Why not follow the books more closely?

[king of nowhere]

23 hours ago, DigificWriter said:

In said video, she points out that in the Episode 7 scenes set in the Ways, Perrin has dreads in his hair but not in the scenes set in Fal  meaning that those Ways-set scenes would have had to have been filmed prior to the COVID shutdown, which in turn means one of two things:

1) as Lezbi Nerdy postulates, the scenes in the Ways were filmed with Barney Harris present, necessitating rewrites and re-edits that were far more extensive and complex than anybody realized

 

Or

 

2) Episode 6 always ended with Mat choosing not to enter the Ways, and he would have probably ended up in Fal Dara separately from his friends (possibly in the company of Padan Fain)

 

Personally, I've been leaning towards Option 2

Or

3) they filmed part of episode 7, then there was the covid break, then mat didn't return. so they had to remove it from the narrative somehow, and making him leave before the ways was the only point where he could escape. they could keep those scenes where mat wasn't in, though.

Or

4) those scenes were filmed or re-filmed after the second covid break. or anyway, after a long real life time.

 

I don't think there's enough to draw sure conclusions.

13 hours ago, Rsmithboeing said:

Men don't make the power "dirty," it was corrupted then Lewis Therin and, the 100 companions tried "saving" the world.

 

Because liandrin is such a reliable source on anything, really. how about "that scene was meant to introduce there is some kind of taint that draws the men mad, and also how prejudiced red aes sedai are about it"?

7 hours ago, DaddyFinn said:

Since the book-leash is a physical object, couldn't their enemies just channel heavily to it (lift up, push down, twist side to side etc.) to try and incapacitate the sul'dam&damane or distract their channeling?

 

Or is a'dam one of those ter'angreal that direct weaves can't touch?

If you can channel heavily on the a'dam, chances are you can also hit the damane with a similar flow of power. in which case it's easier to just smoke the damane. unless you're specifically trying to take her alive. some book characters do it, unlatching the collar with flows of air

[Lightfriendsocialmistress]

23 hours ago, DaddyFinn said:

Maybe a'dam doesn't have a long working range? Who knows at this point

True. Also if the show can effectively convey clearly through the ornaments worn by and embraced by the seanchan society due to absolute faith in the ingrained belief system defining their very existence, identity and values then it could still convey the underlying spirit of that element of story. 

[DigificWriter]

People, it's pointless to try and have a logical conversation with @Rsmithboeing about this adaptation. They aren't willing to listen to anything that doesn't align with their "Rafe sucks and isn't really a WoT fan" and "this adaptation is an abomination" opinions and will attack anybody who even tries to counter said opinions.

 

Don't give them the platform they want by responding to their blathering.

 

@king of nowhere Before it was pointed out that all of the scenes in the Ways were filmed prior to the COVID shutdown, there was no reason to question the prevailing idea that the circumstances surrounding the ending of Episode 6 and the filming of Episode 7 were completely changed as a result of Barney Harris not coming back, but with that new information, the simplest explanation ends up being that Mat's absence from the Ways-set scenes was planned and it was only the stuff in Fal Dara that had to be changed. This would also fit with the fact that the post-shutdown filming only lasted a month because if most of Episode 7 had already been shot without Mat's involvement prior to the shutdown, you wouldn't need more than a week or so to do reshoots on that episode and then 3 weeks to shoot Episode 8 (taking into account a slowed-down schedule due to COVID restrictions).

 

[Elglin]

On 8/21/2023 at 4:29 PM, DigificWriter said:

This would also fit with the fact that the post-shutdown filming only lasted a month because if most of Episode 7 had already been shot without Mat's involvement prior to the shutdown, you wouldn't need more than a week or so to do reshoots on that episode and then 3 weeks to shoot Episode 8 (taking into account a slowed-down schedule due to COVID restrictions).

I'm sure that Barney's departure wasn't the only issue here, but there is the question of Ep 8. Say, in Witcher S1 the last episode was awful, but so was the penultimate one. Here, for all the tremendous beef I sometimes have with the series, I really liked Ep 7. So, the show was never particularly bad, although never particularly good, and (for all the plot changes etc.) managed to hit a pretty high note before plunging headfirst off a cliff.

My guess here is that they probably needed to rewrite Ep 8 more or less from scratch, and that either with little time available, or in the face of severe constraints, being forced to write what they can film as opposed to that they want to film.

I also have to mention that Mat and Perrin don't have much to do in the last chapters of TEOTW, so most of Ep 7 would be unchanged, Mat or no Mat. One notable change would be the Min viewing, of course.

 

I'd say that this adaptation has over 50% chances to end up being an abomination, but "over 50%" is not 100%. I also don't think Rafe did a very good job, and I do think that whatever agenda he has does negatively impact the quality of the product, but I am also aware that in the view of all the circumstances, many of which are unknown to the general public like me, he may actually be doing a pretty good job within the limitations he has.

The biggest problem I see is that it overwhelmingly looks like that Rafe wants to tell Rafe's version of RJ's story. Let me give you a comparison. Peter Jackson, while filming LOTR, tried telling Tolkien's story, and it paid off. While filming the Hobbit, he tried to tell Peter Jackson's version of Tolkien's story, and it was very subpar if not an outright disaster.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Elglin

[DigificWriter]

All adaptations are the adaptor's version of the original creator's story.

 

I've used this analogy in the past elsewhere, but complaining about an adaptation not being a 1:1 retelling of a story is like complaining because a steakhouse served you a steak. You should understand what you're getting going in.

 

If you want The Wheel of Time story as RJ told it, read the books. If you want (or are willing to accept) 'Robert Jordan as interpreted by Judkins' (to paraphrase something that Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey once said about the live-action LotR films), watch the TV show.

[DojoToad]

32 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

 

If you want The Wheel of Time story as RJ told it, read the books.

Yes.  I'm quite happy diving back into the books and am currently doing so.

 

32 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

If you want (or are willing to accept) 'Robert Jordan as interpreted by Judkins' (to paraphrase something that Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey once said about the live-action LotR films), watch the TV show.

This is a little harder.  I also want a show and/or movies.  The Judkins' interpretation has been hard to swallow for some.  For me, I'm hoping S2 improves by leaps.  If not, I'm back to the books alone until someone else gives it a go.  I can live without a screen version if S1 is the best we can do.  Other folks will take all they can get.

[DigificWriter]

I personally think that expecting Season 2 to change your mind about the WoT TV series is a fool's errand because you already know what you're getting and you either liked it or you didn't, but "to each their own", as it were.

[DojoToad]

37 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

I personally think that expecting Season 2 to change your mind about the WoT TV series is a fool's errand because you already know what you're getting and you either liked it or you didn't, but "to each their own", as it were.

I agree with you.  I don't expect S2 to change anything for me.  Just hoping.

 

With many people here saying that COVID and Barney Harris were significant contributing factors to the show not being as good as it could be - I'm just foolishly hoping they are correct.

 

More than likely it will be more of the same and I will continue with the version I enjoy.

 

I'll find out real soon...

[Samt]

4 hours ago, DigificWriter said:

 

I've used this analogy in the past elsewhere, but complaining about an adaptation not being a 1:1 retelling of a story is like complaining because a steakhouse served you a steak. You should understand what you're getting going in.

But what if they served you cubed steak or roast beef? What about a pork chop, chicken, a hamburger, or fried tofu?  What about nachos? Fried rice?  Salad? Hummus with chips?  Some level of variation is acceptable, but not everything is a steak.  You can't just say it had to be somewhat different and therefore any difference is justified.  

[Scarloc99]

3 hours ago, DigificWriter said:

I personally think that expecting Season 2 to change your mind about the WoT TV series is a fool's errand because you already know what you're getting and you either liked it or you didn't, but "to each their own", as it were.

I think it depends what your issues where, for instance if like me it was production values, effects, dialogue and some of the script where the main issues then this is all easily fixable, or at least improvements can start to be seen. 

[Scarloc99]

4 minutes ago, Samt said:

But what if they served you cubed steak or roast beef? What about a pork chop, chicken, a hamburger, or fried tofu?  What about nachos? Fried rice?  Salad? Hummus with chips?  Some level of variation is acceptable, but not everything is a steak.  You can't just say it had to be somewhat different and therefore any difference is justified.  

Sorry this is a really bad analogy, once again there is nothing inherently different between the TV show and the books at the end of season 1 the characters are all where they need to be and generally match the emotional and developmental state they are in at the end of the first book. The overall issues with bits of lore or this character didn’t or did do this or that do not take away from the overall themes of the story. People are obsessing over details, and I agree we can debate the pros and cons of those decisions, but this is is fundamentally the wheel of time, it fundamentally matches the overall arc of the story and it tells the tale of Rand Al Thor and his friends and how they get to the last battle and beat the dark one. 

[Samt]

9 minutes ago, Scarloc99 said:

Sorry this is a really bad analogy, once again there is nothing inherently different between the TV show and the books at the end of season 1 the characters are all where they need to be and generally match the emotional and developmental state they are in at the end of the first book. The overall issues with bits of lore or this character didn’t or did do this or that do not take away from the overall themes of the story. People are obsessing over details, and I agree we can debate the pros and cons of those decisions, but this is is fundamentally the wheel of time, it fundamentally matches the overall arc of the story and it tells the tale of Rand Al Thor and his friends and how they get to the last battle and beat the dark one. 

I agree the analogy isn't perfect, but I didn't make it up.  

 

But your overall assessment is very subjective.  I mean, actually there are lots of things that are different.  Rand, Mat, and Perrin aren't together in Fal Dara.  Moiraine can't touch the source.  Thom Merrilin hasn't met Moiraine.  Rand hasn't me Elayne.  In terms of development, Perrin doesn't know anything about being a wolfbrother. Rand hasn't studied the sword or used the one power to devastating effect in battle.  If we're willing to zoom out to 20,000 feet.  None of this matters.  But nobody watches TV from 20,000 feet.  

[DigificWriter]

36 minutes ago, Samt said:

But what if they served you cubed steak or roast beef? What about a pork chop, chicken, a hamburger, or fried tofu?  What about nachos? Fried rice?  Salad? Hummus with chips?  Some level of variation is acceptable, but not everything is a steak.  You can't just say it had to be somewhat different and therefore any difference is justified.  

 

In my analogy, you went to a steakhouse knowing that it was a steakhouse, ordered a steak, and then complained when you were served the steak that you ordered.

 

The Wheel of Time television series is not the Wheel of Time novels nd is not written by Robert Jordan or Brandon Sanderson and is therefore, by necessity, going to be different. Criticizing it based solely on the fact that it is different is where my analogy is applicable because it is obvious that there were going to be differences, just as it would be obvious, in my analogy, that a steakhouse would serve you a steak that you ordered.

 

There is merit (up to a point) in being critical of specific differences, but that is a different kettle of fish entirely  from bring critical of the television series solely because it is different.

[nsmallw]

1 hour ago, Scarloc99 said:

I think it depends what your issues where, for instance if like me it was production values, effects, dialogue and some of the script where the main issues then this is all easily fixable, or at least improvements can start to be seen. 

Ugh the writing was the big thing for me about season one. So much hoping the new writers do a better job 

[DojoToad]

22 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

 

In my analogy, you went to a steakhouse knowing that it was a steakhouse, ordered a steak, and then complained when you were served the steak that you ordered.

 

The Wheel of Time television series is not the Wheel of Time novels nd is not written by Robert Jordan or Brandon Sanderson and is therefore, by necessity, going to be different. Criticizing it based solely on the fact that it is different is where my analogy is applicable because it is obvious that there were going to be differences, just as it would be obvious, in my analogy, that a steakhouse would serve you a steak that you ordered.

 

There is merit (up to a point) in being critical of specific differences, but that is a different kettle of fish entirely  from bring critical of the television series solely because it is different.

If I got the steak I ordered, I wouldn't complain.

 

But if I order a filet rare, and they serve me a T-bone well-done - then there is room to complain.  They are both steaks that have been cooked, but there are significant differences and room to complain.

 

Your analogy needs work.

[DojoToad]

12 minutes ago, nsmallw said:

Ugh the writing was the big thing for me about season one. So much hoping the new writers do a better job 

Did they have new writers?  That could be promising.

[Samt]

29 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

 

In my analogy, you went to a steakhouse knowing that it was a steakhouse, ordered a steak, and then complained when you were served the steak that you ordered.

 

The Wheel of Time television series is not the Wheel of Time novels nd is not written by Robert Jordan or Brandon Sanderson and is therefore, by necessity, going to be different. Criticizing it based solely on the fact that it is different is where my analogy is applicable because it is obvious that there were going to be differences, just as it would be obvious, in my analogy, that a steakhouse would serve you a steak that you ordered.

 

There is merit (up to a point) in being critical of specific differences, but that is a different kettle of fish entirely  from bring critical of the television series solely because it is different.

I think we could go down rabbit holes with this analogy, but let's lay it to the side.  

 

There is absolutely merit to criticism because it is different.  What if I made a WoT adaptation that consisted of a 3-legged dog named Mittens that sets out to find his long-lost father, who is a goldfish?  Would you say it's a fine adaptation?  Or would you rightly acknowledge that it has nothing to do with the books?  

 

What if the 3-legged dog is named Rand al-Thor and he is setting out to find his friend named Perrin, who is a wolf?  Is it now an adaptation of Wheel of Time?  

 

Once we have agreed that there is a line that can be crossed at which point the adaptation is mostly just a new story, we are just arguing about where the line is.  

 

And that is setting aside the very real criticism that season 1 is technically and narratively flawed as a standalone work even if we pretend that the books don't exist.  

[nsmallw]

20 minutes ago, DojoToad said:

Did they have new writers?  That could be promising.

Yep, I checked. I believe 3 new episode writers for season two(according to Collider-Updated today)

Rafe, Katherine McKenna and Dave Hill return from season one. That's two short but Id guess as before Rafe will have written two episodes as in season one. We'll see in 8 days 😄

[Elder_Haman]

On 8/19/2023 at 8:54 PM, Rsmithboeing said:

Men don't make the power "dirty,"

So you are of the opinion that this line was an articulation of some bigger truth about the lore of the show as opposed to an expression of the Red Ajah’s warped views of male channelers? Why? (Aside from your opinion of Rafe’s politics)

[DigificWriter]

@Samt Objectively speaking, there is no 'line' when it comes to adaptation. A film, television series, or stage production that, to use a TV Tropes term, is "near-identical" to its source material is as much an adaptation (and just as valid) as a film, TV series or stage production that is so drastically different from its source material that it is best described as being, to use another TV Tropes term, "In Name Only".

 

There is also no objective quality scale that one can apply to any adaptation based solely on how closely it skews to the source material upon which it is based, which is why there's limited merit in criticizing an adaptation based solely on how closely it does or does not match the source material upon which it was based.

 

Another reason why there's limited merit in criticizing an adaptation based solely on how closely it skews to its source material is that, by their very nature (and in direct contrast to something that TV Tropes says), no adaptation will ever be or can ever be 100% identical to its source material.

 

If you ever hear the term 'adaptation' applied to something, go into it expecting that there will be things about it that are different relative to the thing from which it is being derived.

[Samt]

4 hours ago, DigificWriter said:

@Samt Objectively speaking, there is no 'line' when it comes to adaptation. A film, television series, or stage production that, to use a TV Tropes term, is "near-identical" to its source material is as much an adaptation (and just as valid) as a film, TV series or stage production that is so drastically different from its source material that it is best described as being, to use another TV Tropes term, "In Name Only".

 

There is also no objective quality scale that one can apply to any adaptation based solely on how closely it skews to the source material upon which it is based, which is why there's limited merit in criticizing an adaptation based solely on how closely it does or does not match the source material upon which it was based.

 

Another reason why there's limited merit in criticizing an adaptation based solely on how closely it skews to its source material is that, by their very nature (and in direct contrast to something that TV Tropes says), no adaptation will ever be or can ever be 100% identical to its source material.

 

If you ever hear the term 'adaptation' applied to something, go into it expecting that there will be things about it that are different relative to the thing from which it is being derived.

I'm frankly not sure what your point is. You have literally just stated that there are well established terms that people use to express the fact that some adaptations are more faithful to the source material than others.  Yes, there isn't a universal agreed upon objective standard for measuring exactly how faithful an adaptation is to the source material.  That doesn't mean that such a concept doesn't exist.  

 

There also isn't a universal agreed upon objective standard for measuring if a TV show is good.  That doesn't mean that all TV shows are equally good and any attempt to critically evaluate them is flawed.  

[Scarloc99]

If we are talking about adaptations lets look a little wider then fantasy then. 
 

West Side story is accepted to be a direct adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, 

My own private Idaho is lifted from Henry the VI and Henry the V, 

O is Othello. I could go on, there are plenty of other Adaptations of classical works that bear no resemblance to the original but are considered true because they keep to the same broad themes of the original work. You don't mind that the "lore" is different, or that the story takes a detour. The same broad strokes are there and you can see the original work in the story, but, you can't say that it is lifted page for page and there are changes made for the story being told. You don't have people asking why West Side Story doesn't follow Romeo and Juliet more closely especially given (spoiler) that the Juliett character (Maria) lives at the end. 

Now for some reason we hold an adaptation of a fantasy novel to some higher level then the work of one of the english languages greatest writers. Does the WOT feel like the WOT, indisputably yes. the character names have not changed, the main locations that are shown on screen all match locations in the books, the overall lore has not been messed with. The Bore was drilled, then in attempting to close it the power was tainted, Rand is the Dragon and so on. Yes people can nitpick about things they spot that don't match what they wanted to see, they can argue over semantics, and that is what it is, semantics. but none of the things that have been changed make this feel like a different world to the WOT, they don't make it feel like a fundamentally different story. In broad strokes the main lore is all there, the story is not fundamentally different in anyway that makes a significant difference to the end goal of getting the characters to the last battle and re sealing the bore. WOT is far closer then West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet, yet people don't say that West Side Story is a bad adaptation of that work. 

 

Now we can go round and round in circles arguing the broad issues about what was removed, added, changed and why your fav character has been hard done by. But, the fact is that this is indisputably the WOT.

 

[Samt]

1 hour ago, Scarloc99 said:

 WOT is far closer then West Side Story is to Romeo and Juliet, 

 

So you do understand. An adaptation can be more or less faithful. This isn’t a meaningless concept.

[nsmallw]

RE: damane collars and the lack of a leash. 

 

Perhaps the lack of a leash is an indication that in the show there isn't a need for a leash because the damane are happy in their situation?  Certainly in the books, there weren't any damane that didn't freak out initially after being "freed" from the control of the a'dam and crying out to the suldam for "protection". 

 

Also after some time of being free they are basically, "de-programmed by Aes Sedai, to become independant individuals. 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by nsmallw

[DigificWriter]

13 hours ago, Samt said:

So you do understand. An adaptation can be more or less faithful. This isn’t a meaningless concept.

 

Yes, TV Tropes has a 'sliding scale of adaptation', but said scale is functionally meaningless because the quality of an adaptation is not determined by how closely it does or does not match its source material.

 

There is also no objective standard for how closely an adaptation has to match its source material in order to still be considered an adaptation, nor should there be.