What has GOT got that WoT's not?

[KakitaOCU]

52 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

I think the MCU is a good example of how to do this (mostly) right.

Off topic but I love that the MCU manages to look like this fully interconnected thing, but in reality each film is usually stand alone with a dozen easter eggs and then they develop based on what does well or doesn't.

There's a whole page of examples of original MCU plans that were scrapped as new ideas got traction.  One really big one that comes to mind is that the original Avengers was supposed to be Tony, Steve and Thor vs Banner as the villain.  The end of Norton's Hulk was even set with Tony coming in as a representative of the Avenger Initiative to offer to handle the Hulk.   But then Tom Hiddleston was a smash success and they decided to go a different way.

 

[Chivalry]

Peter Dinklage.

[Elendir]

GoT

Step 1. Securing support of SoFaI fans,

Step 2. Using them as work of mouth advertising,

Step 3. Expanding fanbase on TV show level,

Step 4. Developing as TV show.

 

WoT

 

Step 1. Marking book fans as insignificant,

Step 2. Mix matching things from book with things showrunner thinks that are cool,

Step 3. Expecting that whole GoT fanbase fall for WoT,

Step 4. Developing as TV show.

 

It looks to me, that showrunner is so in love with himself, that he expects automatically big success. So, he discarded potential allies at the beginning of his way.

LTT at S01E08 was probably self-portrait arrogance-wise.

[Andra]

On 3/1/2022 at 9:28 AM, KakitaOCU said:

Your opinion is fine on rather or not you took it as rage, I did, Sanderson clearly states he did since Sanderson is who fought for that scene in general.

Sorry, but that's precisely backward.

Sanderson actually stated that the scene is the single biggest thing he and Rafe disagreed on.  He fought AGAINST the scene as filmed, and only saw the need for its existence in general as a way of accelerating Perrin's story for TV.  The scene wasn't Sanderson's idea, it was Rafe's.  He said he liked the idea when he heard it, but in no way did he "fight for it."

 

“Biggest thing he and I disagreed on was Perrin's wife. I realize that there is a good opportunity here for Perrin to be shown with rage issues, and to be afraid of the potential beast inside of him. I liked that idea, but didn't like it being a wife for multiple reasons. First off, it feels a lot like the disposable wife trope (AKA Woman in the Fridge.) Beyond that, I think the trauma of having killed your wife is so huge, the story this is telling can't realistically deal with it in a way that is responsible. Perrin killing his wife then going off on an adventure really bothers me, even still. I have faith that the writers won't treat it lightly, but still. That kind of trauma, dealt with realistically and responsibly, is really difficult for an adventure series to deal with.

“I suggested instead that he kill Master Luhhhan. As much as I hate to do Luhhan dirty like that, I think the idea Rafe and the team had here is a good one for accelerating Perrin's plot. Accidentally killing your master steps the trauma back a little, but gives the same motivations and hesitance. One thing I don't want this WoT adaptation to try to do is lean into being a tonal Game of Thrones replacement—IE, I don't want to lean into the "Grimdark" ideas. Killing Perrin's wife felt edgy just to be edgy.”

 

The Wheel Of Time: Brandon Sanderson Says One Change From The Books Was A Big Mistake (forbes.com)

Edited March 3, 2022 by Andra

[KakitaOCU]

I distinctly remember Sanderson saying he thought it was important to show Perrin as a berserker.  It was a video interview, not a reddit post.  Will see if I can find it.

It also explores that the whole thing was a bigger discussion that just "Wife, No Luhhan, No Wife."  There was a middle ground with instead of Master Luhhan as the village smith it was Perrin's mother and that's who he takes out in error.

All and all it's not really an issue as the context is key here and I wasn't saying "Oh Mr Sanderson is the sole authority and insisted on this."  The comment was in response to someone saying Perrin didn't rage, he just oopsed and I was pointing out that it read as raging to me and that Sanderson commented on it being such and that he was there supporting the idea, just with a different victim.

[Asthereal]

There's quite a lot that Game of Thrones has that the Wheel of Time show lacks. Here's a few:

 

1) A sense of location.

GoT's opening sequence shows us exactly what the world looks like, and where the characters are. We know whether traveling to another location will be a matter of days or months. This sequence takes the role of the map at the front of your book, and it helps tremedously.

 

The WoT show, as well as The Witcher, don't do this, and as a result we feel a bit lost. Why are Perrin and Egwene in grasslands while Rand and Mat are climbing a mountain? They're roughly going the same way, right? How far is Tar Valon? Is it a week's traveling? A year? Knowing where everybody is, helps with the focus of the audience. If I know where the characters are, it becomes easier to focus on other things, like who everybody is and where the conflicts are. Which leads us to:

 

2) Characterization & introducing characters.

This is probably the biggest one. The book TEotW is written mostly from Rand's perspective. Rand has no idea about the world as a whole and the forces at play. As he slowly discovers what's happening and who the major players are, so do we as an audience. Rand is the protagonist, and the book gains all the advantages of having one clear protagonist. But the show thrusts us into this world blind, introducing many characters and factions early on, and giving us only minor clues as to who's important and who less so. The show has no clear protagonist, and also doesn't compensate for it.

 

GoT also has to introduce a host of characters, and also chooses the route of not having one clear protagonist, but it introduces the factions more gradually. At first, we follow two factions: the Starks at Winterfell, who meet with the king and some Lannisters, and of course Danaerys and her brother at the other side of the world. Through the Starks we learn about the Lannisters, the king and the main conflict there. It takes a long while before we are introduced to the other houses. Same goes for Danaerys. She and her brother were supposed to rule but had to flee. They need an army to take back their homeland. So Danaerys has to marry the leader of the Dothraki, who have the army they need. Other factions on that continent get introduced to us slowly over the seasons, allowing us to focus on just these two storylines at first.

 

Now about the characterization itself: this more gradual introduction of factions and characters allows GoT to spend more time showing who the characters are, what their relationships with others are and where the conflicts are. Another "trick" GoT uses, is gradually showing who each character is. At the start we think Jaime Lannister is just another bad guy. Later on in the series we get to know him properly and our perception of him changes dramatically. And that's just one example.

The WoT show introduces dozens of characters in the first few episodes. I can keep up, because I read the books and know who most of these characters are, but even for me it's a bit jarring. And I don't know what changes the show runners have in mind. Will Logain become a major player? Kerene's warder must be important, right? He gets a lot of... oh. The WoT show lacks focus, which makes it harder for us to know who to connect to, where GoT is very clear: Ned, Danaerys and Tyrion are the ones you want to follow. There's still that "oh" moment, but it's set up over the course of the whole season, which makes it extremely powerful and sets the tone for the rest of the show. That warder's death was set up only one episode earlier. It's jumpy, and feels a bit out of place. I can't even remember his name.

 

3) The main conflicts & antagonists.

GoT shows us the white walkers in the cold open of episode one. These guys are going to be our main long term problem. The end of episode one shows us who our main antagonists will be for the start of the story ("the things I do for love"). In contrast, the WoT show cold open shows us the capture of Logain. Is he our big long term problem? The end of episode one is the attack on Emond's Field by Trollocks and Myrddraal, so they are our short term antagonists. That second part goes well, but our long term problem is only mentioned in voice-overs, which have very little impact. (Show, don't tell!) They could have solved this by using a cold open like the book does: the final confrontation of Lews Therin Telamon with Ishamael. Some dialogue there could extrapolate on the main goal (imprisoning the Dark One), but at least this shows us who our big problem is, as Ishamael is the Dark One's number one.

 

In conclusion:

GoT is very clear about location, allowing us to focus on other things. It also introduces the characters and conflicts slower, and takes more time to introduce everything. GoT is clear about which characters are important and develops them well, allowing us to connect with them more. Also in GoT both the long term and short term antagonists are introduced well, and early on, so we know where the story will lead.

The WoT show just doesn't do as good of a job in these areas, and it shows. It's less focused and tries to do more in not enough time, and as a result it's harder for the audience to connect with the characters and less clear what's going on.

 

PS. I could also talk about details, where GoT also does better, but small details tend not to ruin otherwise good stories told well, so they're just not as important. I can forgive a tsunami sent to kill one little girl on the beach if the rest of the season kicks ass. Unfortunately, the WoT show doesn't kick ass. It has its moments, but for me it's stuck at ~7/10. Decent, but not amazing. GoT season 1, on the other hand, is near perfect.

Edited March 3, 2022 by Asthereal

[Wassup]

Just a side note from most of the above posts:

 

GOT had timing. As mentioned previously, the market for shows and streaming formats was different. So, GOT was able to stand out. 
I think it is also a factor of being out before the pandemic vs after. Water cooler talk was a big driving force, i n my opinion. People would gather around at work places and discuss the show. WOT does not get that same opportunity of discussion to build up demand and debate. So many people are not working or working from home or social distancing at work that these conversations are not happening. 

[Raal Gurniss]

On 3/3/2022 at 4:40 PM, Wassup said:

Just a side note from most of the above posts:

 

GOT had timing. As mentioned previously, the market for shows and streaming formats was different. So, GOT was able to stand out. 
I think it is also a factor of being out before the pandemic vs after. Water cooler talk was a big driving force, i n my opinion. People would gather around at work places and discuss the show. WOT does not get that same opportunity of discussion to build up demand and debate. So many people are not working or working from home or social distancing at work that these conversations are not happening. 

I don’t know…I mean Squid Game for instance managed to get that sort of water cooler hype, so I can’t see why WoT wouldn’t garner that type of coverage given the same disadvantage, unless it just wasn’t as good.

[RextheDog]

GOT was far too rapey and violent, the stuff with Ramsey cutting off the dick was just distasteful....by the time Oberon had his head crushed in it had run its course for me....i mean, i get it, hes sexually open, etc etc...whatever....the list is endless, even when it was a good show, mother of dragons just being used so we can wonder when we'll get to see Emilia Clarkes breasts again.....

 

by season eight GOT is everything BAD about television....it was an absolute mess of a show, embarrassingly bad....ive been shot down before on this, about the excuse of running out of book material etc etc etc, but thats no real excuse for not putting something accross that was semi coherent....i think you have to look at the show as a complete set...you cant ignore seasons 6,7 and 8...it part of the package

 

'i know, lets fly some dragons into the enemy teritory just to save some random on a small iceblock...bah, the list is endless....

 

said it before, WOT just has to stay out of the gutter and even remain semi loyal to the book and it will surpass GOT in my opinion, it will however, struggle to become as popular as GOT, but thats more because the landscape of streaming has changed so much, more than any in show quality.

 

Amazon, HBO, whoever...if they are aiming to achieve similar impact as GOT with a high fantasy series, are probably in for a big shock...even LOTR wont do it in my mind....

 

its like having your first Kiss....you cant ever have a first kiss a second time...

 

the one worry i have with WOT is that yes, its very male centric on certain facets, and in trying to equalize that, it compromises the story....the girls decimating the trollocs at fal dara is a case in point, but im happy to WAFO to see if Rand gets his moments, as he should do, given the book series is basically about his struggle with so many brilliant side stories tacked on.

 

 

oh yeah...one massive benefit of streamling the 14 books is storylines like Perrin and Faile will actually improve without so much back and forward to achieve something that could have been achieved with a quarter the amount of page space.....

[Chivalry]

GOT had a certain weightiness to it. The music helped, the dark tone, dark colors, and (often) bleak weather contributed, the 'realism' certainly added heft, at least in the early seasons (just because we wanted the good guys to win did not mean that was going to happen...just like in real life). I say this as someone who never read the books, so the surprises were real for me.

 

Having said that, I believe WOT can be a better show, and the type of show a viewer would want to rewatch again and again. Once I finished GOT, I had no interest in ever going back. Looking back, it felt...icky...far too much than I'm comfortable with. 

 

Much will depend on whether Rafe and Co. learn from their mistakes, tighten up the writing (which was somewhat erratic), and deliver as much of the story written by RJ as possible. I can give them the benefit of the doubt given an unprecedented pandemic, loss of a key actor, and difficulty/challenges of the source material. But we should expect improvement, or the series may never rise above "just OK".

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by Chivalry

[No Prince of Ravens]

I read the books way back. Never got further than Knife of Dreams as we all know what happened after. When Sanderson finished the series, I kept putting it off and never got around to reading the last three, until I started watching the TV-show...So I just finished rereading the whole series as I was so disappointed by the show that I needed to set things straight. 

I think the question here is an interesting one. Many here seems to blame WoT's lack of success (compared to GoT) on things like timing, or the streaming format being saturated, or there only being room for one fantasy series for the mainstream. 

I think all of those completely miss the mark. 

WoT isn't a success because of the TV show's crappy writing and poor execution. That's what I think.

 

Better comparisons would be to compare WoT to The Shannara Chronicles or even Xena the warrior princess or something. 

 

GoT is a success because it's an intriguing story that isn't black and white. There are deep political currents and there are good guys who do bad things and bad guys who do good things. They make sure to stick to everything they introduce and they take care not to introduce items or characters that don't play a role in telling the story. Also they don't rush things.

 

WoT in the books has an intriguing story. While it may be more black and white (in good vs evil), there is still a lot of room in between, and the characters still have depth. The TV-show doesn't do this justice, even though I'm sure they tried (as with Perrin accidentally killing his wife...).

The problem is that it doesn't make sense or add up. If someone who is usually very timid and careful accidentally kills his wife, he should be devastated and question the very existence of anything good in the world. Instead it's almost portrayed more as him worrying what others might think of him if they found out. And how could there ever be a love triangle between him and Rand when he just killed his wife a couple of days ago (as the pacing in the tv-show kind of suggests)?.

I mean, an adaptation that cuts many of the important characters and changes so many things is one thing. But you still need to make sure the story and the writing is solid and that it all adds up and builds on the overall story that you invest in, where you care what happens to those people. In GoT we care about the injustice to Ned and Stark family's revenge. We care about Joffrey in the sense that we are angered by his constant escape from justice... We care to see him eventually face it.

Others have also noted on this. But WoT jumps from here to there without any idea of how far that distance is. There are lots of isolated events but nothing to create the overall tension needed to keep a viewer invested in what's to happen next. 

 

Also there is no grandness to WoT. 

 

In GoT you have vast distances, and vast armies. In WoT the world is shrunk (by making the first waypoint from the Two Rivers be Tar Valon instead of Baerlon, down to Whitebridge, through Four Kings then Caemlyn before the long leg up to Tar Valon). You should have every lance in the Shienar ride to Tarwins Gap, instead you have 20 riders and 100 infantrymen going out to fight the big battle at Tarwins Gap. What is that about? Trollocs should be a sea of black without end. You can't expect me to believe that you are able to fend of the shadow and keep a watch of the blight year after year with some 120 soldiers...

Moiraine et al. running into the scary whitecloaks early in the series. Lan and Moiraine, they can bully their way through 20 Whitecloaks if they wish. 

I think that is where they went wrong with WoT. They didn't put enough into writing a good story for the adaptation. They didn't build up the tension of the small insignificant youths going out into a vast world where everything is grander and dangerous than they can imagine. Going out to face the largest threat ever with nothing as of yet but their ignorance and a little bit of dumb luck.

 

[Humbugged2]

4 hours ago, No Prince of Ravens said:

I read the books way back. Never got further than Knife of Dreams as we all know what happened after. When Sanderson finished the series, I kept putting it off and never got around to reading the last three, until I started watching the TV-show...So I just finished rereading the whole series as I was so disappointed by the show that I needed to set things straight. 

I think the question here is an interesting one. Many here seems to blame WoT's lack of success (compared to GoT) on things like timing, or the streaming format being saturated, or there only being room for one fantasy series for the mainstream. 

I think all of those completely miss the mark. 

WoT isn't a success because of the TV show's crappy writing and poor execution. That's what I think.

 

Better comparisons would be to compare WoT to The Shannara Chronicles or even Xena the warrior princess or something. 

 

GoT is a success because it's an intriguing story that isn't black and white. There are deep political currents and there are good guys who do bad things and bad guys who do good things. They make sure to stick to everything they introduce and they take care not to introduce items or characters that don't play a role in telling the story. Also they don't rush things.

 

WoT in the books has an intriguing story. While it may be more black and white (in good vs evil), there is still a lot of room in between, and the characters still have depth. The TV-show doesn't do this justice, even though I'm sure they tried (as with Perrin accidentally killing his wife...).

The problem is that it doesn't make sense or add up. If someone who is usually very timid and careful accidentally kills his wife, he should be devastated and question the very existence of anything good in the world. Instead it's almost portrayed more as him worrying what others might think of him if they found out. And how could there ever be a love triangle between him and Rand when he just killed his wife a couple of days ago (as the pacing in the tv-show kind of suggests)?.

I mean, an adaptation that cuts many of the important characters and changes so many things is one thing. But you still need to make sure the story and the writing is solid and that it all adds up and builds on the overall story that you invest in, where you care what happens to those people. In GoT we care about the injustice to Ned and Stark family's revenge. We care about Joffrey in the sense that we are angered by his constant escape from justice... We care to see him eventually face it.

Others have also noted on this. But WoT jumps from here to there without any idea of how far that distance is. There are lots of isolated events but nothing to create the overall tension needed to keep a viewer invested in what's to happen next. 

 

Also there is no grandness to WoT. 

 

In GoT you have vast distances, and vast armies. In WoT the world is shrunk (by making the first waypoint from the Two Rivers be Tar Valon instead of Baerlon, down to Whitebridge, through Four Kings then Caemlyn before the long leg up to Tar Valon). You should have every lance in the Shienar ride to Tarwins Gap, instead you have 20 riders and 100 infantrymen going out to fight the big battle at Tarwins Gap. What is that about? Trollocs should be a sea of black without end. You can't expect me to believe that you are able to fend of the shadow and keep a watch of the blight year after year with some 120 soldiers...

Moiraine et al. running into the scary whitecloaks early in the series. Lan and Moiraine, they can bully their way through 20 Whitecloaks if they wish. 

I think that is where they went wrong with WoT. They didn't put enough into writing a good story for the adaptation. They didn't build up the tension of the small insignificant youths going out into a vast world where everything is grander and dangerous than they can imagine. Going out to face the largest threat ever with nothing as of yet but their ignorance and a little bit of dumb luck.

 

See there was this thing called COVID  !!!!!!

 

Morraine faked out a bunch of Whitecloaks in Baerlon and then ran ,and they than took up outside Tal Valon for the next 4 books

 

As for a map in would not work as GOT was based in a land the same size as the UK and WOT is based on a continent the same size as Europe/Middle East

 

And you must have missed the 'month later ' thing on the episode when they were all travelling

[No Prince of Ravens]

4 hours ago, Humbugged2 said:

And you must have missed the 'month later ' thing on the episode when they were all travelling

 

Case in point, I sure didn't miss in the books when a chapter started with "month later", since there was no need to tell us that in the books. Instead we were shown the hardships and hopelessness of it all. 

Also I don't buy into size of the world as an argument for not portraying the vastness better. Nor Covid as an excuse for not having larger groups of people, that is all a matter of CG. 

It's poor writing and lack of budget and/or vision. Nothing else. ?

[KakitaOCU]

11 minutes ago, No Prince of Ravens said:

Case in point, I sure didn't miss in the books when a chapter started with "month later", since there was no need to tell us that in the books. Instead we were shown the hardships and hopelessness of it all. 

Yes, because books are different from TV.  The show specifically points out time passed.  As for being shown the hardship and hopelessness.  We see Rand and Mat's struggles, we see Perrin and Egwene's before the tinkers take them in.  I understood the struggles, unsure why you didn't.
 

13 minutes ago, No Prince of Ravens said:

Also I don't buy into size of the world as an argument for not portraying the vastness better. Nor Covid as an excuse for not having larger groups of people, that is all a matter of CG. 

You're misunderstanding the issue.  It wasn't "Because Covid there weren't a lot of extras"  it was "Because Covid we had to completely shut down filming for months, lose most of our sets and when we got back to shooting we had a ridiculous tight schedule to get those last two episodes done and ready."

 

 

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

15 hours ago, Humbugged2 said:

As for a map in would not work as GOT was based in a land the same size as the UK and WOT is based on a continent the same size as Europe/Middle East

Westeros may be the same general shape as the UK (north to south - it is flipped east to west with the equivalent of the welsh mountains being in the east - the vale) but it is vastly bigger since it runs from the polar region to the tropics - think as much as 10 times the size.  The scope of westeros is about the same as the size of the "wetlands" in WOT books.  

[No Prince of Ravens]

11 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

We see Rand and Mat's struggles, we see Perrin and Egwene's before the tinkers take them in.  I understood the struggles, unsure why you didn't.

 

Sure, we see them struggle for a bit, and I can understand the struggle, but I am not invested in the struggle that takes more build up. That is the difference for me. I don't feel their struggle and hopelessness.

 

11 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

You're misunderstanding the issue.  It wasn't "Because Covid there weren't a lot of extras"  it was "Because Covid we had to completely shut down filming for months, lose most of our sets and when we got back to shooting we had a ridiculous tight schedule to get those last two episodes done and ready."

 

I read this as you being part of the crew then? In that case kudos to you. I am sure most people of the crew and cast did their absolute best, and I am quite confident that the issue still is the writing and vision (because honestly, we can't blame the budget as they had an enormous budget that they right went and squandered on who knows what...). A bad foundation will still bring down an otherwise expertly built house.

As a business owner I have grown to make a big distinction between explanations and excuses. Covid can explain how plans fell through and how the plans might have needed to adapt. But it's not an excuse for not doing the ground work properly, it doesn't excuse it being bad.

And we see this in GoT too. In the first seasons, when there are still books to go on. The story works and everything fits together. Then when the show's writers have to start making things up on their own, we get poorer quality in the writing. I am sure time is a large factor in this, just as it was for WoT production.

No, my two cents is to take the budget allotted to season two and three, and break that up into three instead of two. Then do a complete reboot of the whole thing with new people at the helm. Because honestly, this show, for me, is a complete disaster. So beautiful, with a great cast and with so much potential, yet a disaster.

But we are entitled to different opinions. This is just my take on what made GoT a hit with non-fantasy viewers flocking to it while WoT has a hard time even keeping the fantasy nerds watching. ?

 

[KakitaOCU]

7 hours ago, No Prince of Ravens said:

Sure, we see them struggle for a bit, and I can understand the struggle, but I am not invested in the struggle that takes more build up. That is the difference for me. I don't feel their struggle and hopelessness.

Where as I found how much it drug out in EotW obnoxious.  Opinions are all well and good but they don't make it "poor writing and lack of vision."
 

7 hours ago, No Prince of Ravens said:

I read this as you being part of the crew then?

 

I use the word we in quotes as part of a theoretical statement, not as an indication that I was directly involved, which I was not...
 

7 hours ago, No Prince of Ravens said:

But we are entitled to different opinions. This is just my take on what made GoT a hit with non-fantasy viewers flocking to it while WoT has a hard time even keeping the fantasy nerds watching.

 

Of course we can have our different opinions.  I'm not making some kind of demand that you stop hating the show or admit you secretly think it's good.  I'm pointing out that hyperbolic statements like "It's just poor writing and lack of vision" are essentially useless.

You're not sharing your opinion and discussing, you are ignoring any response you dislike and writing it off as "No, it's just bad."

Also, as a business owner you should be fully aware that some things are just out of your hands.

[Raal Gurniss]

20 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Where as I found how much it drug out in EotW obnoxious.  Opinions are all well and good but they don't make it "poor writing and lack of vision."
 

 

I use the word we in quotes as part of a theoretical statement, not as an indication that I was directly involved, which I was not...
 

 

Of course we can have our different opinions.  I'm not making some kind of demand that you stop hating the show or admit you secretly think it's good.  I'm pointing out that hyperbolic statements like "It's just poor writing and lack of vision" are essentially useless.

You're not sharing your opinion and discussing, you are ignoring any response you dislike and writing it off as "No, it's just bad."

Also, as a business owner you should be fully aware that some things are just out of your hands.

But it really isn’t very good on any level…Acting was for the most part weak although they had little to work with…Script was weak, Moraines opening dialogue is awful..The plot has a number of flaws and the showrunners went out of their way to intentionally antagonise parts of the existing fanbase..

 

You like it? Great! Hope you get your fill of the show with another seasons..

 

whether others dislike it, great! Don’t watch it…

 

None of which changes the fact that the show was meh.

 

It is what it is, mediocre, nothing wrong with that, many people like things that are mediocre.

[Revenant13]

9 minutes ago, Raal Gurniss said:

20 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Of course we can have our different opinions.  I'm not making some kind of demand that you stop hating the show or admit you secretly think it's good.  I'm pointing out that hyperbolic statements like "It's just poor writing and lack of vision" are essentially useless.

You're not sharing your opinion and discussing, you are ignoring any response you dislike and writing it off as "No, it's just bad."

Also, as a business owner you should be fully aware that some things are just out of your hands.

But it really isn’t very good on any level…Acting was for the most part weak although they had little to work with…Script was weak, Moraines opening dialogue is awful..The plot has a number of flaws and the showrunners went out of their way to intentionally antagonise parts of the existing fanbase..

 

You like it? Great! Hope you get your fill of the show with another seasons..

 

whether others dislike it, great! Don’t watch it…

 

None of which changes the fact that the show was meh.

 

It is what it is, mediocre, nothing wrong with that, many people like things that are mediocre.

agreeable--there was no solidity and many facts were skewed beyond "artistic licence"

 

...but what everyone likes is not up to me. you like what you like and don't like what you don't. WoT came out at the wrong time, and with the wrong stuff (**in my opinion**)

[William Seahill]

On 3/11/2022 at 4:57 AM, Raal Gurniss said:

Acting was for the most part weak although they had little to work with…

At least Rosamund Pike’s performance  as Moiraine made her seem warm compared to what she’s like in the the book.  So, it’s not all bad, right? 

[Pembie]

I didn’t really think much of game of thrones I only watched with my brother 

I found it hard to remember what was happening 

 

Same with wheel of time I find hard to remember some characters I do think the show will struggle with some characters Perrin I don’t know what they can do with his story it’s very slow Ian he doesn’t really do that much either 

[DojoToad]

On 3/3/2022 at 5:32 AM, Asthereal said:

There's quite a lot that Game of Thrones has that the Wheel of Time show lacks. Here's a few:

 

1) A sense of location.

GoT's opening sequence shows us exactly what the world looks like, and where the characters are. We know whether traveling to another location will be a matter of days or months. This sequence takes the role of the map at the front of your book, and it helps tremedously.

 

The WoT show, as well as The Witcher, don't do this, and as a result we feel a bit lost. Why are Perrin and Egwene in grasslands while Rand and Mat are climbing a mountain? They're roughly going the same way, right? How far is Tar Valon? Is it a week's traveling? A year? Knowing where everybody is, helps with the focus of the audience. If I know where the characters are, it becomes easier to focus on other things, like who everybody is and where the conflicts are. Which leads us to:

 

2) Characterization & introducing characters.

This is probably the biggest one. The book TEotW is written mostly from Rand's perspective. Rand has no idea about the world as a whole and the forces at play. As he slowly discovers what's happening and who the major players are, so do we as an audience. Rand is the protagonist, and the book gains all the advantages of having one clear protagonist. But the show thrusts us into this world blind, introducing many characters and factions early on, and giving us only minor clues as to who's important and who less so. The show has no clear protagonist, and also doesn't compensate for it.

 

GoT also has to introduce a host of characters, and also chooses the route of not having one clear protagonist, but it introduces the factions more gradually. At first, we follow two factions: the Starks at Winterfell, who meet with the king and some Lannisters, and of course Danaerys and her brother at the other side of the world. Through the Starks we learn about the Lannisters, the king and the main conflict there. It takes a long while before we are introduced to the other houses. Same goes for Danaerys. She and her brother were supposed to rule but had to flee. They need an army to take back their homeland. So Danaerys has to marry the leader of the Dothraki, who have the army they need. Other factions on that continent get introduced to us slowly over the seasons, allowing us to focus on just these two storylines at first.

 

Now about the characterization itself: this more gradual introduction of factions and characters allows GoT to spend more time showing who the characters are, what their relationships with others are and where the conflicts are. Another "trick" GoT uses, is gradually showing who each character is. At the start we think Jaime Lannister is just another bad guy. Later on in the series we get to know him properly and our perception of him changes dramatically. And that's just one example.

The WoT show introduces dozens of characters in the first few episodes. I can keep up, because I read the books and know who most of these characters are, but even for me it's a bit jarring. And I don't know what changes the show runners have in mind. Will Logain become a major player? Kerene's warder must be important, right? He gets a lot of... oh. The WoT show lacks focus, which makes it harder for us to know who to connect to, where GoT is very clear: Ned, Danaerys and Tyrion are the ones you want to follow. There's still that "oh" moment, but it's set up over the course of the whole season, which makes it extremely powerful and sets the tone for the rest of the show. That warder's death was set up only one episode earlier. It's jumpy, and feels a bit out of place. I can't even remember his name.

 

3) The main conflicts & antagonists.

GoT shows us the white walkers in the cold open of episode one. These guys are going to be our main long term problem. The end of episode one shows us who our main antagonists will be for the start of the story ("the things I do for love"). In contrast, the WoT show cold open shows us the capture of Logain. Is he our big long term problem? The end of episode one is the attack on Emond's Field by Trollocks and Myrddraal, so they are our short term antagonists. That second part goes well, but our long term problem is only mentioned in voice-overs, which have very little impact. (Show, don't tell!) They could have solved this by using a cold open like the book does: the final confrontation of Lews Therin Telamon with Ishamael. Some dialogue there could extrapolate on the main goal (imprisoning the Dark One), but at least this shows us who our big problem is, as Ishamael is the Dark One's number one.

 

In conclusion:

GoT is very clear about location, allowing us to focus on other things. It also introduces the characters and conflicts slower, and takes more time to introduce everything. GoT is clear about which characters are important and develops them well, allowing us to connect with them more. Also in GoT both the long term and short term antagonists are introduced well, and early on, so we know where the story will lead.

The WoT show just doesn't do as good of a job in these areas, and it shows. It's less focused and tries to do more in not enough time, and as a result it's harder for the audience to connect with the characters and less clear what's going on.

 

PS. I could also talk about details, where GoT also does better, but small details tend not to ruin otherwise good stories told well, so they're just not as important. I can forgive a tsunami sent to kill one little girl on the beach if the rest of the season kicks ass. Unfortunately, the WoT show doesn't kick ass. It has its moments, but for me it's stuck at ~7/10. Decent, but not amazing. GoT season 1, on the other hand, is near perfect.

Extremely well thought out and written.  Thank you.

[DojoToad]

On 3/9/2022 at 2:52 PM, KakitaOCU said:

You're misunderstanding the issue.  It wasn't "Because Covid there weren't a lot of extras"  it was "Because Covid we had to completely shut down filming for months, lose most of our sets and when we got back to shooting we had a ridiculous tight schedule to get those last two episodes done and ready."
 

Doesn't explain why the first 6 episodes were so bad...

[DojoToad]

On 3/15/2022 at 2:57 PM, William Seahill said:

At least Rosamund Pike’s performance  as Moiraine made her seem warm compared to what she’s like in the the book.  So, it’s not all bad, right? 

Rosamund is a striking woman in everything I've seen her in.  Whoever did her make-up did her a huge disservice.  

[Mailman]

On 3/10/2022 at 6:52 AM, KakitaOCU said:

You're misunderstanding the issue.  It wasn't "Because Covid there weren't a lot of extras"  it was "Because Covid we had to completely shut down filming for months, lose most of our sets and when we got back to shooting we had a ridiculous tight schedule to get those last two episodes done and ready."
 

That is just a excuse they are still responsible for the quality of the material that they delivered. They could have delayed the final 2 episodes until they had everything in place instead they went with what they had. The reasons why they went with what they had are irrelevant. Many productions have been plagued by issues throughout the history of  film/TV it is the finished product that is important.

 

A lot of issues where present before the final 2 episodes regardless such as the writing which was substandard through the entire series, and was not affected by the problems post covid filming.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Mailman