultures are non existent, and the magic system is gone as well.

You want to talk about ownership still?

Or maybe stop trying to change something into what it's not. Advice rafe could take as well.

Concession accepted.  This is a good example of what I was trying to get at.  This appears (to me) as if you feel entitled to a show based on your interpretation of RJ's world.  Anything else is a personal attack.  Rafe may owe the Jordon estate something, depending on the contract, but doesn't owe you or me anything except a best effort to put an interesting show on the air.  Opinions can vary on whether he succeeded or not, but ad nauseum repeating the same criticism without engaging with the counter argument doesn't come across to me as arguing in good faith. 

 

Quote

and how would you respond if your employee failed to listen to feedback and failed a project because of it? 

 

Amazon is hoping to spend about 800 million on WOT and you honestly believe they have their heads up their asses and are refusing to look at and consider feedback?  Have you ever been involved in a 800 million dollar, multi-year effort?  Customer feedback is a critical component.  I was the TD for a government organization which managed the development of a 800M-1B dollar (development cost only) widget for the military services/civil agencies.  Did we listen to our customers about what they liked and didn't like, absolutely.  Did we make changes based on those discussions, absolutely.  Did we accept all their proposed changes and requirements, absolutely not.  We often put our foot down and told them that the widget had to work in a certain way and we would not change to meet their requests. 

 

Why do you think Amazon is any different?  Do they want to lose money with WOT by alienating all their viewers?  Do you think that public soul searching about where they messed up the first season is going to attract new viewers for season 2 or cause potential viewers to not watch because the Amazon/show runners are saying how bad the first season was?  Will anything other than Rafe making a mea culpa announcing that he screwed the pooch on the first season and promises to change all future seasons to meet your interpretation make you believe that Amazon/Rafe is looking at feedback and trying to improve the show?  

[Andra]

17 minutes ago, expat said:

Concession accepted.  This is a good example of what I was trying to get at.  This appears (to me) as if you feel entitled to a show based on your interpretation of RJ's world.  Anything else is a personal attack.  Rafe may owe the Jordon estate something, depending on the contract, but doesn't owe you or me anything except a best effort to put an interesting show on the air.  Opinions can vary on whether he succeeded or not, but ad nauseum repeating the same criticism without engaging with the counter argument doesn't come across to me as arguing in good faith. 

 

 

Amazon is hoping to spend about 800 million on WOT and you honestly believe they have their heads up their asses and are refusing to look at and consider feedback?  Have you ever been involved in a 800 million dollar, multi-year effort?  Customer feedback is a critical component.  I was the TD for a government organization which managed the development of a 800M-1B dollar (development cost only) widget for the military services/civil agencies.  Did we listen to our customers about what they liked and didn't like, absolutely.  Did we make changes based on those discussions, absolutely.  Did we accept all their proposed changes and requirements, absolutely not.  We often put our foot down and told them that the widget had to work in a certain way and we would not change to meet their requests. 

 

Why do you think Amazon is any different?  Do they want to lose money with WOT by alienating all their viewers?  Do you think that public soul searching about where they messed up the first season is going to attract new viewers for season 2 or cause potential viewers to not watch because the Amazon/show runners are saying how bad the first season was?  Will anything other than Rafe making a mea culpa announcing that he screwed the pooch on the first season and promises to change all future seasons to meet your interpretation make you believe that Amazon/Rafe is looking at feedback and trying to improve the show?  

 

Considering that Amazon approved season 2 before filming for season 1 even wrapped, much less aired, what "feedback" do you think they looked at and considered?

Customer feedback at that point was literally impossible for them to have seen.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Andra

[Humbugged2]

3 hours ago, Katherine said:

Absolutely. This will follow the same course. The only difference is that DIsney lost money on Jedi and had to try to fix it with Rise (ugh). 

 

Amazon hasn't lost money yet. 

How is making a $ 1 bn dollars a loss

[Spiritweaver1]

2 hours ago, VooDooNut said:

I think what I said above is being misinterpreted, and I agree I have no idea what the actually quote(s) are. I don't care what Rafe said or didn't day. My point was that he would be wrong to claim he can write something as if he were Robert Jordan. The only person capable of that is Robert Jordan. Robert Jordan would also be wrong to claim he can run a show as if he were Rafe Judkins. Hopefully I've articulated that better than before.

Yah, that statement is so true.  Even if you are a very talented writer under contract with RJ's estate to finish the series.  As I swim in the sea of words that is TGS it is clear that RJ is no longer writing the book.  Don't mistake me.  I think BS did an admirable job as "next person up".   I can wonder what would have been if Harriet would have selected Ursula K.  Le Guin.  Think about that for a bit.  

 

The problem is that they are focusing on rewriting the story when they should be focusing on telling the existing story visually and within the time and budget constraints they used to sell the show.  RJ took a simple based on retelling of the Fellowship of the Ring and turned it into something epic.  It is the height of hubris for anybody to think they are going to do better than RJ did.  There are plenty of places to clean up and tighten the story.   Trying to pick threads out of  the weave of Randland is like when Elayne tries to pick the weaves out of a gateway.    That effort ended in a very big bang.  This one will likely be a whimper.

 

[Katherine]

13 hours ago, Humbugged2 said:

How is making a $ 1 bn dollars a loss

 

The fact that it earned half of Force Awakens. 

 

 

https://deadline.com/2018/03/star-wars-the-last-jedi-box-office-movie-profits-1202351603/ 

 

 

"The $417.5M profit on Last Jedi is -46% from Force Awakens $780.1M." 

 

And then the last film earned even less. 

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-rise-skywalker-box-office-profit-comparison/  

 

There are also things to consider like toy sales etc. Those tanked. 

 

So If I am using this as an example for WoT..... if Season 2 still has decent numbers, but the viewership is 46% less.... then the show will be in crisis mode, Just like Star Wars was after Last Jedi. Right now there is no reason for Amazon to panic.... really. THough I would argue that this IP is following the same trend that Star Wars did. 

 

They def went a different direction than say Spiderman or Ghostbusters which honored the origional content and earned huge profits. They are trying something origional. I think it will ultimately fail. But right now Amazon believes in this new direction so we will see. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Katherine