How different is too different?

[Terry05]

1 hour ago, ilovezam said:

Yeah... I get that some people don't mind the change that much, but for all the mental gymnastics used to justify the change, I have not seen anyone put forth a good explanation to why they did it. It's also not a stunt team or COVID thing either because Rafe had him lose to one Trolloc from his original script from 2018.

 

It's such a cool thing that this universe features a concept like blademasters, and I think it would have been really cool if we get to see Tam do something, especially since they made it a whole point to really highlight the heron. We see him "know how to use the sword", but not any more than a regular soldier might be expected to. I've seen show only audiences speculate that the heron is a sigil to show that he was once a soldier or something. 

 

I still like Tam because he's got good lines and the actor's great, but it's such a wasted opportunity. 

 

 

There was a missed opportunity to have Tam decimate a couple of Trollocs but still get injured due to facing too many opponents. This would have resulted in a proper example of Blademaster badassery but still allow the fever dream sequence due to injury.

 

Michael McElhatton is such a good actor - loved him as Tam - hated him as Roose in GoT.

[WhiteVeils]

Why only one trolloc: it would have been very hard to fit two trollocs in the set for the farmhouse and do a decent fight.  It was very small.  Which would mean starting the fight inside, then going outside, at least, which is an even more complex fight with different lighting, easier to get confused with the town fight, and taking much longer to film.  The impression non book readers took from seeing Tam in that fight from the videos I watched was "Hey! He's really good at fighting, and he has that sword he can clearly fight well with.  That's strange." Which is what they're supposed to think.

[Andra]

8 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

Why only one trolloc: it would have been very hard to fit two trollocs in the set for the farmhouse and do a decent fight.  It was very small.  Which would mean starting the fight inside, then going outside, at least, which is an even more complex fight with different lighting, easier to get confused with the town fight, and taking much longer to film.  The impression non book readers took from seeing Tam in that fight from the videos I watched was "Hey! He's really good at fighting, and he has that sword he can clearly fight well with.  That's strange." Which is what they're supposed to think.

The set was built from scratch.  For that one scene. 

If it was too small, it's because they made it too small.

 

The response I saw from non-readers who watched the scene was more like "That looks like an interesting sword.  I wonder where he got it, because he doesn't look like he knows how to use it.  Good thing Rand was there to stab that thing in the back."

[Chivalry]

1 hour ago, Terry05 said:

There was a missed opportunity to have Tam decimate a couple of Trollocs but still get injured due to facing too many opponents. This would have resulted in a proper example of Blademaster badassery but still allow the fever dream sequence due to injury.

 

Michael McElhatton is such a good actor - loved him as Tam - hated him as Roose in GoT.

 

Misuse of a terrific actor. I hope we see more of him in WOT.

[ArrylT]

3 hours ago, Andra said:

Rand killing the Trolloc doesn't make Tam weak.  Tam needing Rand to kill the trolloc for him does - at least weaker than even a retired blademaster should be.

 

While I disagree, I can now understand the perspective.  Thanks for your response. 

 

3 hours ago, Andra said:

 

 

The wound is simply a mark from being thrown back against the fireplace mantel.  The trolloc hasn't stabbed or clubbed him or anything else.  It shouldn't have been in any way debilitating, and in the show his movement doesn't seem affected by it at all.

 

Fair enough.  I've only watched the scenes at full speed - eventually I'm going to, like others have, watch it at half speed.  I think it could have hindered him slightly but feel that more in a way that that multiple factors occur.  Shoulder injury, misjudge speed & strength of top level Trolloc (Narg we assume) and choosing the wrong sword forms to fight a Trolloc, none of which I would punish Tam for since he's had zero life experience fighting Trollocs.  

 

Basically I think that the show levelled up, and maybe it was not necessary, certain Trollocs in certain scenes to amp up the suspense / action.   As I mentioned, I'd have liked to have seen more Trollocs attack the farm, not only for the opportunity for Tam to kill them,  but I can add that logically I don't think sending 1 Trolloc to the Farm and the other 99 (assuming it was a fist of 100) was something the Fade would have done.  But that is a case of real world fantasy logic versus what sells on tv to the average viewer.

 

Call it a case of it doesnt interfere with my enjoyment of the episode, but a way I can think of improving my enjoyment level.  

 

3 hours ago, Andra said:

 

Also: while he wouldn't have ever faced a trolloc before, he absolutely knew what one was, and how hard they were to kill.  He told Rand about them that night.  Nor was he really surprised by them showing up in the book, since he put on the sword before they broke in.

 

The Tam in the show and the Tam in the book aren't the same guy in this respect.

 

 

Very true, but that is part of the point I think.   Only the book readers know a lot of this information.  Since most viewers would not know - it therefore does not indicate any intent specifically to portray Tam negatively. 

 

So yes I would agree that Tam does not get the same opportunity to showcase his fighting skills that he did in the books.   I just would disagree that this lack of opportunity was due to anything other than the limitations provided (season length, episode length, adaptation requirements, etc), or that what I saw from Tam gave me a negative impression of him.  

 

I also want to be clear.   I would have been all for a longer S1 with 10-12 episodes*, where these scenes can be added to further flesh out certain characters and such.  I simply do not feel that the lack of these scenes, or how Tam is portrayed in the show is (a) intented to harm his portrayal as a character or (b) is done in a way that makes him appear weak. 

 

* - Several people have suggested that maybe one day a 12+ episode per season animated series would be nice, and I'd definitely want to watch that.

[ArrylT]

3 hours ago, ilovezam said:

 

Think you're spot on with that example, in that Hamilton's cast seems universally loved without managing to come across as forced to just about anybody. I think that first of all LMM stated that he cast the crew for their rapping ability, and that the musical's genre has a strong cultural affinity with black people, and they knocked it out of the park. I don't think he set out to exclusively cast black people for just diversity reasons for many of the main characters. 

 

But I think a bigger difference for me is that a musical on stage is this hyper stylised thing where people overact things while they do crazy choreographed song and dance in a way you would not expect anyone to see in "real life". I remember picking up the biography for a bit after fanboying Hamilton for a few months, and while reading the book, I could not and did not visualize the characters from the more historically account as the same people from the musical adaptation - it's like the musical I love so much takes up a different space in my head entirely. I suspect it would look pretty darn ridiculous if they were featured in film as they were in the musical, costumes and hairstyles and all. 

 

Film and shows, on the other hand, seem to present a window through which we could look and immerse into a world as it's events are occurring. The vague imagination of the reader comes to life and it seems a lot harder to separate the adaptation and the prose. I suspect most of us imagine the cast as the actors from the films when re-reading LOTR, and so it's extra important for it to feel authentic and real, whereas Hamilton never had to quite worry about that. 

 

What? I'll admit I have no recollection of who Daise Congar was from the books before I Googled her more recently after the show, and I think that would have been true even if I did several rereads. 

 

The actress is 66. She is 100% shot to sound and look to old. That's what geriatric means. The fact that you manage to infer disrespect to actual rural people is telling and entirely on you. Try again. 

 

Also think it's neat that you care about her book feats in a discussion about the violation of the very same thing for a book blademaster. 

 

3 hours ago, ilovezam said:

 

Think you're spot on with that example, in that Hamilton's cast seems universally loved without managing to come across as forced to just about anybody. I think that first of all LMM stated that he cast the crew for their rapping ability, and that the musical's genre has a strong cultural affinity with black people, and they knocked it out of the park. I don't think he set out to exclusively cast black people for just diversity reasons for many of the main characters. 

 

But I think a bigger difference for me is that a musical on stage is this hyper stylised thing where people overact things while they do crazy choreographed song and dance in a way you would not expect anyone to see in "real life". I remember picking up the biography for a bit after fanboying Hamilton for a few months, and while reading the book, I could not and did not visualize the characters from the more historically account as the same people from the musical adaptation - it's like the musical I love so much takes up a different space in my head entirely. I suspect it would look pretty darn ridiculous if they were featured in film as they were in the musical, costumes and hairstyles and all. 

 

Film and shows, on the other hand, seem to present a window through which we could look and immerse into a world as it's events are occurring. The vague imagination of the reader comes to life and it seems a lot harder to separate the adaptation and the prose. I suspect most of us imagine the cast as the actors from the films when re-reading LOTR, and so it's extra important for it to feel authentic and real, whereas Hamilton never had to quite worry about that. 

 

What? I'll admit I have no recollection of who Daise Congar was from the books before I Googled her more recently after the show, and I think that would have been true even if I did several rereads. 

 

The actress is 66. She is 100% shot to sound and look to old. That's what geriatric means. The fact that you manage to infer disrespect to actual rural people is telling and entirely on you. Try again. 

 

Also think it's neat that you care about her book feats in a discussion about the violation of the very same thing for a book blademaster. 

 

I am not trying anything.   Simply mentioning how it comes across.   You said "geriatric farmwomen". 

 

Typically there are 3 definitions of geriatric, none of which tend to apply to healthy women who could be full of adrenaline and inspired by others fighting the Trollocs.

 

1 - pertaining to the field of geriatrics (study of diseases and disabilities of  the elderly)

2 - adjective describing someone as geriatric

3 - countable noun that casually insults them by suggesting old & weak.

 

There are actual studies that older people dislike certain terms when referring to them and geriatric is amongst those terms.

 

https://www.aarp.org/disrupt-aging/stories/ideas/info-2018/ageist-language-glossary.html

 

Spoiler

“Geriatric” — Anything that references hospitals or medical facilities should be avoided. People aren’t decaying in front of you.

 

So yes, when you refer to a group of women of unknown age as a "bunch of geriatric farmwomen" it could come off as dissmissive or ageist, because you're using the word geriatric either as an adjective or a countable noun and those definitions can be deemed offensive, regardless if you know the age of one of the actors involved.  I still find it hard to believe geriatric is a word that is typically used endearingly when referring to people of the Two Rivers.  But if that was not your intent then it was not.  

 

Anyways as I mentioned, I like that scene as an example of the fighting spirit of the Two Rivers, something that is evidenced in the books, as early as Weep for Manetheren.   So no for me it is not about caring specifically for Daise Congar other than noting her ability to kill a Trolloc is in the books.

 

Regardless thanks for the response, even if it is likely we will have to agree to disagree. ?

[Andra]

12 minutes ago, ArrylT said:

 

While I disagree, I can now understand the perspective.  Thanks for your response. 

 

 

Fair enough.  I've only watched the scenes at full speed - eventually I'm going to, like others have, watch it at half speed.  I think it could have hindered him slightly but feel that more in a way that that multiple factors occur.  Shoulder injury, misjudge speed & strength of top level Trolloc (Narg we assume) and choosing the wrong sword forms to fight a Trolloc, none of which I would punish Tam for since he's had zero life experience fighting Trollocs.  

 

Basically I think that the show levelled up, and maybe it was not necessary, certain Trollocs in certain scenes to amp up the suspense / action.   As I mentioned, I'd have liked to have seen more Trollocs attack the farm, not only for the opportunity for Tam to kill them,  but I can add that logically I don't think sending 1 Trolloc to the Farm and the other 99 (assuming it was a fist of 100) was something the Fade would have done.  But that is a case of real world fantasy logic versus what sells on tv to the average viewer.

 

Call it a case of it doesnt interfere with my enjoyment of the episode, but a way I can think of improving my enjoyment level.  

 

 

 

Very true, but that is part of the point I think.   Only the book readers know a lot of this information.  Since most viewers would not know - it therefore does not indicate any intent specifically to portray Tam negatively. 

 

So yes I would agree that Tam does not get the same opportunity to showcase his fighting skills that he did in the books.   I just would disagree that this lack of opportunity was due to anything other than the limitations provided (season length, episode length, adaptation requirements, etc), or that what I saw from Tam gave me a negative impression of him.  

 

I also want to be clear.   I would have been all for a longer S1 with 10-12 episodes*, where these scenes can be added to further flesh out certain characters and such.  I simply do not feel that the lack of these scenes, or how Tam is portrayed in the show is (a) intented to harm his portrayal as a character or (b) is done in a way that makes him appear weak. 

 

* - Several people have suggested that maybe one day a 12+ episode per season animated series would be nice, and I'd definitely want to watch that.

I don't doubt that lack of time has a lot to do with it.

But the problem I have with dismissing things like this as due to lack of time is the fact that so much apparently unnecessary content was added in its place.  Why cut the rest of the fight at the al'Thor farm but put in the entire Karene/Stepin story arc?

 

Also, regarding the fact that only book readers would know something - that was kind of the point why this was brought up.  The Tam in the book was a badass retired swordmaster, who handled multiple trollocs on his own, and was only eventually overwhelmed by numbers.  The Tam in the show was a guy who had an old sword, but wasn't all that good with it, and needed his kid to save him by stabbing the one trolloc he saw in the back.

 

The fact that non-readers wouldn't recognize the difference doesn't change that it IS a difference.  And one that looks deliberate, given the other differences we encounter.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Andra

[Chivalry]

41 minutes ago, ArrylT said:

 

Basically I think that the show levelled up, and maybe it was not necessary, certain Trollocs in certain scenes to amp up the suspense / action.   As I mentioned, I'd have liked to have seen more Trollocs attack the farm, not only for the opportunity for Tam to kill them,  but I can add that logically I don't think sending 1 Trolloc to the Farm and the other 99 (assuming it was a fist of 100) was something the Fade would have done.  But that is a case of real world fantasy logic versus what sells on tv to the average viewer.

 

I agree. I think the priority was to ramp up the tension, to show the viewer how frightening these yet unnamed monsters could be. Having a random farmer (we don't know he's a blademaster) kill multiple Trollocs without much effort doesn't sell the jeopardy. 
 

 

[ilovezam]

58 minutes ago, ArrylT said:

Typically there are 3 definitions of geriatric, none of which tend to apply to healthy women who could be full of adrenaline and inspired by others fighting the Trollocs.

 

Not according to Cambridge dictionary which defines it as

 

"for or relating to old people"

 

Many definitions, like Google's, specify that it is especially used in relation to healthcare, but doesn't preclude the broader definition. 

 

I'm sure there's no shortage of old people who do not like being referred to as old. Heck, I'm in my late twenties and don't enjoy the odd reminder. But I'm not talking about those people, who I would gladly not call old to avoid hurting their feelings - I'm referring to elderly fictional characters that objectively fit the word's dictionary definition. 

 

Either way what you're essentially doing is splitting at hairs to make a wild stab, akin to saying that if I were to assert that I did not expect my grandmother, a geriatric woman, to be competent in fighting off literal invading monsters (especially not more so than a legendary warrior), it is proof that I have no love or even respect for her, in a bid to defend a controversial scene from a controversial show. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by ilovezam

[DaddyFinn]

Anyone got a screencap of the women killing the trolloc?

[ilovezam]

12 minutes ago, Chivalry said:

 

I agree. I think the priority was to ramp up the tension, to show the viewer how frightening these yet unnamed monsters could be. Having a random farmer (we don't know he's a blademaster) kill multiple Trollocs without much effort doesn't sell the jeopardy. 
 

 

Well, the whole point is that he was in fact not a random farmer. Show the Trollocs overwhelm several village conscripts, and the random pitchfork wielding farmers, and then show Tam doing some cool moves to hold off two before going down. Also if they wanted the Trollocs to be terrifying, then maybe the Daise Congar scene kinda runs counter to that, no? 

 

He's supposed to be surprisingly good, and not just trained soldier good, but extremely, frighteningly good, and Rand's surprise was supposed to capture exactly that he wasn't just some random old man who farms. That's the point!

[DaddyFinn]

19 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

Anyone got a screencap of the women killing the trolloc?

Answering to myself. No screencap but there's a total of 9 women stabbing one trolloc. At least half look middle-aged(40) or younger. Nobody looks fragile, immobile, weak etc. I don't see the issue. The Two Rivers folk are very capable.

Edited January 18, 2022 by DaddyFinn

[Andra]

1 hour ago, ilovezam said:

Well, the whole point is that he was in fact not a random farmer. Show the Trollocs overwhelm several village conscripts, and the random pitchfork wielding farmers, and then show Tam doing some cool moves to hold off two before going down. Also if they wanted the Trollocs to be terrifying, then maybe the Daise Congar scene kinda runs counter to that, no? 

 

He's supposed to be surprisingly good, and not just trained soldier good, but extremely, frighteningly good, and Rand's surprise was supposed to capture exactly that he wasn't just some random old man who farms. That's the point!

Also, the book does a bang-up job showing how terrifying the trollocs are without even showing them attacking the village.  If they were portrayed more the way Jordan described them, there wouldn't have been any need to see them milling around and moving slowly attacking people who aren't really much smaller ... oh wait.  I mean ... slaughtering and eating terrified villagers.  We would have known how bad they were just from seeing them attacking the farm.

Seeing them like that, and then seeing Tam take them down, would have both shown us how dangerous they are, and how surprisingly dangerous Tam is.

 

But even doing it the way the show did - starting in the village first, then showing the farm - they could have shown Tam moving more like Lan than like a farmer beating a rug on a line, and both points would have been demonstrated.

 

As far as I recall, the only woman in Emond's Field (besides Moiraine, of course) we are told fought one directly on Winternight is Alsbet Luhhan - who brained one with a frying pan when it burst into her kitchen. ?

And Rafe took her out of the show in order to make Laila the town's blacksmith. ?

Edited January 18, 2022 by Andra

[ilovezam]

38 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

Answering to myself. No screencap but there's a total of 9 women stabbing one trolloc. At least half look middle-aged(40) or younger. Nobody looks fragile, immobile, weak etc. I don't see the issue. The Two Rivers folk are very capable.

I think it's perfectly fine that a group of farmers gank one Trolloc, but not if the blademaster does not hold his own against one. 

 

It doesn't break the show or anything, just feels silly. I think more than likely they just wanted to cut logistical costs and choreography costs. Even Lan doesn't get any choreographed fights all season. 

[VooDooNut]

1 hour ago, DaddyFinn said:

Anyone got a screencap of the women killing the trolloc?

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by VooDooNut

[Cauthonfan4]

7 hours ago, VooDooNut said:

Fortunately, all the mental gymnastics required for that is being patient.

Assuming that actually happens. But it's frustrating as hell watching all the super badass women scenes, only to watch men be complete failures at worst, and mildly incompetent at best.

 

I mean seriously, reverse the genders and what do you think would happen? Think the outrage about men is bad? Give us a season of women being nothing but damsels in distress. 

[notpropaganda73]

15 hours ago, Truthteller said:

I just read an article on a new version of MacBeth staring Francis McDormand, which presents Lady MacBeth in a more modern,  sympathetic, and far less hysterical way.  And yet they do it without changing the dialogue at all.  
 

There is lots of room for interpretation and nuance that shifts some of the emphasis, adds depth to certain characters, etc. without taking a sledgehammer to the entire story.  

 

Ohh sounds interesting, I have heard the new version is very good although I've seen one review that says it feels like a great recording of individual monologues rather than characters bouncing off one another. I'm looking forward to seeing it. I once saw Alan Cummings play every character in MacBeth, and they set it in a psychiatric hospital. It was amazing to see how the same words could tell a different story as well!

 

I mentioned Ruth Negga as Hamlet as I saw her in Dublin a few years ago, and it was one of the best things I've ever seen live. They didn't change too much, it was quite a classic production, but she was electric. 

 

It's interesting to think about though, as I know for example Samuel Beckett sued a Dutch company for casting women in a production of Waiting for Godot. As far as I know that rule still stands with his plays and won't run out until the copyright expires in 50 years or something. And even outside of that gender ban for Beckett's plays, he was so strict with the stage instructions and all the rest, it's a very rigid work to adapt. 

[notpropaganda73]

11 hours ago, ilovezam said:

Think you're spot on with that example, in that Hamilton's cast seems universally loved without managing to come across as forced to just about anybody. I think that first of all LMM stated that he cast the crew for their rapping ability, and that the musical's genre has a strong cultural affinity with black people, and they knocked it out of the park. I don't think he set out to exclusively cast black people for just diversity reasons for many of the main characters. 

 

But I think a bigger difference for me is that a musical on stage is this hyper stylised thing where people overact things while they do crazy choreographed song and dance in a way you would not expect anyone to see in "real life". I remember picking up the biography for a bit after fanboying Hamilton for a few months, and while reading the book, I could not and did not visualize the characters from the more historically account as the same people from the musical adaptation - it's like the musical I love so much takes up a different space in my head entirely. I suspect it would look pretty darn ridiculous if they were featured in film as they were in the musical, costumes and hairstyles and all. 

 

Film and shows, on the other hand, seem to present a window through which we could look and immerse into a world as it's events are occurring. The vague imagination of the reader comes to life and it seems a lot harder to separate the adaptation and the prose. I suspect most of us imagine the cast as the actors from the films when re-reading LOTR, and so it's extra important for it to feel authentic and real, whereas Hamilton never had to quite worry about that. 

 

Thanks for the response, not sure if you'll have read this article before but it explores it a bit more in depth: https://www.indiewire.com/2020/07/hamilton-cast-casting-directors-diversity-1234571127/

 

I don't think LMM set out from the start for a POC main cast, but I think it has sort of taken on a life of it's own now. I think Christopher Jackson says it best in that article: 

 

“It was a very powerful choice to take the idea of these men and present them through the bodies and vessels of Black and brown actors. It represents the fact that our role in building this country has never truly been acknowledged, and I think it opened up the audiences’ minds to the spirit of what these men meant, even if they were woefully incapable of living it out in their own experiences.”

[nsmallw]

22 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

Haha yes, I think we agree on more than we disagree - but the bit I bolded - I do think there are some posters here that believe the women are "winning" in terms of the depictions on the show. And where you say intentionally or unintentionally is, personally, something I think is an important distinction. Because it seems to me that some are seeing intentional changes which are purely agenda-driven rather than story-driven. 

 

Essentially, I feel that the vast majority of the issues of S1 are down to writing ability rather than any core issues with the concepts or ideas of these scenes or story/character arcs. I think that's where I differ with a lot of those "angry readers" as you put it. 

 

And I have to say, when the writing is good in the show, I think it is really really good. There are moments from the season that I still think about, and some great dialogue (imo). That's what gives me hope going forward.

Maybe Rafe shouldn't be writing episodes but rather instead reviewing the scripts from all episodes in a season and and suggesting/order changes to the scripts that help  them all coalesce into a smoothly flowing season where episodes don't contradict each other or leave dangling chads(P) messing up the overarching season plotline.

 

Just my thought.  Opinions ?

[Cauthonfan4]

10 minutes ago, nsmallw said:

Just my thought.  Opinions ?

Considering how awful his episodes were I'd rather him not touch anything.

[notpropaganda73]

34 minutes ago, nsmallw said:

Maybe Rafe shouldn't be writing episodes but rather instead reviewing the scripts from all episodes in a season and and suggesting/order changes to the scripts that help  them all coalesce into a smoothly flowing season where episodes don't contradict each other or leave dangling chads(P) messing up the overarching season plotline.

 

Just my thought.  Opinions ?

 

Maybe. It would be his job as showrunner to review the scripts and keep the overall structure in tact regardless. I know he wrote episode 8 which was awful, but he also wrote episode 1 which I've warmed up to upon rewatch. It's a clumsy episode in many ways but there are some really lovely moments in it and Tam explaining the Wheel to Rand is one of the highlights of the series for me. So I think he has some writing talent there. 

 

But it might be beneficial if the pressure of writing an episode script is taken out of his hands and instead he oversees everything to keep the story beats in tact. Considering the other pressures being the showrunner brings, it might help to spread the load a bit more. I would hazard a guess he'll have written at least one episode for S2 seeing as it's already under way, but who knows. 

[Mrs. Yojimbo]

So I had not read any of the books when the show started. Watching, I found myself seeing holes in the storytelling, and my husband the book fanatic (@Yojimbo ) filled in explanations. And it was those explanations that made me want to read "The Eye of the World," because what he was describing to me wasn't what I was seeing onscreen.

 

Now I have finished "The Eye of the World." I could talk at length about changes the film makers made and why I agree with those who feel their beloved story is not being represented onscreen. But in short, it is the sheer volume of changes--both large and small, deletions and inventions--that is simply staggering.  The best way I can describe is that it feels as though the makers read the book and liked it, but then thought "but it would have been SO much better if it was THIS way."  It feels like fanfic tbh.

 

After finishing the books, I forced poor yojimbo to rewatch the first two episodes to see how they compared to the book story and YIKES. All the critical plot point, most interesting character reveals, teases about Rand's mysterious background, etc. etc. gone, replaced by new content that doesn't seem to support or develop the original story. 

 

More than anything, it feels as though the showmakers bought a property that they liked, but didn't have enough faith in their source material, and so they decided to use it as a springboard for a story they liked better. 

 

[SingleMort]

5 hours ago, Mrs. Yojimbo said:

So I had not read any of the books when the show started. Watching, I found myself seeing holes in the storytelling, and my husband the book fanatic (@Yojimbo ) filled in explanations. And it was those explanations that made me want to read "The Eye of the World," because what he was describing to me wasn't what I was seeing onscreen.

 

Now I have finished "The Eye of the World." I could talk at length about changes the film makers made and why I agree with those who feel their beloved story is not being represented onscreen. But in short, it is the sheer volume of changes--both large and small, deletions and inventions--that is simply staggering.  The best way I can describe is that it feels as though the makers read the book and liked it, but then thought "but it would have been SO much better if it was THIS way."  It feels like fanfic tbh.

 

After finishing the books, I forced poor yojimbo to rewatch the first two episodes to see how they compared to the book story and YIKES. All the critical plot point, most interesting character reveals, teases about Rand's mysterious background, etc. etc. gone, replaced by new content that doesn't seem to support or develop the original story. 

 

More than anything, it feels as though the showmakers bought a property that they liked, but didn't have enough faith in their source material, and so they decided to use it as a springboard for a story they liked better. 

 

I can understand that position. I think even for the people who feel more positive about the series than negative, it's very difficult to deny the show isn't living up to it's potential.  I will come back for season 2 because I like the books so much and hope the TV series will improve but if this were a TV series for something I had no prior knowledge or fandom of I would have probably checked out after the first few episodes. I had friends who watched the series with no knowledge of the books who did that.

 

 

 

 

[Raal Gurniss]

59 minutes ago, SingleMort said:

I can understand that position. I think even for the people who feel more positive about the series than negative, it's very difficult to deny the show isn't living up to it's potential.  I will come back for season 2 because I like the books so much and hope the TV series will improve but if this were a TV series for something I had no prior knowledge or fandom of I would have probably checked out after the first few episodes. I had friends who watched the series with no knowledge of the books who did that.

 

 

 

 

But the showrunners have been utterly dismissive of criticism, so what chance of improvement? They even admitted they made the show this way to intentionally make many fans of the book unhappy.

 

Season two was well underway even before season one was unleashed so that just confirms it is going to be done in the same manner.

[Deviations]

20 hours ago, Mrs. Yojimbo said:

More than anything, it feels as though the showmakers bought a property that they liked, but didn't have enough faith in their source material, and so they decided to use it as a springboard for a story they liked better. 

That's exactly what it feels like.  It's also an actual process in Hollywood when working with a story.  The ask many, many 'what if' questions.  The problem is that this time, they didn't get it right.