Why not follow the books more closely?

[zacz1987]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

You mean his wife and long time editor, Harriet? The one who edited the entire series? She supports the show, as does Brandon Sanderson. 

To be fair I don't think Harriet had much choice as the rights were still with Red Eagle Entertainment (now called iWOT) and they have already successfully sued her once for saying negative things about them. 

[Elder_Haman]

57 minutes ago, zacz1987 said:

To be fair I don't think Harriet had much choice as the rights were still with Red Eagle Entertainment (now called iWOT) and they have already successfully sued her once for saying negative things about them. 

Red Eagle does not have the rights to the show. Amazon does. And she’s had nothing but positive things to say about the show. 

Edited April 12 by Elder_Haman

[Kaleb]

3 hours ago, henrywho said:

No, a workmates wife got me into the books and I enjoy the books because of the books. I had never been much of a fan of fantasy until I listened to  TWoT audio books Narrated by: Kate Reading, Michael Kramer

 

Please forgive us for misunderstanding your comment earlier in this thread: 

On 4/6/2024 at 6:42 PM, henrywho said:

My 2 bobs worth.

I could be in quite a unique position here. I watched season one before listening to the audio books. That's the 1st edition of the audio books narrated by Kate Reading, Michael Kramer. Not the new release narrated by Rosamund Pike. I quite enjoyed the 1st season. Then I listened to the audio books.

 

I'm not claiming these are necessarily contradictions, btw. It's just that your earlier comment can easily be read to imply that you watched the show and then listened to the audiobooks because you enjoyed the show. Your latest comment regarding your workmate's wife confuses things, but it's entirely probable that she recommended the books first, then you checked out the TV series and then got the audiobooks. All good!

[Kaleb]

6 hours ago, Samt said:

True.  Technically you said that some parts of the story are mandatory but you won't describe exactly which ones lest you be held to your answer at a later date through this "gotcha" question.  Also relationships and development in a wishy washy enough way that it has no real concrete meaning.  

 

I mean, your checklist of key characters that need to have the same development includes Min.  Who is completely different in the show.  How is that a meaningful list at all?

I'm also responding to this sentence in a previous comment: "The original Wheel of Time story from the books isn't engaging any new perspectives because it isn't contained in the show."

 

So, a big part of the reason I'm reticent to discuss potential deal-breaker events in future episodes is because you are arguing that a show that has already included these key scenes and events somehow doesn't qualify as The Wheel Of Time:

Winternight

Shadar Logoth

Rand channeling his way out of a darkfriend trap at an Andoran inn

A guilt-ridden Perrin becoming enamored of the Tinkers and their Way Of The Leaf

Rand meeting Loial in a library

Moiraine healing Mat from the Shadar Logoth dagger

Taking the Ways to Fal Dara

Rand battling Ishamael (who he believes to be the literal Dark One) at the Eye Of The World

Novice training in the White Tower

Perrin and the Shienarans tracking Padan Fain and the Horn of Valere, including a Fade nailed to a door

Nynaeve's Accepted test

Elyas and Hopper

Liandrin delivering Nynaeve, Egwene and Elayne to the Seanchan, with Nynaeve and Elayne escaping

Damane training for Egwene

Nynaeve and Elayne learning about the a'dam and capturing a sul'dam

Mat blowing the Horn Of Valere to summon an army of dead heroes

 

The show has included all of these book scenes (and many more!) and you have the nerve to argue that it's not WoT? That it's actually some different story? This is why it feels like we're talking past each other, like a bad-faith argument.

 

I fervently hope and am confident that Season 3 will bring us Rhuidean and the revealing of Rand as the car'a'carn. I believe that we will see the Battle Of The Two Rivers, with Perrin and Dain Bornhald as antagonists, and including Aram choosing the sword. What details will you need to see to accept it as the story of The Wheel Of Time? Or has that ship sailed? And if it has, what is your purpose in challenging my view that this adaptation of the story clearly deserves its name?

Edited April 12 by Kaleb

[henrywho]

4 hours ago, Kaleb said:

 

Please forgive us for misunderstanding your comment earlier in this thread: 

 

I'm not claiming these are necessarily contradictions, btw. It's just that your earlier comment can easily be read to imply that you watched the show and then listened to the audiobooks because you enjoyed the show. Your latest comment regarding your workmate's wife confuses things, but it's entirely probable that she recommended the books first, then you checked out the TV series and then got the audiobooks. All good!

No I don't believe you can infer that and I certainly did not mean to imply that.

I watched season 1 first, my mates wife also watched season 1 and the title reminded her of the books she had read in the past she then asked me if I could get her the audiobooks, she now runs her own cottage industry and has little time for sitting down to read. I did that for her. I then finished listening to the Dune Saga. Needed something to replace it and decided to check out TWoT because of the lady mentioned above. Mostly because of it's length.

Started listening a didn't want to stop, found excuses to be on the tractor so I could listen uninterrupted.

After the first book I re-watched the 1st season and was dumbfounded by the unjustifiable and stupid changes made. I then finished the books before season 2. The rest as you have read here is history.

It is my humble opinion that the series is NOT the books and I am greatly disappointed in what has been done to date and can not see how in can be sanely corrected. If I choose to watch the series again I will do what I did for season 2. Take deep breaths and remind myself repeatedly that it's not the wheel of time it just has a lot of the same names. Once I've managed that, the show is a palatable watch. There is for sure much worse things on TV. Some sex crazed, drug addled garbage set in Las-Vegas, that I couldn't bring myself to finish watching the first episode, for one.

Edited April 12 by henrywho

[henrywho]

3 hours ago, Kaleb said:

A guilt-ridden Perrin becoming enamored of the Tinkers and their Way Of The Leaf

Woh, Gilt ridden. Perrin is NOT gilt ridden in the books. He is cautious and deliberate of thought in the books, mildly fearful of his size and strength when he was younger and that has an influence on him now but not guilt ridden. I ask this, what in the first 4 books has he to have guilt for.

Edited April 12 by henrywho
typo's

[henrywho]

3 hours ago, Kaleb said:

So, a big part of the reason I'm reticent to discuss potential deal-breaker events in future episodes is because you are arguing that a show that has already included these key scenes and events somehow doesn't qualify as The Wheel Of Time:

 

As I've intimated before I'll give a clearer example, I hope.

2 people leave on trip from A to Z both people travel through the same 24 places in between, they do not travel together, both arrive at Z with one having enjoyed the journey and the other hating it.

I would not say they both had the same holiday. But you would. I say they didn't because the journey through all those points is what matters. What happened to each of them and how. The way events unfolded for each makes each one have their own story and they are completely different even though they both visited the same 26 points. I like the journey in the books and see little resemblance to it in the series. Aside from the metaphorical 26 points.

Edited April 12 by henrywho

[henrywho]

10 minutes ago, henrywho said:

As I've intimated before I'll give a clearer example, I hope.

2 people leave on trip from A to Z both people travel through the same 24 places in between, they do not travel together, both arrive at Z with one having enjoyed the journey and the other hating it.

I would not say they both had the same holiday. But you would. I say they didn't because the journey through all those points is what matters. What happened to each of them and how. The way events unfolded for each makes each one have their own story and they are completely different even though they both visited the same 26 points. I like the journey in the books and see little resemblance to it in the series. Aside from the metaphorical 26 points.

This example might been even better.

Would anyone say these events/stories are the same. Some people here clearly would.

The white settlement of North America.

The Spanish invasion of South America.

The English settlement of Australia.

The Movie Avatar.

These all have the same underlying story, except for Avatar, at the end, where the natives actually win.

 

A group of humans travel great distance to settle a remote land. Once there they enforce there will and beliefs upon the less technically advanced natives. Fighting and bloodshed ensues.

 

[Samt]

13 hours ago, Kaleb said:

I'm also responding to this sentence in a previous comment: "The original Wheel of Time story from the books isn't engaging any new perspectives because it isn't contained in the show."

 

So, a big part of the reason I'm reticent to discuss potential deal-breaker events in future episodes is because you are arguing that a show that has already included these key scenes and events somehow doesn't qualify as The Wheel Of Time:

 

I don't believe I've ever said that it doesn't qualify as "The Wheel of Time" as currently constituted.  In any case, I didn't mean to. (My point about fan fiction was to say that the reason it isn't fan fiction is because it still includes many scenes and plot points from the books) My main points are:

1.  Many scenes and even entire episodes (and arcs for certain characters across multiple episodes) are entirely novel and contain no content from the books.  As such, even if the series as a whole is still recognizable, many parts taken in a vacuum aren't but for the proper nouns and specific lore terms.

 

2.  As the series continues, these novel scenes will have ripple effects that make it harder and harder to include the scenes from the books without significant re-writes.  This will probably make it feel more and more divorced from the books over time.  

 

In regards to your reticence, I'm not sure why my position on the previous seasons is relevant.  Hindsight is 20/20 and let's you re-frame what is important based on what happens.  

 

13 hours ago, Kaleb said:

 

Winternight

Shadar Logoth

Rand channeling his way out of a darkfriend trap at an Andoran inn

A guilt-ridden Perrin becoming enamored of the Tinkers and their Way Of The Leaf

Rand meeting Loial in a library

Moiraine healing Mat from the Shadar Logoth dagger

Taking the Ways to Fal Dara

Rand battling Ishamael (who he believes to be the literal Dark One) at the Eye Of The World

Novice training in the White Tower

Perrin and the Shienarans tracking Padan Fain and the Horn of Valere, including a Fade nailed to a door

Nynaeve's Accepted test

Elyas and Hopper

Liandrin delivering Nynaeve, Egwene and Elayne to the Seanchan, with Nynaeve and Elayne escaping

Damane training for Egwene

Nynaeve and Elayne learning about the a'dam and capturing a sul'dam

Mat blowing the Horn Of Valere to summon an army of dead heroes

 

A good list overall.  A few points I would contest.

--Perrin isn't guilty when he meets the Tinkers in the book because he hasn't killed anyone yet.  

--Rand fighting Ishamael at TEOTW in the books is so different that I'm not sure I really count that.

--Having Perrin and the Shienarians hunting for the horn is a bit bold considering that Rand is supposed to be there and is the main protagonist of that sequence (Mat should be there, too, but it's Rand's absence that changes it completely.  

--Nynaeve's accepted test is completely changed from the books and is nonsensical as a test as it's shown in the show.  

--Elyas and Hopper come at a completely different part of the book.  I think order matters, too, at least a little bit.

--Nynaeve and Elayne capturing the suldam doesn't actually do anything in the show.  In regards to this and the previous point, I started to feel in season 2 that the showrunners are trying to hit certain scenes because they think they are important, but they have changed enough that the scenes no longer make sense in their original place.  

 

As far as iconic things that have been cut and can't really happen anymore in a meaningful way:

 

--Rand meeting Elayne (and Gawyn, Galad, Morgase, Elaida, Gareth) in the palace.

--Lan teaching Rand

--Bayle Domon (yeah, I know he was there, but that was literally just proper nouns).  

--

13 hours ago, Kaleb said:

The show has included all of these book scenes (and many more!) and you have the nerve to argue that it's not WoT? That it's actually some different story? This is why it feels like we're talking past each other, like a bad-faith argument.

 

As I said above, I don't really think that it isn't the WoT, yet.  But I don't think they have set themselves up well for it to really be WoT all the way through.  And I also don't think it is well made or conceived.  

13 hours ago, Kaleb said:

I fervently hope and am confident that Season 3 will bring us Rhuidean and the revealing of Rand as the car'a'carn. I believe that we will see the Battle Of The Two Rivers, with Perrin and Dain Bornhald as antagonists, and including Aram choosing the sword. What details will you need to see to accept it as the story of The Wheel Of Time? Or has that ship sailed? And if it has, what is your purpose in challenging my view that this adaptation of the story clearly deserves its name?

Thanks for sharing some good thoughts on future seasons.  I think they are good points and I do expect to see most of it.  

 

Some other things that I think you have to include if you want it to be WoT:

 

--Rand pulls the sword from the stone.

--Mat goes through the arches.  

 

These two moments define the paths of these two protagonists more than probably any other moments in the early books.  In many ways, both of these events do weird things to the plot, the power balance, and the concept of free will vs. destiny that the books are presenting.  But really that weirdness makes them inalienable parts of the plot since it's also a big part of what makes the characters unique.  

Edited April 12 by Samt

[expat]

7 minutes ago, Samt said:

Many scenes and even entire episodes (and arcs for certain characters across multiple episodes) are entirely novel and contain no content from the books.  As such, even if the series as a whole is still recognizable, many parts taken in a vacuum aren't but for the proper nouns and specific lore terms.

I think that there are several issues that the people who believe that this series is filmable (or nearly filmable as written) don't wrestle with enough.

Note that all these issues are interwoven and must be addressed together:

1. This is foremost a TV series and TV series and books are fundamentally different with their own rules for what works and doesn't work.  The paramount goal is to make an interesting TV show

2. If everything comes together, the TV show will encompass 8 seasons over 12+ years (2021-2034?).  This is a very very very long time to remember details.

3. Most viewers are not fanatics and will only watch the show once. This means they will have only sketchy memories of the details after a couple of years, but might maintain some understanding of the larger arcs.

4. Viewers have to have enough understanding of the background and motivations to appreciate the pay-off for a character that might have started 10+ years (in real time) before.

5.  Much of the character development and their motivations are done in internal monologues* which are not filmable as written.

 

Taken together, these facts suggest to me that small changes in dialogue or scenes will not suffice to show the necessary character development because they have no lasting impact to most viewers.  Casual viewers need to be hit with the equivalent of a two-by-four of information to remember it years later.  Dialogue isn't sufficient; large show arcs, possibly lasting years seem a much better method.  By definition, these arcs will be new material, not in the books, because they are manifesting the details of each character's inner monologues.  Since I'm trying to watch an interesting TV show, I'm willing to accept these types of changes because I think they are necessary for such sprawling (both in book info and real-world implications) material.  This does not mean that I like every change or think that the show runners always got it right, but as long as the hit/miss rate is decent and the rest of the show is done well, I'm not going to lose sleep over the inconsistencies with the books.

 

I've repeatedly asked the poster who think that it needs to be closer to the books for examples of how to film the books in such a way that the following things all hold:

 

1.  INTERESTING TV show

2. Viewers in 2032 will remember enough from the early seasons to appreciate the character/event pay-offs

3. Accounts for filming constraints (time, money, actor availability, CGI capabilities, sets etc.)

4. Appropriate character development from the internal monologues is filmed

5. close enough to the books to satisfy your desire for consistency 

 

So far, crickets.  Just more posts saying that the show needs to be more like the books.  Maybe I'll be lucky and get a response in this thread.

 

*In previous posts, I've called this "POV", but I think that Elder_Haman's description of them as "internal monologues" in more accurate, thus the change in terminology

[Samt]

1 hour ago, expat said:

I think that there are several issues that the people who believe that this series is filmable (or nearly filmable as written) don't wrestle with enough.

Note that all these issues are interwoven and must be addressed together:

1. This is foremost a TV series and TV series and books are fundamentally different with their own rules for what works and doesn't work.  The paramount goal is to make an interesting TV show

2. If everything comes together, the TV show will encompass 8 seasons over 12+ years (2021-2034?).  This is a very very very long time to remember details.

3. Most viewers are not fanatics and will only watch the show once. This means they will have only sketchy memories of the details after a couple of years, but might maintain some understanding of the larger arcs.

4. Viewers have to have enough understanding of the background and motivations to appreciate the pay-off for a character that might have started 10+ years (in real time) before.

5.  Much of the character development and their motivations are done in internal monologues* which are not filmable as written.

 

Taken together, these facts suggest to me that small changes in dialogue or scenes will not suffice to show the necessary character development because they have no lasting impact to most viewers.  Casual viewers need to be hit with the equivalent of a two-by-four of information to remember it years later.  Dialogue isn't sufficient; large show arcs, possibly lasting years seem a much better method.  By definition, these arcs will be new material, not in the books, because they are manifesting the details of each character's inner monologues.  Since I'm trying to watch an interesting TV show, I'm willing to accept these types of changes because I think they are necessary for such sprawling (both in book info and real-world implications) material.  This does not mean that I like every change or think that the show runners always got it right, but as long as the hit/miss rate is decent and the rest of the show is done well, I'm not going to lose sleep over the inconsistencies with the books.

 

I've repeatedly asked the poster who think that it needs to be closer to the books for examples of how to film the books in such a way that the following things all hold:

 

1.  INTERESTING TV show

2. Viewers in 2032 will remember enough from the early seasons to appreciate the character/event pay-offs

3. Accounts for filming constraints (time, money, actor availability, CGI capabilities, sets etc.)

4. Appropriate character development from the internal monologues is filmed

5. close enough to the books to satisfy your desire for consistency 

 

So far, crickets.  Just more posts saying that the show needs to be more like the books.  Maybe I'll be lucky and get a response in this thread.

 

*In previous posts, I've called this "POV", but I think that Elder_Haman's description of them as "internal monologues" in more accurate, thus the change in terminology

Frankly, I don't think the series is filmable as a 12 year project.  The decision to slow roll it that much kind of baffles me.  There is a reason that Peter Jackson filmed LOTR in one shot even though he was planning to release 3 films.  

[Elder_Haman]

42 minutes ago, Samt said:

Frankly, I don't think the series is filmable as a 12 year project.  The decision to slow roll it that much kind of baffles me.  There is a reason that Peter Jackson filmed LOTR in one shot even though he was planning to release 3 films.  

You couldn’t one shot it either. The only way to truly do WoT justice would be as an animated series which would avoid most of the problems inherent with producing a decade + long tv show. 

[Samt]

6 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

You couldn’t one shot it either. The only way to truly do WoT justice would be as an animated series which would avoid most of the problems inherent with producing a decade + long tv show. 

I think you could one-shot it.  But you would need major buy-in and funding which I understand just didn't exist.  We're talking a budget in the billions and actors and writers committed full-time for 1-2 years.  

[Elder_Haman]

2 minutes ago, Samt said:

I think you could one-shot it.  But you would need major buy-in and funding which I understand just didn't exist.  We're talking a budget in the billions and actors and writers committed full-time for 1-2 years.  

1-2? No chance. 5 years of filming, minimum. If you’re trying to do the whole story. 

[Kaleb]

3 hours ago, Samt said:

As I said above, I don't really think that it isn't the WoT, yet.  But I don't think they have set themselves up well for it to really be WoT all the way through.

Ok, cool, all good.

 

The real genesis of Perrin's guilt over the axe in the books is the chapter where he wrestles with mercy-killing Egwene if the ravens catch them, immediately after he and Egwene leave the Tinkers with Elyas and before they meet the Whitecloaks in the stedding. In the books, his guilt emerges immediately after Perrin learns of the Way Of The Leaf, but as I remember it the focus is at least as much on Elyas' warning about being comfortable with the axe as it is about pacifism. It's one of those entirely-internal things that people have so frequently noted makes him a difficult character to script. Bringing that axe-related guilt earlier in the story so it's a clear subtext to his discussion with the Tinkers makes a lot of sense for that reason. Definitely a change though, and it's clear the show didn't stick the landing with their execution.

 

Big-picture, I love the books because Jordan himself drew from such a wide variety of literary and mythological sources that so many themes are seriously investigated and developed, it's a joy to pick up any of the threads from lost innocence to feminist egalitarianism to moral absolutism to the relative importance of individualism vs community-building and consensus. There's the Arthurian symbolism including the sword in the stone for sure. Telling a compressed story visually necessitates choosing to emphasize some themes more than others and at different points in the story, and it's not an easy task. I think the show's production team has shown they're well-versed in all of the themes and are making an effort to engage every important thread seriously, even when other book readers would legitimately prioritize and emphasize them in other hierarchies. It's a big messy story, and that in itself is beautiful and worthy of multiple celebrations. I genuinely hope the Prime adaptation is successful because it will set up the next generation's adaptation, maybe even sooner than that.

[henrywho]

4 hours ago, expat said:

1.  INTERESTING TV show

2. Viewers in 2032 will remember enough from the early seasons to appreciate the character/event pay-offs

3. Accounts for filming constraints (time, money, actor availability, CGI capabilities, sets etc.)

4. Appropriate character development from the internal monologues is filmed

5. close enough to the books to satisfy your desire for consistency 

 

1: Is a bland question with almost infinite answers but my mine would be to "Stick Closer To The Books!"

2: The very annoying "previously on..." covers a lot of this, but I for one, on complex story lines, re-watch previous seasons before the new. I know I'm not the only one. 

3: GoT managed it. Why not this mob? (CGI in this era has only cost as a restraint)

4: This one is easy, I've never understood why people believe "internal monologues" can not be filmed, check out Dune (1984). Good acting, clever editing and sound.

5: Edit and script the books. It's accepted that a lot of pages will not be filmed and/or heavily compressed. Game of Thrones cleverly amalgamated several "less major" characters into one and it worked fine there because they were careful and clever. I often wonder what we would be watching if HBO had TWoT.

 

Do they really expect to stretch this out over 12 years. For the human characters the books span only a few years. Poor Maisey Williams had her chest heavily strapped towards the end of GoT. We have already had one major character re=cast. If you think "The Witcher" will be as good with the loss of Henry Cavill, I suggest thinking harder. TWoT will be lucky to have a season 4 at this rate. If they can axe "Shadow and Bone" they can axe anything, good story, good acting, good scripts and excellent production value and it still got axed.

[henrywho]

2 hours ago, Kaleb said:

Ok, cool, all good.

 

The real genesis of Perrin's guilt over the axe in the books is the chapter where he wrestles with mercy-killing Egwene if the ravens catch them, immediately after he and Egwene leave the Tinkers with Elyas and before they meet the Whitecloaks in the stedding. In the books, his guilt emerges immediately after Perrin learns of the Way Of The Leaf,

 

I believe this is were we truly realise that two different people can read the same thing and draw different conclusions. IMHO Perrin is NEVER guilt ridden in the books. He has some guilt over the death of a couple of Whitecloaks but only some. His defining characteristics are humble, frightened, considered thought and physical presence. He is scared about his wolf powers and that he may forget himself and be trapped in the "dreams". He uses the Whitecloak deaths as a crotch later in book 4 as an aid to justify his secret plan to free Emond's Field from the pathological zealots by surrendering himself to them. He clearly has some guilt but it hardly "defines" him. His other characteristics define him far more than his mild guilt.

One thing is VERY clear, in the books Perrin is not the sniveling, cowed, sad sack he is in the series.

He has smiled once in the series, whilst Egwene danced with the tinkers, that's 2 seasons and one smile. A moment when he forgot himself amongst the music and celebration. He is not the same person as in the books.

[henrywho]

3 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

1-2? No chance. 5 years of filming, minimum. If you’re trying to do the whole story. 

Agreed.

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, henrywho said:

If they can axe "Shadow and Bone" they can axe anything, good story, good acting, good scripts and excellent production value and it still got axed.

Shadow and Bone was a poor show in comparison to WoT, in my opinion. The story was not engaging, the world building was weak, and the design was mediocre. 
 

I’ve not read the source material, so I have no axe to grind either way about whether it was ‘faithful’ as an adaptation. But there’s no question in my mind that WoT is a far better tv show. 

[expat]

48 minutes ago, henrywho said:

1: Is a bland question with almost infinite answers but my mine would be to "Stick Closer To The Books!"

2: The very annoying "previously on..." covers a lot of this, but I for one, on complex story lines, re-watch previous seasons before the new. I know I'm not the only one. 

3: GoT managed it. Why not this mob? (CGI in this era has only cost as a restraint)

4: This one is easy, I've never understood why people believe "internal monologues" can not be filmed, check out Dune (1984). Good acting, clever editing and sound.

5: Edit and script the books. It's accepted that a lot of pages will not be filmed and/or heavily compressed. Game of Thrones cleverly amalgamated several "less major" characters into one and it worked fine there because they were careful and clever. I often wonder what we would be watching if HBO had TWoT.

 

Do they really expect to stretch this out over 12 years. For the human characters the books span only a few years. Poor Maisey Williams had her chest heavily strapped towards the end of GoT. We have already had one major character re=cast. If you think "The Witcher" will be as good with the loss of Henry Cavill, I suggest thinking harder. TWoT will be lucky to have a season 4 at this rate. If they can axe "Shadow and Bone" they can axe anything, good story, good acting, good scripts and excellent production value and it still got axed.

 

1. I think the books are unfilmable, where I've explained my reasoning in gory detail in other threads. Saying the equivalent of "just film the books" with no rationale is a cop out to avoid serious thinking about the problems with trying to film it.

 

2. Congratulations on not having a life.  Most people are not going to rewatch 56 hours of TV to understand the nuances for the final season.  If you were the showrunner, would you assume most of your audience was going to rewatch previous years before each new season or design your show to accommodate normal people who don't have either the time or desire to rewatch previous seasons.  The WoT books have massive repetition in them because of the amount of time between books.  Jordon didn't believe most of his readers would reread the previous books to prepare for the next one.  He solved the problem of his audience forgetting concepts by repeating them, sometimes ad nauseum (see the Perrin/Faile/Shaido arc which stretched over several books where much of the time in each book was used to remind readers how Perrin felt about Faile's situation without moving the plot forward).

 

3. The production constraints don't stop you from filming a series, but they do limit/change some of the things that you can do.  The tEotW meeting of Elayne in Camelyn would have required a large cost for the set and actors for just a couple of scenes. Nothing in it was important to the rest of the season.  Skipping it and setting up a different introduction of Elayne made perfect sense from a production viewpoint. Agelmar Jagad appears in the first and last books.  From an actor viewpoint, it made perfect sense to kill him off in the first season because the character would need to be recast by the time he is needed again.  Easier to just invent another respected military leader for his second appearance. I can come up with numerous other examples where deviating from the books makes sense from a production standpoint. Is it better to use the money and resources on other more important elements or use them to maintain consistency on minor points?

 

4. Dune (1984) was terrible, so this isn't the best example to show how to film an unfilmable book.  Just saying that you don't understand why it's hard to film extensive internal monologues doesn't illustrate that you can film them while still being close to the books.  Have you ever considered that not understanding is a "you problem" and not a problem with the showrunners understanding on how to make a TV series?

 

5. Just saying "be closer to the books" is not really an answer.  Cutting significant portions of the inner monologues is not realistic since they contain much of the character development of the major characters and a significant amount of the world lore.  The series is already combining multiple characters (with almost of the combining leading to complaints by the closer to the books crowd), so it's following your advice.  So again, how would you "edit and script the books" in such a way that they are filmable?

 

Playing out the series over 12 years is far from ideal, but that seems to be the schedule they are currently on.  I would love to have a season per calendar year and that would allow the showrunners more latitude and might mitigate some of the concerns about the casual viewer (maybe 95% of the audience) forgetting the nuances. But as it stands today, the showrunner has to script for a series that will last years in real-time, which requires, in my opinion, compromises such as new arcs allowing casual viewers to remember and understand the series in broad strokes.

 

Off topic - I've never understood why anyone suggests that Henry Cavill is a good actor.  He is the most wooden major actor I've ever seen and wouldn't cast him in anything above a local theater production.  After saying that, he works in Witcher since Geralt is supposed to be a non-emotive, wooden character, the perfect role for him.  

[henrywho]

5 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

Shadow and Bone was a poor show in comparison to WoT, in my opinion. The story was not engaging, the world building was weak, and the design was mediocre. 
 

I’ve not read the source material, so I have no axe to grind either way about whether it was ‘faithful’ as an adaptation. But there’s no question in my mind that WoT is a far better tv show. 

Yeah.. Nah. Disagree with everything you said, except I too have not read the source material for SaB.

[Elder_Haman]

20 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Yeah.. Nah. Disagree with everything you said, except I too have not read the source material for SaB.

I’m not surprised. 

[henrywho]

5 hours ago, expat said:

 

1. I think the books are unfilmable, where I've explained my reasoning in gory detail in other threads. Saying the equivalent of "just film the books" with no rationale is a cop out to avoid serious thinking about the problems with trying to film it.

 

As I've clearly indicated I believe the series can be filmed without deviating as far as this series has.

 

5 hours ago, expat said:

2. Congratulations on not having a life.  Most people are not going to rewatch 56 hours of TV to understand the nuances for the final season.  If you were the showrunner, would you assume most of your audience was going to rewatch previous years before each new season or design your show to accommodate normal people who don't have either the time or desire to rewatch previous seasons.  The WoT books have massive repetition in them because of the amount of time between books.  Jordon didn't believe most of his readers would reread the previous books to prepare for the next one.  He solved the problem of his audience forgetting concepts by repeating them, sometimes ad nauseum (see the Perrin/Faile/Shaido arc which stretched over several books where much of the time in each book was used to remind readers how Perrin felt about Faile's situation without moving the plot forward).

I won't write my first thoughts for this response. Yes I know about the repartitions in the books. As someone listening to them for the second time, one after the other it's only mildly annoying but completely understandable. Clearly the series does not have to do that, there are other means.

 

5 hours ago, expat said:

3. The production constraints don't stop you from filming a series, but they do limit/change some of the things that you can do.  The tEotW meeting of Elayne in Camelyn would have required a large cost for the set and actors for just a couple of scenes. Nothing in it was important to the rest of the season.  Skipping it and setting up a different introduction of Elayne made perfect sense from a production viewpoint. Agelmar Jagad appears in the first and last books.  From an actor viewpoint, it made perfect sense to kill him off in the first season because the character would need to be recast by the time he is needed again.  Easier to just invent another respected military leader for his second appearance. I can come up with numerous other examples where deviating from the books makes sense from a production standpoint. Is it better to use the money and resources on other more important elements or use them to maintain consistency on minor points?

Yeah completely in the dark with what you are on about here. Point 3 was;

"3. Accounts for filming constraints (time, money, actor availability, CGI capabilities, sets etc.) "

My response was;

3: GoT managed it. Why not this mob? (CGI in this era has only cost as a restraint)

GoT as in Game of Thrones. My answer stands and eliminates the point. If another company (HBO) can "Accounts for filming constraints (time, money, actor availability, CGI capabilities, sets etc.) ". Then why not Amazon!

5 hours ago, expat said:

4. Dune (1984) was terrible, so this isn't the best example to show how to film an unfilmable book.  Just saying that you don't understand why it's hard to film extensive internal monologues doesn't illustrate that you can film them while still being close to the books.  Have you ever considered that not understanding is a "you problem" and not a problem with the showrunners understanding on how to make a TV series?

You not read so good much ay! Dune (1984) was used as an example of how you can successfully film internal monologues. Nothing more. If it can be done once it can be done again. Not understanding that is clearly your problem, not a problem I have. I also quite enjoyed Dune (1984) as I do the remake.

 

5 hours ago, expat said:

5. Just saying "be closer to the books" is not really an answer.  Cutting significant portions of the inner monologues is not realistic since they contain much of the character development of the major characters and a significant amount of the world lore.  The series is already combining multiple characters (with almost of the combining leading to complaints by the closer to the books crowd), so it's following your advice.  So again, how would you "edit and script the books" in such a way that they are filmable?

 

Hmm again an issue with reading... or maybe comprehension.

I did not "just say" be closer to the books. What I said was;

5: Edit and script the books. It's accepted that a lot of pages will not be filmed and/or heavily compressed. Game of Thrones cleverly amalgamated several "less major" characters into one and it worked fine there because they were careful and clever. I often wonder what we would be watching if HBO had TWoT.

 

5 hours ago, expat said:

Playing out the series over 12 years is far from ideal, but that seems to be the schedule they are currently on.  I would love to have a season per calendar year and that would allow the showrunners more latitude and might mitigate some of the concerns about the casual viewer (maybe 95% of the audience) forgetting the nuances. But as it stands today, the showrunner has to script for a series that will last years in real-time, which requires, in my opinion, compromises such as new arcs allowing casual viewers to remember and understand the series in broad strokes.

 

Off topic - I've never understood why anyone suggests that Henry Cavill is a good actor.  He is the most wooden major actor I've ever seen and wouldn't cast him in anything above a local theater production.  After saying that, he works in Witcher since Geralt is supposed to be a non-emotive, wooden character, the perfect role for him.  

Well that seals it, if you are right, any show who's audience is 95% casual viewer is going to be canned for sure.

 

As for Carvil he is a good actor, not great just good. But that, again, was not my point.

[henrywho]

4 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I’m not surprised. 

Funny neither am I by you not being.

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, henrywho said:

As I've clearly indicated I believe the series can be filmed without deviating as far as this series has.

Yep. We got it. 

 

2 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Funny neither am I by you not being.

Shadow and Bone was just not good. Sorry. It was derivative, boring, poorly scripted and uninteresting. I’m not surprised in the least by its cancellation. And it gave me no desire to read the books.