Why not follow the books more closely?

[Samt]

1 minute ago, DigificWriter said:

 

I don't need to justify or explain an objective reality.

 

There is absolutely no way to quantify what does or does not qualify as a 'faithful' adaptation because if you were to ask 100 people to tell you what makes something a 'faithful' or 'unfaithful' adaptation, you would get 100 different - and contradictory - answers.

 

 

So we can only discuss things that can be quantified and everyone agrees about? Beauty doesn’t exist? Love doesn’t exist? Meaning doesn’t exist?  
 

And I think you are exaggerating the degree to which people can’t agree. If you ask specific questions, you can get agreement. Does making Abel Cauthon a womanizer make the adaptation more or less faithful？What about giving Perrin a wife to kill?  Making those changes makes the adaptation less faithful. Maybe you think this isn’t important or that those are good changes that help in some way.  But it’s a bit obtuse to pretend that those aren’t actual changes that reduce the degree to which the adaptation follows the source material.

[Lightfriendsocialmistress]

13 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

 

I don't need to justify or explain an objective reality.

 

There is absolutely no way to quantify what does or does not qualify as a 'faithful' adaptation because if you were to ask 100 people to tell you what makes something a 'faithful' or 'unfaithful' adaptation, you would get 100 different - and contradictory - answers.

 

 

That’s a really interesting (and I consider obvious) point in terms of, who decides what is the “right” perspective. Some people love the way the story is presented on screen, some hate it, and most are somewhere on a spectrum in between. There is no correct judgment, IMO, but a variety of people are in their experience seeing it in a way that is right for them, but they lose me when they insist they have the only accurate interpretation. Also, we only have one season to draw from. Who knows where the show will take us? I’ve heard plenty of people say it took them a few books before they were really on board. Judging the whole based on the first season strikes me as being as limited as judging the whole series on the first book 

[psmith1990]

3 hours ago, Samt said:

So we can only discuss things that can be quantified and everyone agrees about? Beauty doesn’t exist? Love doesn’t exist? Meaning doesn’t exist?  
 

And I think you are exaggerating the degree to which people can’t agree. If you ask specific questions, you can get agreement. Does making Abel Cauthon a womanizer make the adaptation more or less faithful？What about giving Perrin a wife to kill?  Making those changes makes the adaptation less faithful. Maybe you think this isn’t important or that those are good changes that help in some way.  But it’s a bit obtuse to pretend that those aren’t actual changes that reduce the degree to which the adaptation follows the source material.

 

And for me, the decision to change Abel Cauthon's (a very minor character) character is something I'm not pro or against yet. I don't think it being 'unfaithful' is inherently a bad thing, especially if it later pays dividends. For example, if this leads to him later getting a character arc wherein he finds redemption  and/or we see the impact of a different upbringing on Mat's character in a way that might justify or explain some of his character in a nuanced way, I'd be very interested in seeing that onscreen. 

 

Quite honestly, adherence to the letter of the text is far from the most important thing to me because we all come from the books with different views on character, dynamics, plot, story, pacing, and the relative necessity and importance of them. If making material changes to the source text means we end up in a place where I think a favourite character's decisions make more sense (logically) or a dynamic is depicted in a way that feels more authentic (to me), I'm going to be all for it in a lot of cases. Selfishly. And because others might've interpreted a dynamic or motivation differently, those changes might feel unnecessary or unwanted even though I see them as the opposite. 

[DaddyFinn]

Perrin's book arc needs a major rewrite and/or condensing. Laila is a fine way to explain his obsession over Faile

[DojoToad]

4 hours ago, DaddyFinn said:

Perrin's book arc needs a major rewrite and/or condensing. Laila is a fine way to explain his obsession over Faile

As long as they cut her Shaido arc by 90%...

[Skipp]

1 hour ago, DojoToad said:

As long as they cut her Shaido arc by 90%...

 

I actually do like her Shaido arc.  It really brings he character into the leadership role she was groomed for before leaving for the Great Hunt.  She is in  an impossible situation but is continually looking for new avenues of escape for herself and the ones she is responsible for.  Had she not had this will it is possible Sevanna might have scooped her up went Perrin's army arrived.

 

Now I could do with seeing less of Perrin's PoV during the Shaido arc.  Despite being my favourite his chapters then I find lengthy.

 

I am looking forward to seeing how they portray Faile in the show and how they will revamp the events of the Shaido arc.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Skipp

[Samt]

My point was not that we can’t disagree as to whether these changes are good or bad. But we can agree that they are changes and that not doing them would make the adaptation closer to the source material. I was just a little perplexed by the suggestion that we can’t even meaningfully discuss what constitutes a change from the source material. 
 

As to the specific changes I mentioned, I really like Abel from the books. He and Tam doing their thing has cool dad vibes. Just two guys who know who they are and what their duty is and aren’t afraid to do it no matter what.  
 

In regards to Perrin, I’m not really sure why Laila helps move Perrin along. He falls in love with a girl and is committed to her. I’m don’t think he needs a backstory to make that believable.  The Shaido stuff does go on for too long, but I think that can be fixed with minimal effort. The story itself is not complicated and can be shown pretty quickly on screen. I also think that a lot of complaints about that arc isn’t just that it takes too

much time on the page but also that it spans over multiple books without much actually changing.

[SinisterDeath]

1 hour ago, Samt said:

In regards to Perrin, I’m not really sure why Laila helps move Perrin along. He falls in love with a girl and is committed to her. I’m don’t think he needs a backstory to make that believable.

Books to TV, having a character with a backstory where they feel responsible for losing someone, can help justify their fear and obsession trying to fix future situations they are responsible for.

Perrin can't save Laila, but he can save Faile.
Having a past trauma like that on screen, can be used to allow that character to heal from their past trauma by fixing it this time...

They can also subvert that, by doing exactly what book Perrin does. Lose control, and kill someone who was actually helping his wife.

 

I feel there are parallels to Sam from Supernatural, where he feels responsible for what happened to his Girlfriend, and Sam feels responsible for his mom turning into toast.
Remove that Trauma, and you have a completely different show.
 

Book Perrin, falling in love with this annoying character that reminds me of Jackie from that 70s show, after being betrayed/manipulated by said character over the course of 2 books, feels rushed. Yes, that love grew, but that's going to be harder for TV audiences to understand.

TV audiences understand a character grieving a loss by immediately jumping into another relationship. It's a relatable experience. We do the same thing with Pets and future spouses. 

 

[Samt]

9 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Books to TV, having a character with a backstory where they feel responsible for losing someone, can help justify their fear and obsession trying to fix future situations they are responsible for.

Perrin can't save Laila, but he can save Faile.
Having a past trauma like that on screen, can be used to allow that character to heal from their past trauma by fixing it this time...

They can also subvert that, by doing exactly what book Perrin does. Lose control, and kill someone who was actually helping his wife.

 

I feel there's parallels to Sam from Supernatural, where he feels responsible for what happened to his Girlfriend, and Sam feels responsible for his mom turning into toast.
Remove that Trauma, and you have a completely different show.
 

For sure I can see how it can play into something and be an interesting backstory.  I just never felt like there was something missing in Perrin's arc or that it would be hard to make it make sense in a short period of time.  Which is to say, I don't think Laila shortcuts or simplifies his arc.  His devotion to Faile, his rage in battle, and his remorse at killing people are all pretty straightforward and natural.  

 

The EF5 (possibly not Nynaeve, who is just older and more experienced at the beginning) in the books all start as mostly blank slates with traditional values, involved parents, and a healthy does of naiveté.  It's clear that Rafe wanted to change this.  

[expat]

I find these types of discussions frustrating because nobody ever defines their terms and we end up talking past each other.

 

One definition in this thread seems to define faithfulness only as it relates to how closely the TV series matches the book actions.  Other definitions seem to be broader in that they include the emotional/character hooks from the books.  My bias is toward the second definition as I find hitting the character and emotional hooks far more important than having identical scenes.

 

Also, the definitions are faithfulness don't always include the difficulty of adaptation.  In the WOT, so much of the action is POV, which is not filmable, while so much has been cut due to time/adaptation considerations that there needs to be lots of non-book transitions created to keep the series making sense.  While some of the POV scenes can be adapted directly, most of them can't, especially the character interactions.  How do you show Rand wrestling with his increasing attraction to multiple women within the confines of the book scenes?  Having Rand constantly talk (to whom) about it is bad television.  World building is difficult because you need it, but almost all of it was pure boring dialogue or in POV.  For a TV series, they probable need to present at least some of the world building in new, non-cannon scenes.  Just look at the Stepin scenes.  In reality they were pretty well done and provided much need world building, but many people hated them because they were non-cannon. Bottom line, adapting WOT is hard due to its length and structure.

 

Another issue with faithfulness that doesn't get enough attention is the need to get the audience to have the right attitude to the characters.  In EOTW, Mat and Nyneave were not very likable characters and Perrin was boring.  In a long book series, there is time to rehabilitate the characters and they became much more likable latter, but in an ensemble, short TV series, you need to establish the emotional bond immediately.  Either you want the character to be hated (e.g., you want a redemption arc or foreshadowing a heel turn) or you want them liked.  The changes mentioned above about Mat's father and Perrin's wife made both characters more relatable/likable in the first couple of episodes, instead of two series in the future.  So, they were faithful to the emotional content of the series, but not the specific book scenes.  Were there other ways of doing it, sure.  Were they the best ways, who knows.  Were they faithful, depends on your definition. 

 

[zacz1987]

10 hours ago, DojoToad said:

As long as they cut her Shaido arc by 90%...

I don't think its the Shaido arc itself that is the issue. Its the fact it went on for so long. If it resolved in less time it wouldn't be a problem.

Edited June 23, 2023 by zacz1987

[expat]

Another aspect that needs to be considered is the audience's expectations.  From the closed thread (hope this doesn't do anything I'm not supposed to) talking about Rand and Egewene having sex in the first episode being an unwelcome and unfaithful scene.  Given the relationship they were trying to establish, probably any non-book reader older than 15 expected they were having sex and you would need to include an awkward scene saying they weren't if you wanted to deny it.  What is worse is that pedantically, the person who said that they wouldn't be having premarital sex in such a village was correct, in a real village like that they would have been married for 5 years and had two kids.

 

So again, this matched the audience's expectations that in the real world, people married young in a hard scrabble town, with limited technology in the middle of nowhere, although not to the book.  So, does this count as faithful?

[DojoToad]

1 hour ago, zacz1987 said:

I don't think its the Shaido arc itself that is the issue. Its the fact it went on for so long. If it resolved in less time it wouldn't be a problem.

Thus the 90 percent reduction…

[DigificWriter]

9 hours ago, Samt said:

My point was that we can agree that they are changes and that not doing them would make the adaptation closer to the source material

 

And my point is that this notion is objectively fallacious because there is no universal definition of 'faithfulness' versus 'unfaithulness' when it comes to adaptation.

Edited June 23, 2023 by DigificWriter

[Lightfriendsocialmistress]

13 hours ago, Skipp said:

 

I actually do like her Shaido arc.  It really brings he character into the leadership role she was groomed for before leaving for the Great Hunt.  She is in  an impossible situation but is continually looking for new avenues of escape for herself and the ones she is responsible for.  Had she not had this will it is possible Sevanna might have scooped her up went Perrin's army arrived.

 

Now I could do with seeing less of Perrin's PoV during the Shaido arc.  Despite being my favourite his chapters then I find lengthy.

 

I am looking forward to seeing how they portray Faile in the show and how they will revamp the events of the Shaido arc.

I agree with you. I realized on rereading that I actually like the situation through failes perspective. Not so much perrins but it does play better for me overall on reread. 

[Lightfriendsocialmistress]

12 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Books to TV, having a character with a backstory where they feel responsible for losing someone, can help justify their fear and obsession trying to fix future situations they are responsible for.

Perrin can't save Laila, but he can save Faile.
Having a past trauma like that on screen, can be used to allow that character to heal from their past trauma by fixing it this time...

They can also subvert that, by doing exactly what book Perrin does. Lose control, and kill someone who was actually helping his wife.

 

I feel there are parallels to Sam from Supernatural, where he feels responsible for what happened to his Girlfriend, and Sam feels responsible for his mom turning into toast.
Remove that Trauma, and you have a completely different show.
 

Book Perrin, falling in love with this annoying character that reminds me of Jackie from that 70s show, after being betrayed/manipulated by said character over the course of 2 books, feels rushed. Yes, that love grew, but that's going to be harder for TV audiences to understand.

TV audiences understand a character grieving a loss by immediately jumping into another relationship. It's a relatable experience. We do the same thing with Pets and future spouses. 

 

Agreed with your assessment and would add one more thing that I thought might explain it. We don’t have a lot of time to waste in the show, and Perrins internal conflict regarding his personal relationship to violence might have been easier/more efficient for the show to have an incident that viewers can see as a clear turning point rather than trying to portray the inner turmoil some other way. 

[zacz1987]

On 6/23/2023 at 9:14 AM, DojoToad said:

Thus the 90 percent reduction…

 

Honestly there is not a huge amount to reduce. Its more that Perrin and Faile only got a few chapters each book which made it drag on over multiple books and then the plotline had to be reintroduced each book and the recapping made it overly repetitive.

 

If the timeline was reduced (For example all the Perrin and Faile stuff happened in a single season with a portion of each episode dedicated to it) it wouldn't feel so bad.

[DojoToad]

2 hours ago, zacz1987 said:

 

Honestly there is not a huge amount to reduce. Its more that Perrin and Faile only got a few chapters each book which made it drag on over multiple books and then the plotline had to be reintroduced each book and the recapping made it overly repetitive.

 

If the timeline was reduced (For example all the Perrin and Faile stuff happened in a single season with a portion of each episode dedicated to it) it wouldn't feel so bad.

Yes. In book-form, it was a never ending cliff hanger. 🤮

[Scarloc99]

On 5/31/2023 at 11:33 AM, DojoToad said:

I'm not sure about @phanooglestixs but I'm not sure that your questions are apples to apples.  Star Wars started out as movies, the books came later.  The MCU I can't speak to as I'm not a comic book person.  That said, I enjoyed the movies but I'm not sure what a comic book 'purist' would say.

Purists, and there are many, rip every movie apart complaining that there fav hero's villains and stories have been destroyed. 

[Scarloc99]

On 7/1/2023 at 9:47 AM, zacz1987 said:

 

Honestly there is not a huge amount to reduce. Its more that Perrin and Faile only got a few chapters each book which made it drag on over multiple books and then the plotline had to be reintroduced each book and the recapping made it overly repetitive.

 

If the timeline was reduced (For example all the Perrin and Faile stuff happened in a single season with a portion of each episode dedicated to it) it wouldn't feel so bad.

To be fair, having just re read the books again I had forgotten just how much recapping there is throughout. Like you the Perrin and faille story for me flows along really nicely and quickly as an isolated piece. the hunting the shaido is dealt with fairly swiftly as well. 

[Scarloc99]

On 7/1/2023 at 11:52 AM, DojoToad said:

Yes. In book-form, it was a never ending cliff hanger. 🤮

See for me there is a lot of cliff hanger moments with that whole thing, Faille getting captured, the build up to Perrin rescuing her, the stuff int he camp, there are moments there that I didn't know what was going to happen the first time. That whole piece of the book in isolation moves really swiftly and is really good, the issue comes that it is so disjointed and spread out. 

[Scarloc99]

On 6/22/2023 at 6:30 AM, Samt said:

So we can only discuss things that can be quantified and everyone agrees about? Beauty doesn’t exist? Love doesn’t exist? Meaning doesn’t exist?  
 

And I think you are exaggerating the degree to which people can’t agree. If you ask specific questions, you can get agreement. Does making Abel Cauthon a womanizer make the adaptation more or less faithful？What about giving Perrin a wife to kill?  Making those changes makes the adaptation less faithful. Maybe you think this isn’t important or that those are good changes that help in some way.  But it’s a bit obtuse to pretend that those aren’t actual changes that reduce the degree to which the adaptation follows the source material.

In order to make the shift from page to TV change will always be needed, really there are 3 points to consider here, to what degree are things factually faithful to the book, to what degree do they maintain the same spirit of the book, and to what extent are the changes needed in order to be able to make a logical workable TV show? 

Taking the points above I think we can all agree the Abel Cauthon change is not needed in any way, it changes something that never needed changing 

Perrin killing his wife, yes is an adaptation and change from the book, but, it does in one scene, in one moment what the books take pages and pages to achieve, it demonstrates the rage inside him, the ability to lose his himself and it helps an audience who know nothing about this character understand, in a moment, his motivation. 

This is an example of an adaptation that, by all means you can dislike, but you have to understand and accept there is a narrative reason to have it even if it is not one you agree with. 

Ultimately I think it is agreed the best fantasy adaptation of book to screen that has been done is the Lord of the Rings. In making that movie Peter Jackson defined the template that all epic adaptations should follow he started from the end and worked backwards. Frodo and Sam have to get the ring to Mount Doom. He then identified all the key important pieces that have to take place in order for that to happen, the characters that have to exist fro the books to make that happen and the key events that drive that single story forward. Now Peter Jackson was lucky, the LOTR is a very linear book, there is one party split that happens and after the fellowship the books are effectively written in 2 halfs telling  either the story of Frodo and Sam, or of Aragorn etc. 

Wheel of time if you start at that end point, the start of the last battle, what are the key things that need to take place. 

Rand is the Dragon reborn and has gone through a journey (which will be truncated due to the realities of time to screen) to ensure he has got to that point. 
Egwene is the Amirylian Seat and has discovered her power, both physically but also politically
Nynaeve is an Aes Sedai and has discovered her power, both physically and emotionally 
Elayne is an Aes Sedai and has discovered her power, again physically, politically but also has forged that relationship with Rand, Avihenda and Min
Avihenda is a wise women and has identified her power (I doubt very much we will see any of her return into the crystal forest or the future of the aiel, that has no bearing on the tale of the last battle). She has also forged a relationship with Rand, Elayne and Min. 
Mat has had his journey Truncated because of time, he has his medallion, has married Tuon, has demonstrated he is a great general and formed his army and ensured the dragons have been made, and has blown the horn so that moment of tension can be maintained through the last battle.
Perrin has met Faile, has his own army, has accepted his wolf side (although not fully that does not happen until during the last battle) and has accepted he is a leader of men, he can traverse the dream world. 

We can go on and on but the key thing is that, if a character is not key to the last battle, they are irrelevant to the TV show unless they play a key role in the development of another character. Bayle Domon, I love him but not needed, Egeanin again, not an important role at all anyone can take that role of Egwenes warder at the end and then run and tell logain to break the seals. 

Taking that thought pattern then season 1 had a simple job to do, define by the end who the characters are and what motivates them while putting them in the right place to continue the story while defining the world they all exist in. In this respect as an adaptation while it had it's issues (and I have grave issues with the production values, the dialogue and the way the CGI was done), it achieved all of this. It is a faithful adaptation because the changes that you or I spot do not detract from the overall key aspects of the story. 

When LOTR came out it was berated online by book lovers, and I myself had serious issues with some of the things that where done now, with a cooler head and hindsight I can look back and say Peter Jackson did a great job. With the WOT, as long as the story told on screen gets us to that last battle with the characters in the same emotional developed state they are in the book I don't care if they make changes along the way to streamline things on screen.  am going to hold judgement on how good season 1 truly is until season 8 is completed because, as long as it has set things up well (and no one can say if it has or hasn't because we have not experienced it), then I am happy. 

[Elglin]

Well, the LOTR can of worms has been opened. I remember, 20 years back, I, a Tolkien hard-line purist, was sitting in my kitchen with my best friend, another Tolkien hard-line purist, and a sheet of paper. After an hour-long or so discussion we'd agreed that out of the first film, 30 minutes could remain, everything else should be re-shot in a more purist way. We'd also agreed that the film was great as it is and if Peter Jackson managed to shoot the rest in a similar way (he kind of did), then the entire trilogy would be a classic.

Since then I've mellowed considerably, and yet in no shape or form was S1 a good season as it was, and I've never been a Jordan book purist. The problem isn't that the scriptwriters had to make significant changes, the problem is that despite those they haven't managed to tell a good story.

The "key things that need to take place" argument, I think, has a drawback best illustrated by the last season of (I open another can of worms here) Game of Thrones. That team did a pretty convincing job of connecting the dots and ticking the checkboxes. What they didn't do is make a convincing story out of those key things. I mean, the result of a story matters, and I have all too often read through the last 10 or so pages of the book to know the ending before reading the actual book. But how it got achieved and how it is told matters as well, and it is in this department that the show sorely lacks.

 

Let me give you an example. The Mat-Rand-Moiraine-Lan scene in Tar Valon (Caemlyn in the books) and the dagger. In the books, and I quote, "One minute Lan was in the doorway, the next he was at the bedside, as if he had not bothered with the intervening space. His hand caught Mat's wrist, stopping the slash as if it had struck stone". In the show, Moiraine herself intercepts the dagger with a flow of Air.

This doesn't change the "key things" not one bit, and the change has zero consequences in the events of the story. However, the book version of the scene establishes Lan as an almost superhuman warrior (which he is), shows the meaning and sense of the Warder-Aes Sedai relationship and shows Moiraine's complete trust and confidence in Lan. The show version just shows us a master magic user and a tagalong swordsman.

Summing it up, the problem with the adaptation is not that the story is condensed, cut or reshaped. The problem is that it's just very badly told.

[Samt]

Season 1 fails both because of the significant and unnecessary changes and also because the replacement story isn’t well crafted or executed.  You can blame externalities like COVID and Matt leaving for some of the problems that lead to the second failure, but the first failure is conscious and intentional. And even on the second point, someone greenlit it for release. 
 

Unnecessary changes are naturally going to feel more offensive to purists when the replacement feels to be pretty low quality.  Why change it when you don’t have an awesome replacement? The scrutiny would naturally be lower if they just stuck with the original.
 

 

[BookMattBetterThanShow]

I agree strongly with Samt. Making changes is fine, but many of the changes didn't seem necessary. I have just ignored episodes 7 & 8 since I believe that was caused by COVID and actor changes (Will say if it had been left to me, I would have just stop at episode 6). My biggest complain is the fact that we spent entire episode on a character that wasn't in the book, yet skimped on going into more details with the main characters. Also I think they just ignored all the magic rules completely.