How different is too different?

[VooDooNut]

20 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

I find it quite interesting you seem to think 'Better' is a measurable state, rather than a matter of opinion.  

 

When you say 'The creators chose to do X, Y, and Z' where this is something easily observable in the show, this is an observable and uncontested fact. 

When you say: 'XYZ Change is different from the books', this is a contested verifiable fact claim.  We can compare to the book and show, find out who is right.  One of us may remember incorrectly or interpret the books in different ways and overstate the case, but we should be able to reach a resolution about the facts...if we were honest with each other.

When you say: This change was made for no reason:  This is a contested and unverifiable fact claim.  You cannot know what is in the showrunner's head to know if there was a reason for the change or not.   The writer has claimed and has plenty of sources to it up, that he has read and loves the books very much, so we have reason by authority to believe he has reasons, so the claim he has no reason counters the expertise we have.  Other people can also offer potential reasons why a change was made. If you continue to believe that the change was made for no reason in spite of expertise and possible reasons given, then you are clinging to a hypothesis that is opposed by stronger pieces of evidence to the contrary until you provide someone who can prove your idea.

When you say:  This change is bad: This is an opinion. It belongs to you alone, and everyone else's opinion is equally valid.
When you say: Doing this thing this way will be better: This is also an opinion.  And it is no more valid than Rafe's opinion or my opinion, or anyone else's opinion.  I can assume that Rafe picked the options that, in his opinion, made the best possible show that he could make under the circumstances.  I do not have the data that informed all his decisions.

So, when I defend the show, I am providing possible reasons and explanations that something was done the way it was, reasons that Rafe and others made the choices they made. 

 

You can honestly say, "I would not have made those choices," or "In my opinion, doing it this way would have been better".  But your opinion is not definitive fact.

If Rafe, his opinion, would have found your solution "simpler" and "better for the story long term", and "within the parameters/unknowns that he had to deal with in writing long term", and, of course, if he had be able to think of it (you may be a singular genius after all) at the moments when those decisions occurred, maybe he would have done what you chose to do.  However, he did not. You have different opinions than he, or I, on what the better option is.  Yours is not more valid.

Well said.

[Raal Gurniss]

24 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

I find it quite interesting you seem to think 'Better' is a measurable state, rather than a matter of opinion.  

 

When you say 'The creators chose to do X, Y, and Z' where this is something easily observable in the show, this is an observable and uncontested fact. 

When you say: 'XYZ Change is different from the books', this is a contested verifiable fact claim.  We can compare to the book and show, find out who is right.  One of us may remember incorrectly or interpret the books in different ways and overstate the case, but we should be able to reach a resolution about the facts...if we were honest with each other.

When you say: This change was made for no reason:  This is a contested and unverifiable fact claim.  You cannot know what is in the showrunner's head to know if there was a reason for the change or not.   The writer has claimed and has plenty of sources to it up, that he has read and loves the books very much, so we have reason by authority to believe he has reasons, so the claim he has no reason counters the expertise we have.  Other people can also offer potential reasons why a change was made. If you continue to believe that the change was made for no reason in spite of expertise and possible reasons given, then you are clinging to a hypothesis that is opposed by stronger pieces of evidence to the contrary until you provide someone who can prove your idea.

When you say:  This change is bad: This is an opinion. It belongs to you alone, and everyone else's opinion is equally valid.
When you say: Doing this thing this way will be better: This is also an opinion.  And it is no more valid than Rafe's opinion or my opinion, or anyone else's opinion.  I can assume that Rafe picked the options that, in his opinion, made the best possible show that he could make under the circumstances.  I do not have the data that informed all his decisions.

So, when I defend the show, I am providing possible reasons and explanations that something was done the way it was, reasons that Rafe and others made the choices they made. 

 

You can honestly say, "I would not have made those choices," or "In my opinion, doing it this way would have been better".  But your opinion is not definitive fact.

If Rafe, his opinion, would have found your solution "simpler" and "better for the story long term", and "within the parameters/unknowns that he had to deal with in writing long term", and, of course, if he had be able to think of it (you may be a singular genius after all) at the moments when those decisions occurred, maybe he would have done what you chose to do.  However, he did not. You have different opinions than he, or I, on what the better option is.  Yours is not more valid.

…..So the consumers opinion isn’t more valid? Blimey….That marketing 101?

Edited January 16, 2022 by Raal Gurniss

[Cauthonfan4]

1 minute ago, Raal Gurniss said:

.So the consumers opinion isn’t more valid? Blimey….That marketing 101

When season 2 ratings are even worse then the current ratings (a 7.2 on imdb, which is what Shannara chronicles got and got canceled) they will blame upset book fans to boot despite them literally saying they knew their changes would push us away.

[Truthteller]

I really wish people would stop dismissing criticisms by saying that is just an opinion.

Not everything that isn’t a fact, is therefore only an opinion.  
 

Not all opinions are equally valid.  
 

If everything is opinion there is no point in discussing anything, no point in speaking with precision, no point in giving reasons, no point to anything at all.

[Raal Gurniss]

2 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

When season 2 ratings are even worse then the current ratings (a 7.2 on imdb, which is what Shannara chronicles got and got canceled) they will blame upset book fans to boot despite them literally saying they knew their changes would push us away.

Can’t see how they can blame the book fans for a collapse, I suspect many-most won’t really watch it further.

[Cauthonfan4]

3 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

I really wish people would stop dismissing criticisms by saying that is just an opinion

Even yhe harshest critics have admitted the show has strong points. Meanwhile most defenders seem unwilling to admit the show has clear flaws. I've even seen some defending thr lighting ..

1 minute ago, Raal Gurniss said:

Can’t see how they can blame the book fans for a collapse, I suspect many-most won’t really watch it further

Because they always do this. Take something and drastically alter it from the source. When source fans abandon it, the source fans are blamed.

 

 

[Raal Gurniss]

3 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

I really wish people would stop dismissing criticisms by saying that is just an opinion.

Not everything that isn’t a fact, is therefore only an opinion.  
 

Not all opinions are equally valid.  
 

If everything is opinion there is no point in discussing anything, no point in speaking with precision, no point in giving reasons, no point to anything at all.

Isn’t that ultimately the goal though? End all criticism and create an echo chamber.

[WhiteVeils]

I've looked at a bunch of ratings, and it seemed from what I have seen that WOT did much better than Amazon expected, but I couldn't 'call' that one way or another.  The authoritative accounts that I have seen do seem to indicate that it is doing well, but I don't think the final assessment on the overall ratings can be made yet.  If ratings are determined by Amazon (whose opinions I of course don't have access too) to be poor, they also will determine why they think the ratings are poor, and it is unlikely to be because the show strayed too far from the books.  Book fans don't count for much in terms of global ratings.

 

I would take criticism as something other than 'not opinion', if criticism was actually backed by more than just more opinions, and I value non-reader opinions more than reader opinions.  

Example: The costumes are too clean.  <- This is an opinion. What is it backed by? 
Are the costumes actually clean?  Or are they dirty but people are thinking that they are clean because they want something to criticize?  Are they judging clean because they are looking at a moment that is right before a festival when people's clothes should be clean, or are they looking at how clean they are over the whole course of the journey, and did the cleanliness change?  Are they too clean compared to another show?  How do we know that other show's costumes weren't too dirty instead?

These are opinions...and other people's opinions can differ. And if those other people's opinions differ from yours, /their/ opinion is equally valid, and they have just as much right to say your opinion on how clean costumes should be  as you have yours.

Now, if you were a costume designer, and you were in charge of dirtifying costumes, and  you said, "Well, they probably should have done more dirt there...seems like an oversight" I'd say your opinion was more valid that either the 'pro-clean' or 'pro-dirty' faction. And I'd wonder why the showrunner made that choice.  And that would be OK.

 

 

[Cauthonfan4]

6 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

I've looked at a bunch of ratings, and it seemed from what I have seen that WOT did much better than Amazon expected

Amazon was saying they wanted this to be their game of thrones. Go look at game of thrones ratings and say this again.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Cauthonfan4

[VooDooNut]

56 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

I really wish people would stop dismissing criticisms by saying that is just an opinion.

Not everything that isn’t a fact, is therefore only an opinion.  
 

Not all opinions are equally valid.  
 

If everything is opinion there is no point in discussing anything, no point in speaking with precision, no point in giving reasons, no point to anything at all.

 

18 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

I've looked at a bunch of ratings, and it seemed from what I have seen that WOT did much better than Amazon expected, but I couldn't 'call' that one way or another.  The authoritative accounts that I have seen do seem to indicate that it is doing well, but I don't think the final assessment on the overall ratings can be made yet.  If ratings are determined by Amazon (whose opinions I of course don't have access too) to be poor, they also will determine why they think the ratings are poor, and it is unlikely to be because the show strayed too far from the books.  Book fans don't count for much in terms of global ratings.

 

I would take criticism as something other than 'not opinion', if criticism was actually backed by more than just more opinions, and I value non-reader opinions more than reader opinions.  

Example: The costumes are too clean.  <- This is an opinion. What is it backed by? 
Are the costumes actually clean?  Or are they dirty but people are thinking that they are clean because they want something to criticize?  Are they judging clean because they are looking at a moment that is right before a festival when people's clothes should be clean, or are they looking at how clean they are over the whole course of the journey, and did the cleanliness change?  Are they too clean compared to another show?  How do we know that other show's costumes weren't too dirty instead?

These are opinions...and other people's opinions can differ. And if those other people's opinions differ from yours, /their/ opinion is equally valid, and they have just as much right to say your opinion on how clean costumes should be  as you have yours.

Now, if you were a costume designer, and you were in charge of dirtifying costumes, and  you said, "Well, they probably should have done more dirt there...seems like an oversight" I'd say your opinion was more valid that either the 'pro-clean' or 'pro-dirty' faction. And I'd wonder why the showrunner made that choice.  And that would be OK.

 

 

 

To add on to the above...IMO, it is precisely because the ranking of television and other entertainment is subjective and opinion-based that it's fun to discuss things like minutia of the show and and how it plays off the books, or, conversely, how I dislike something in the show. Maybe I offer up an alternative choice while not discrediting the work of other fans/artists.

 

I don't participate in discussions on forums like this to win The Wheel Of Time. There's nothing here to win. I participate because I like listening to other people's opinions and sharing my own. There is no endgame here, which is all I think the everything-is-opinion argument is trying to make.

 

12 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

Amazon was saying they wanted this to be their game of thrones. Go look at game of thrones ratings and say this again.

It's possible to form an opinion of a show without basing that opinion on some type of metric. Referencing any particular rating system doesn't inherently make your argument stronger. I think it is kind of a bland argument to say, effectively, "I feel X way about the show because it got a 7.whatever rating on rottenpotatoes.com!" (I hate the show because other people hate the show), rather than, "I dislike the EF5 costume design because I thought the color were distracting in many of the shots. Here's the palette I would have chosen instead, and why." (A specific dislike of an element of the show, backed up with an alternative suggestion and explanation.)

Edited January 17, 2022 by VooDooNut

[WhiteVeils]

We don't have final ratings, and the environment is different now with many more competitors on the market.  Amazon will make clear they're unhappy with the ratings if they cancel it or say something to that effect. <shrug>

[ashi]

1 hour ago, WhiteVeils said:

When you say: Doing this thing this way will be better: This is also an opinion.  And it is no more valid than Rafe's opinion or my opinion, or anyone else's opinion.  I can assume that Rafe picked the options that, in his opinion, made the best possible show that he could make under the circumstances.  I do not have the data that informed all his decisions.

 

Rafe is, however, objectively wrong about certain aspects of the books. At the very least, he seems to present a view rather like a light seen through a stained glass, rather than the light itself (which would have the potential to create a multitude of impressions due to the medium through which it is viewed). (The latter is of course a problem with any adaption, but some more than others).

 

Quote

Rafe:  I don't even think Rand has the most POV chapters in the books overall.

 

Rafe: I think Mat is the character who most clearly struggles with the darker elements of himself.

 

(The second example is objectively wrong, as it can be quantified, if one wishes, by going through every instance of a POV character struggling with its darker elements).

 

(From https://ew.com/tv/the-wheel-of-time-showrunner-burning-questions-season-1-finale/)

Edited January 17, 2022 by ashi

[WhiteVeils]

11 minutes ago, ashi said:

 

Rafe is, however, objectively wrong about certain aspects of the books. At the very least, he seems to present a view rather like a light seen through a stained glass, rather than the light itself (which would have the potential to create a multitude of impressions due to the medium through which it is viewed). (The latter is of course a problem with any adaption, but some more than others).

 

 

(The second example is objectively wrong, as it can be quantified, if one wishes, by going through every instance of a POV character struggling with its darker elements).

 

(From https://ew.com/tv/the-wheel-of-time-showrunner-burning-questions-season-1-finale/)

I would wager that every one of us are somewhat 'wrong' in our interpretation of the books on some aspects, or would say something wrong if put to the question on an interview.  In terms of POV, Rand Absolutely has the most POV chapters in The Eye of the World, the work currently being adapted.  So him making that mistake is human.  Mat is the one struggling the most with the darker elements of himself in The Eye of the World also....he's literally fighting dagger poison.  Rafe answering questions with answers are that correct in the current season and current book under adaptation in answer to questions about the current season aren't some example of him being 'objectively wrong'...just a different interpretation of the question.

 

That said, we all are filtering the light through our own stained glass...and our own stained glass are different colors. You can't say your color is objectively the right one.  Only Robert Jordan could.  But we can appreciate the colors Rafe's version of what he sees through his stained glass, if we choose to.

Edited January 17, 2022 by WhiteVeils

[ashi]

1 hour ago, WhiteVeils said:

When you say:  This change is bad: This is an opinion. It belongs to you alone, and everyone else's opinion is equally valid.

 

All arguments are not equally valid. And criticism (be it negative or positive or neutral) can be more or less reasoned, and thus less or more easily dismissed as "just opinion".

 

Criticism can also be born out of whether the show succeeds in bringing out its ambitions, and thus becomes, if not wholly objective, less subjective.

 

E.g. (from https://ew.com/tv/the-wheel-of-time-showrunner-burning-questions-season-1-finale/), a stated ambition is to bring out an ensemble representation of the main characters: 

 

Quote

Rafe: So we really tried to make the season have that feeling from the whole book series of being a real ensemble piece. We made a lot of changes in the first season to make sure that you could see all the stories of the five main leads.

 

This ambition is then, in Perrin's case, undercut by:

 

Quote

You guys were more patient in rolling out his connection with wolves than the book is.

 

Rafe: We needed to be patient with the wolf stuff because as soon as you know what's going on there, then you know he's not the Dragon Reborn and it takes him out of the mystery.

 

Which leads to a problem which is internal to the show's stated ambitions, which can then be noted and criticized without necessarily being rooted in it simply being a disliked change from the books.

Edited January 17, 2022 by ashi

[WhiteVeils]

1 minute ago, ashi said:

 

All arguments are not equally valid. And criticism (be it negative or positive or neutral) can be more or less reasoned, and thus less or more easily dismissed as "just opinion".

 

Criticism can also be born out of whether the show succeeds in bringing out its ambitions, and thus becomes, if not wholly objective, less subjective.

 

E.g. (from https://ew.com/tv/the-wheel-of-time-showrunner-burning-questions-season-1-finale/), a stated ambition is to bring out an ensemble representation of the main characters: 

 

 

This ambition is then, in Perrin's case, undercut by:

 

 

Which leads to a problem which is internal to the show's stated ambitions, which can then be noted and criticized without necessarily being rooted in it simply being a disliked change from the books.

This is true....and you make a good argument here. The showrunner wants to bring out all stories equally, and you can argue, with a variety of metrics, that he has not been as successful with Perrin's story. I even agree with you!   It's a valid criticism, in my opinion.  

From there you can get:  The goal (ensemble cast) is wrong/bad, or Perrin failed to make the goal as well as the other characters.

With regards to this specific goal, I'd say that hopefully it's something that can be corrected next season.  Ensemble casts seem to me to feel like something that would be very hard to do, and I hope it is fixed.   I wouldn't call the show terrible for not managing to make that goal, of course. Just not as good as it could be.

Note: In NONE of my arguements in this or any other thread have I said that the show is 100% perfect in every way. 

[Juan Farstrider]

8 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

It's not a commercial at all...these are professional script writers and playwrights who were podcasting a WOT readthrough long before the series began. You just are dismissing them because of opinion they offer.

People in the industry are not going to rip apart the work of other people in their same industry. They have to always be looking out for the potential to work together. They can't burn a bridge they haven't even crossed yet. 

To be fair, they also know the real-world problems of writing for the actual screen as part of a big actual production and not what might get on the screen alone. I would take them the same way I take any Kevin Smith review of pop culture creations, or the way a local sports casting team covers the local team. 

[Juan Farstrider]

7 hours ago, EmreY said:

TBH, I wonder how saidin/saidar/the True Power/ta'verenness can all be represented without the screen exploding in rainbows and ribbons.  (And whose point of view will be used to show the weaves?) 

 

 

For the weird workings of ta'verenness, I could imagine a moment of visual changes like change in focal depth, perspective, a subtle shift in color or saturation, perhaps the audio undergoing a telephone-equalization moment (but losing audibility can't happen) that goes in a sequence and the reverses back to what ever was normal before it happened, along with a brief visible change in some character's demeanor. 

[WhiteVeils]

12 minutes ago, Juan Farstrider said:

For the weird workings of ta'verenness, I could imagine a moment of visual changes like change in focal depth, perspective, a subtle shift in color or saturation, perhaps the audio undergoing a telephone-equalization moment (but losing audibility can't happen) that goes in a sequence and the reverses back to what ever was normal before it happened, along with a brief visible change in some character's demeanor. 

The audio interview (in the interviews thread) did mention they put an audio cue when 'Ta'veren' power was used.

[DaddyFinn]

 

 

43 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

The audio interview (in the interviews thread) did mention they put an audio cue when 'Ta'veren' power was used.

This could be one of the sound clues

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by DaddyFinn

[ArrylT]

2 hours ago, Juan Farstrider said:

People in the industry are not going to rip apart the work of other people in their same industry. They have to always be looking out for the potential to work together. They can't burn a bridge they haven't even crossed yet. 

To be fair, they also know the real-world problems of writing for the actual screen as part of a big actual production and not what might get on the screen alone. I would take them the same way I take any Kevin Smith review of pop culture creations, or the way a local sports casting team covers the local team. 

 

Better tell that to Brian Cox then. ? His latest memoir calls Johnny Depp "overrated", Steven Seagal "ludicrous in real life" and Edward Norton ""a nice lad but a bit of a pain in the arse because he fancies himself a writer-director."

 

Here is Jeff Garlin trashing his own show.

 

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/jeff-garlin-leaves-the-goldbergs-comedy-show-1235137210/

 

Directors trashing their own movies (and remember movie sets involve dozens of people so when you trash your own movie you're not just trashing your own work)

 

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog//2017/10/14-directors-that-trashed-their-own.html

 

And here is famous directors dissing other directors

 

https://www.goldderby.com/forum/movies/directors-on-other-directors/

 

People are going to be people.  They cannot help it, even if staying silent would be better. So no I personally doubt that the people involved in any podcast would avoid saying critical or negative things about a show out of fear of loss of work.   

[ilovezam]

4 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

I would wager that every one of us are somewhat 'wrong' in our interpretation of the books on some aspects, or would say something wrong if put to the question on an interview.  In terms of POV, Rand Absolutely has the most POV chapters in The Eye of the World, the work currently being adapted.  So him making that mistake is human. 

Rand absolutely has the most POV chapters grand total across all books. 

 

 

 

[Juan Farstrider]

1 hour ago, ArrylT said:

 

Better tell that to Brian Cox then. ? His latest memoir calls Johnny Depp "overrated", Steven Seagal "ludicrous in real life" and Edward Norton ""a nice lad but a bit of a pain in the arse because he fancies himself a writer-director."

 

Here is Jeff Garlin trashing his own show.

 

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/jeff-garlin-leaves-the-goldbergs-comedy-show-1235137210/

 

Directors trashing their own movies (and remember movie sets involve dozens of people so when you trash your own movie you're not just trashing your own work)

 

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog//2017/10/14-directors-that-trashed-their-own.html

 

And here is famous directors dissing other directors

 

https://www.goldderby.com/forum/movies/directors-on-other-directors/

 

People are going to be people.  They cannot help it, even if staying silent would be better. So no I personally doubt that the people involved in any podcast would avoid saying critical or negative things about a show out of fear of loss of work.   

Jeff Garlin trashing his own show is a different thing altogether. Brian Cox, whose stage resume and career makes him very secure in his career, calling Johnny Depp over rated should not be surprising for many reasons. But you make fair points.

Saying people are going to be people cuts equally the other way too though. If you think they are genuinely calling it as they see 'em and not hyping the show (which could be for any number of reasons), then there you go. I can't imagine anyone, let alone a writer, hearing "she has a tell" in the last episode and not cringe. 

[ilovezam]

13 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

Like Clarity: Not introducing separate weird words for magic when you don't need them.

The show throws out words like sa'angreal and ta'veren flippantly and without explanation. The Dune movie wasn't afraid to use "weird words" and the audience never had a problem understanding them, even if they might never figure out how they're spelt. 

 

I think Moiraine gave Rand that speech of hers from the books it would have been perfectly easy to understand, and a nice bit of worldbuilding.

 

"Can a cat teach a dog to climb trees, Rand? Can a fish teach a bird to swim? I know saidar, but I can teach you nothing of saidin. Those who could are three thousand years dead." 

 

29 minutes ago, Juan Farstrider said:

I can't imagine anyone, let alone a writer, hearing "she has a tell" in the last episode and not cringe. 

 

Yeah, even on the show subreddit where only the ultra positive fans remain, nobody seems to defend that line. I think generally it's quite hard to make the argument that the show's writing wasn't at least sometimes very, very poor. It's a really weird hill to die on.

Edited January 17, 2022 by ilovezam

[EmreY]

6 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

The audio interview (in the interviews thread) did mention they put an audio cue when 'Ta'veren' power was used.

 

6 hours ago, DaddyFinn said:

 

 

This could be one of the sound clues

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for that!

 

But it's far too subtle for me.  I need a drumroll, or bells or trumpets or something. ? 

[EmreY]

10 hours ago, flinn said:

 It is very interesting how you manage to come up with so many ways to defend the show, but simple things to make it better is so elusive to you.

 

Just our opinions.

 

I'm no saint, but I try to put myself into other people's shoes, and in this case, our idle speculation about what  the reasons might have been for various changes is all we have to go on.  It's not really crazy; the forum is full of speculations, regarding both the show and the books.  What else do you expect from us, to accept your idle speculation as truth?