What has GOT got that WoT's not?

[WoTwasThat]

5 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

It's inarguable that GoT was closer to a 1:1 adaptation than WoT. I'm merely pushing back against the idea that GoT was this ultra faithful 1:1 perfect adaptation.

If I were to rank the 3 adaptations mentioned + the Witcher on faithfulness to the source material based on what's released right now.

LoTR 60:100 (Adaptation:Source)

GoT 20:100

WoT 15:100 (This includes the animated shorts)

Witcher 12:100

 

I don't think anybody said GOTTV was an ultra faithful 1:1 perfect adaptation. Many said it was a more faithful adaptation than WOTTV. Glad you agree.

 

The only further nit I would pick is your assessment that GOTTV was 20:100 whereas WOTTV was "15:100 (This includes the animated shorts)". In order to "score" the two shows that closely, you must be putting a LOT of emphasis on those animated shorts that virtually nobody watched and that aren't, you know, part of the show.

 

For example, I always found it amusing when people justified Season 1 completely ignoring (yes, yes, and now you're going to point to a subtitle) Saidar/Saidin because "it's in the bonus content." LOL. It's not like this magic system undergirds the entire series. Sticking it in the bonus content was fine....

Edited May 2, 2022 by WoTwasThat

[Pukel-man]

On 4/25/2022 at 8:00 PM, SinisterDeath said:

Nope.

Tons of actors with wrong color hair, eyes, accents.
Skipped entire plot arcs, changed dialogue, motivations. It was similar, but in no way was it one of the most "faithful" adaptations ever made.

As you point out, GoT made some significant changes (mostly for the better, IMO) from the text, but overall was mostly faithful. I think we try to latch on to "fidelity" to argue for or against the adaptation as a stand-in for other terminology.

 

The larger point is, does the result make a compelling and engaging story on the screen? Whatever aspects of the series are more or less faithful is secondary to this question. The objections to WoT series would be muted if the show were awesome on its own right. GoT was an awesome adaptation that kept people wanting to watch, and drew larger audiences as it went on. WoT was a painful adaptation that did not keep people wanting to watch. We'll see about audiences for season 2, and season 3 (if there is one). A great story can compensate for some lack of "fidelity." WoT has neither, in many people's opinions.

[SinisterDeath]

5 hours ago, Pukel-man said:

As you point out, GoT made some significant changes (mostly for the better, IMO) from the text, but overall was mostly faithful. I think we try to latch on to "fidelity" to argue for or against the adaptation as a stand-in for other terminology.

 

The larger point is, does the result make a compelling and engaging story on the screen? Whatever aspects of the series are more or less faithful is secondary to this question. The objections to WoT series would be muted if the show were awesome on its own right. GoT was an awesome adaptation that kept people wanting to watch, and drew larger audiences as it went on. WoT was a painful adaptation that did not keep people wanting to watch. We'll see about audiences for season 2, and season 3 (if there is one). A great story can compensate for some lack of "fidelity." WoT has neither, in many people's opinions.

 

"Did not keep people from wanting to watch"

*within certain circles.

 

Your Bubble, isn't my bubble.

 

Your Bubble hated it, and refused to keep watching.

Other bubbles, loved it and finished it.

 

Your Bubble doesn't speak for everyone's bubble. Mine doesn't either.

 

We'll see how season 2+ performs.

[Pukel-man]

16 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

 

"Did not keep people from wanting to watch"

*within certain circles.

 

Your Bubble, isn't my bubble.

 

Your Bubble hated it, and refused to keep watching.

Other bubbles, loved it and finished it.

 

Your Bubble doesn't speak for everyone's bubble. Mine doesn't either.

 

We'll see how season 2+ performs.

I agree with you. Different people like different things.

 

GoT had a much, MUCH larger bubble, and there's an argument that represents a qualitative difference in the product.

 

As you say, we'll see about S2. Maybe the writing comes together, the show hits its stride, and it starts building audiences and winning over critics. Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. Maybe WoT will get the classic GoT meme backwards:

The Horse

 

WAFO. ?

[Guire]

Aside from poor writing decisions, bad who is dragon mystery, making me dislike characters i have loved for 30 years, covid magnifying all the above, blah, and more blah.  The real problem is not enough fun size.  GoT had 4 cute charismatic diminutive actors.  Emilia Ckarke, Peter Dinklage, Masie Williams, and Kae Alexander.  WoT tried to get some fun size by stealing Kae Alexander but too little too late.  Now we are getting Aiel there is not hope for saving the show.

[Andra]

28 minutes ago, Guire said:

Aside from poor writing decisions, bad who is dragon mystery, making me dislike characters i have loved for 30 years, covid magnifying all the above, blah, and more blah.  The real problem is not enough fun size.  GoT had 4 cute charismatic diminutive actors.  Emilia Ckarke, Peter Dinklage, Masie Williams, and Kae Alexander.  WoT tried to get some fun size by stealing Kae Alexander but too little too late.  Now we are getting Aiel there is not hope for saving the show.

The problem is that the books don't really have many "fun-sized" characters for the show to focus on.  Especially now that Moiraine isn't short.  Perhaps that means Cairhienin in general aren't short, as well.  So no diminutive Dobraine or Talmanes.

One small character almost has to appear (Tuon) while another may or may not (Olver) depending on what bits get cut.  Another possibly-cut character who is described as particularly short is Davram Bashere.

 

The show has already either eliminated or changed the height of some short characters (not just Moiraine), just in season 1.

Fain is now taller than most Two Rivers folk.

We don't see Wit Congar, so we don't know if he's as short as in the books.

The actor that plays Cenn Buie is nearly six feet tall.

[Guire]

10 minutes ago, Andra said:

The problem is that the books don't really have many "fun-sized" characters for the show to focus on.  Especially now that Moiraine isn't short.  Perhaps that means Cairhienin in general aren't short, as well.  So no diminutive Dobraine or Talmanes.

One small character almost has to appear (Tuon) while another may or may not (Olver) depending on what bits get cut.  Another possibly-cut character who is described as particularly short is Davram Bashere.

 

The show has already either eliminated or changed the height of some short characters (not just Moiraine), just in season 1.

Fain is now taller than most Two Rivers folk.

We don't see Wit Congar, so we don't know if he's as short as in the books.

The actor that plays Cenn Buie is nearly six feet tall.

Rafe and co appear to be bigoted against the vertically disabled while hiding behind a single token shortie hire.  The worst part is that their bigoted campaign is primarily beneficial to the most widely priviliged cohort in western society. Tall people.  We see what you and your tall good looking partner are all abkut here Rafe.  The shame. The shame.

[Andra]

4 hours ago, Guire said:

Rafe and co appear to be bigoted against the vertically disabled while hiding behind a single token shortie hire.  The worst part is that their bigoted campaign is primarily beneficial to the most widely priviliged cohort in western society. Tall people.  We see what you and your tall good looking partner are all abkut here Rafe.  The shame. The shame.

It's not even that, really.

 

Most of the characters so far who are supposed to be taller than normal, aren't particularly tall.

Rand is supposed to be taller than everyone else in the Two Rivers.  And Lan should be almost as tall.  Loial should be a couple of feet taller than he is.

 

None of those things are true in the show.

[NikkiDamm]

Thanks all for the suggestions.

[Elder_Haman]

I guess what I would argue here is that it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison between GoT and WoT. Part of the whole overarching plot of GoT is the fact that basically only the audience is aware of the coming apocalypse. When most of GoT's characters don't even particpate in the whole "battle between light and dark" it opens the door for a whole lot more intense character focus that makes the show feel smaller and more intimate while at the same time being every bit as large from a world building standpoint.

 

WoT flips that dynamic on its head. Almost all of the principal WoT characters are uniquely aware that the Last Battle is coming, which makes it harder to keep a show feeling intimate and personal because of the huge stakes. So WoT had a much heavier lift to start.

 

That being said, my feelings about S1 have settled into: it was only okay. Better than many fantasy shows ("His Dark Materials", "Shadow & Bone", "Shannara Chronicles"), but not in the top tier of shows that transcend genre. I think a large part of that is because the writers tried to bite off too much world building up front and sacrificed the characters in service of that. Fortunately, I'm of the opinion that nothing has been damaged beyond repair and that a course correction is still possible.

[DojoToad]

3 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

That being said, my feelings about S1 have settled into: it was only okay. Better than many fantasy shows ("His Dark Materials", "Shadow & Bone", "Shannara Chronicles"), but not in the top tier of shows that transcend genre. I think a large part of that is because the writers tried to bite off too much world building up front and sacrificed the characters in service of that. Fortunately, I'm of the opinion that nothing has been damaged beyond repair and that a course correction is still possible.

We shall see.  Hope you're right!

[Dagon Thyne]

On 2/25/2022 at 10:37 AM, William Seahill said:

Case in point: Perrin accidentally kills his wife in episode one.  That’s not in the book, he’s not even married. Amazon made up a character for the show just to kill her off.  

The reason he's married in the show is because the chacters are aged up, and Perrin mentions a girlfriend he like would have married if he'd stayed in the two rivers.  His wife in the show is based on her.

 

He was likely planning on marrying her after his apprentIceship.  So, in the show, he's older, has his own forge, and married her.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Dagon Thyne

[DojoToad]

5 hours ago, Dagon Thyne said:

The reason he's married in the show is because the chacters are aged up, and Perrin mentions a girlfriend he like would have married if he'd stayed in the two rivers.  His wife in the show is based on her.

 

He was likely planning on marrying her after his apprentIceship.  So, in the show, he's older, has his own forge, and married her.

All the 'kids' were aged up.  A much bigger deal was made of Rand and Egwene being practically promised to each other than any potential relationship Perrin had with a tertiary character.  And yet the show didn't feel the need to have them engaged or married...

 

There are few parallels between book and show.  They are just different.

Edited June 12, 2022 by DojoToad

[Nik]

7 hours ago, DojoToad said:

All the 'kids' were aged up.  A much bigger deal was made of Rand and Egwene being practically promised to each other than any potential relationship Perrin had with a tertiary character.  And yet the show didn't feel the need to have them engaged or married...

 

Yes because Perrin's marriage serves a different story purpose than Rand and Egwene's relationship. These decisions are made for story purposes. They try to draw from the books, but they don't draw equally for everything because not everything serves the same purpose.

[DojoToad]

41 minutes ago, Nik said:

 

Yes because Perrin's marriage serves a different story purpose than Rand and Egwene's relationship. These decisions are made for story purposes. They try to draw from the books, but they don't draw equally for everything because not everything serves the same purpose.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say. Very inelegantly..,

[Sabio]

The big difference is simple  When RJ made WOT he didn't envision it being a TV series at the time, when GOT was written the author had already planned for it to be a series one day.  Making it much easier to adapt.  Had RJ thought/wanted WOT to be a TV series one day he probably would have made some changes to the book so it would be easier to adapt.

[Elessar]

I have watched season 1 of the Wheel of Time for the 3rd time this past week (this time with a non-book reader who found it entertaining but also a little confusing) and here are some reflections. I haven't posted in this part of the forum for a while so this will be a long post.

 

What Game of Thrones had, beside a quality production etc, was that it appealed to several groups of tv-fans at the same time: fantasy fans, fans of historical costume drama, fans of medieval 'knight and battle' style movies, and fans of horror/skeleton movies. This is quite unique and it meant the 'bubble' that others speak of above could become unusually large. It also meant they set a standard almost impossible to match.

 

After my 3rd round of watching season 1 I feel kinda the same as the first 2 times, that it is a decent effort and entertaining in its own way but one must look at it as a 'new' Turning of the Wheel to enjoy it. It does deviate far too much from canon (the books) for my personal taste and I pictured it quite differently in my mind before I watched the 1st episode last year.

 

Knowing from pre-discussions online there would be changes from the books (f.ex. that the book prologue with Lews Therin and Ishamael was not an option) I imagined a Lord of the Rings movies type beginning of episode 1 with a whispering voice speaking of what happened in the War of Power in the Age of Legends, some dramatic war-like visuals ending with the Breaking of the world, the Dragon dying and Raising Dragonmount and whispers that the Dragon would be Reborn in an Age yet to come to save or destroy the world. 

 

Then a cool intro with the full "The Wheel of Time turns.." passage and which also included a map of Randland (so one would from the get-go get an idea of the geography and nations of the continent). The cold open could have been the awesome cold open from ep 4 (Logain) which establishes from the start the danger of a channeling man and a potential Dragon Reborn. Then jumping straight into the White Tower where a Novice was being taught about the One Power, Saidin vs Saidar etc laying the ground work for 'magic lore' (making viewers also think back on the cold open with Logain). And then moving back to EF/Two Rivers with Rand and Tam.  This would differ from canon but would in my opinion be a much better solution for new viewers to understand what is going on. But the tv-series did this in a quite different way as we know (ps. the non-book reader I watched with this time was utterly confused by the opening with Liandrin etc and I too think it was a poor choice).

 

Wheel of Time season 1 needed more episodes and should have had at least 10 if not 12 to do it justice (to flesh out characters and story lines etc) so it is very unfortunate that Amazon only give 8 episodes and probably max 7/8 seasons. More than any other fantasy tv-production Wheel of Time needs many episodes and many seasons because the source material is rich and enormous (14+1 books) and it is a story which, as others have mentioned above, is more complicated to visualize than many others because of the huge amount of detail, side stories etc (also because much in the books is from Rand's POV). Many of the problems of season 1 is because lack of time to tell the story as I see it + decisions to deviate a lot from canon and make what becomes an interesting Wheel of Time-ish type of story but not Wheel of Time as we who have read the books know it.

 

We all understand that some changes always need to be made for a tv-adaptation, but it is which changes are made, how many are made and how they affect the story which counts in the end. I have no problem with removing unnecessary side stories or adding certain things to make a story better (type adding Arwen's story to the excellent Lord of the Rings movies) but I am not a fan of changing a story to the point of fan fiction / revisionism (as with going against basic lore and suddenly making it possible to have female Dragons which would minimize the danger of having a Dragon Reborn in the world significantly, merging important characters or f.ex. downsizing Forsaken from 13 to 8, seeing also as 13 is an important number in Wheel of Time lore). This tv-series is close to that as I see it but can redeem itself in the coming 2nd season. However, the more changes are made at the start, the more changes will follow in the story later and I fear the coming seasons will also stray far from canon and perhaps even further (this is why one should be careful to not move far away from the 'path' at the start of a series). 

 

Will I watch season 2 and the later ones? I will, I love Robert Jordan's saga and want to support it. But I will have to keep thinking of it as a 'new' version of the story, otherwise I would be too critical and too many things would irritate me. Do I think the tv-series could have been even better? Certainly. But I have also seen much worse. I doubted in earlier years whether Wheel of Time ever would be produced for tv for many of the aforementioned reasons and whether it would be possible to do it proper justice. The jury is still out in my opinion. However, I hope it continues to be a success for Amazon (as it has been rating wise - Amazon are very happy from what I read -, despite part of the fan base being hugely critical and many of us being 'decently' happy if not overjoyed) because the more successful fantasy is on tv the more fantasy tv-shows we are going to see in the coming years. 

 

PS. 2 other big fantasy tv-productions are coming now as we know, House of the Dragon and The Rings of Power, and it will be interesting to see how successful they are and how they will be embraced by the critics and its fans (already part of the Lord of the Rings fan base are up in arms over the trailers to The Rings of Power, so it shows there are critical fans everywhere).

[Sabio]

Both have larger budgets then WOT, LOTR costs $250 million per season, House of dragon is like $100 million, and WOT was only $80 million I think.  It will be interesting to see how the money is spent.  Hopefully at least the CGI will be better.  I mean to me the trolloc masses in WOT looked pretty cheesy.  The CGI in WOT didn't really impress me.  

Edited August 22, 2022 by Sabio

[Guire]

The house of dragon episode 1 wasn't good imho.  Maybe mediocre is what we are going to get in these new high budget fantasies.  The brief releases for WoT season 2 look good to me. But i was really excited about season 1 also and it feel flat for me.  

[WhiteVeils]

8 hours ago, Guire said:

The house of dragon episode 1 wasn't good imho.  Maybe mediocre is what we are going to get in these new high budget fantasies.  The brief releases for WoT season 2 look good to me. But i was really excited about season 1 also and it feel flat for me.  

Maybe the expectation is too high? Like we expect blockbuster movie quality consistently in all these TV Shows, and that's an unreasonable expectation.  We get that expectation because these shows all may have individual moments of 'blockbuster' quality, but they are simply too long, filmed too quickly, and without the financial backing and depth of support to be the same as a blockbuster movie.

[AdamA]

HOTD episode one packed a ton of stuff into a single episode, probably a bit much for anyone not already familiar with the source material. And, of course, they had to HBO-ify it with dudes getting limbs and dicks hacked off and an orgy scene in a brothel all in the first 20 minutes. And I have no idea why that tourney was so violent. These are supposed to be noblemen, not slave gladiators fighting to the death.

 

But at the same time, the difference was pretty apparent. It just feels and looks so much more professionally made. The set design, art design, costume design, all more convincing and realistic. The CGI is miles ahead. Better music, better acting, better directing and editing choices. No part of it looks cheap or seems like anyone phoned it in. When HBO spends money, it looks like they spent money.

 

It does unfortunately suffer from the same Zach Snyderization of all film and television with muted color palettes, but I don't necessarily mind that so much from these kinds of period pieces. It's taking place in a port city relatively far in the north that will have a lot of gray, overcast weather. And nothing is paved and there is no running water, so people are going to get dirty.

[WhiteVeils]

Game of Thrones has, for some reason, gotten people to link 'realistic' fantasy to a certain lighting scheme and color palette.   It's not more realistic or less realistic...colors had been invented in the middle ages, and people didn't choose to live in filth.   It's a style choice.
WOT I believe is using a brighter version of the color palette because it's a way of showing the degredation of the world and people due to the Dark One's Touch. If you watch Lezbi Nerdy's costume videos, we find out how Mat and Fain's costumes actively get darker and dingier as they are corrupted by Mashadar.  As the whole world degrades and the Dark One's influence grows, the color palette and lighting can change, growing darker and more grim. If they don't start out 'bright', they won't have anywhere to go when things get dark.

[AdamA]

It's not the color palette that makes it look more realistic. It's details. A set doesn't look like it was built yesterday. It has clear imperfections. Chunks missing. Stains. People who have been on the road for a week have dirty faces, unkempt hair, they don't look like they're wearing makeup. Clothing has stains and rips like people actually wear it on a regular basis. Not universally, but in an appropriate manner. The court at a formal event looks made up and perfect. Commoners on the street or travelers do not. The damn dragons look individually unique and have understandable facial expressions. Look at Daemon petting Caraxes before they leave. The spit coming off the dragon moves in exactly the same direction as Matt Smith's hair from the resulting wind. The artists pay attention to everything.

 

I don't think the color on its own is a strength by any means, but it's worth noting why they're different. Westeros in this era is supposed to be a fairly brutish, barely-civilized place, the rough equivalent of Brittania or Gaul shortly after the fall of Rome. Wheel of Time is far closer to contemporary, barely pre-industrial showing us the invention of cannons and steam engines, something roughly Georgian or Regency era when clothing and architecture were far more ornate. It's like comparing Vikings to a Jane Austen movie. King's Landing at this point is a barely century-old city that started out as a few wood posts stacked up around some tents in the mud. Everything grand is a remnant of the Age of Heroes that no one remembers how to build.

[DaddyFinn]

I prefer WoT with this relatively clean look. I never imagined it to be nowhere near the level of Westeros. Perhaps in some places and later in the series but not now. HotD has "less than 20 million per episode" budget so way above WoT. Of course it doesn't explain all the differences in overall quality.

 

Personally, I'm not interested in HotD at all and most likely won't watch it.

[DojoToad]

3 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

I prefer WoT with this relatively clean look. I never imagined it to be nowhere near the level of Westeros. Perhaps in some places and later in the series but not now. HotD has "less than 20 million per episode" budget so way above WoT. Of course it doesn't explain all the differences in overall quality.

 

Personally, I'm not interested in HotD at all and most likely won't watch it.

I'm with you in that my interest level is not very high - mostly because I'm hating GRRM for not having finished the original series and being constantly distracted by 'side' projects.  But it's his world not mine...