New user, came to vent.

[Scarloc99]

14 hours ago, RitualM said:

It reads as if I had been warned previously. Either way even Sanderson, while being very diplomatic, was clearly very disappointed with the s2 finale and quite a few of the writing choices made. 

I mean he said he loved the show and thought the writers had done a brilliant job, so i think we have to balance any minor criticism he has for the fact that he was also very very very praising of it and all that it has done. 

[Scarloc99]

12 hours ago, Jake Sykwalker said:

 

I'm not speaking about people's enjoyment of the show.  I have freely admitted that I do not like it and have no problem with people that do.

 

What you are doing is conflating objective truth to opinion.  

 

Liking the show or not is opinion.  

 

Saying it isn't a good adaptation is objective truth.  This shouldn't be a point of contention.  You may rationalize the changes and may be ok with them, but they still exist and are many.  Change is ok and expected.  Changing main plots and characters to the point where it isn't coherent to the larger narrative is why Amazon's WoT it isn't a good adaptation.  Even if people like the changes.

 

The 1978 Bakshi Lord of the Rings was nearly a 1:1 adaptation of the books dialog wise, but it is extremely mixed if people like it.  Peter Jackson changes way more in his adaptation, but it kept the spirit of the books alive and people consider it one of the best examples of a fantasy adaptation.  

 

Saying the writing is low quality is objective truth.  That really shouldn't be a point of contention either.  In no universe is the writing on this show good.  People may like it, but it isn't good.

 

People need to get past the need to say something is objectively good because they like it.  I like many shows that aren't good writing.  I liked Ready Player One the book.  The writing in that book is objectively not good, but I enjoyed it.  That movie while ok wasn't a good adaptation either though it didn't seem to go out of its way to twist the entire story. 

 

I liked the original dune 1985 movie as well because I was younger and hadn't read the books yet.  Doesn't mean that it wasn't fairly poorly written and very cringe.  It did at least try to stay true to the story if by taking way to many short cuts to fit into a 2+ hour movie.  They freely admit this when they talk about it.  That is why they had the Irulan voice over added to the beginning.  Which seems to be copied by everybody now.  😄

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, you can't say if it is or isn't a good adaptation becaseu you have not seen it, but also I do agree, I mean the WOT books are not always good writing, there is a whole section in the middle (about 3 books) that many on this forum say they can ignore or wish didn't exist, there are those like me who think the opening 3 books are weak. But saying the writing on this show is not good without watching it is just you, taking the opinion of others who have an agenda. 

 

For instance, there are scenes in season 2 that absolutely deserve award recognition this year, there is acting that is powerful and delicate and emotive and makes certain scenes come alive better then anything in the book, there have been artistic choices made because you know, you cant fit it all into the run time available, and by all means tell me what has been cut or added you don't like. But the fact is that reviews and scritcs have said season 2 is great, and many also liked season 1, so if you want objectivity take that. 

 

But I will say again, you can't say the writing is low quality, or the show is bad, all you can say is that the what 1/16th you saw you didn't enjoy, you are not an arbiter of what is good or bad writing, none of us on here are really, we all have opinion. My opinion is that watching teh TV show with non book readers the writers got real, visceral reactions and emotion from there viewers about characters, about plot, about things that happen. That is good writing, a show that people enjoy and feel emotions about. I found out yesterday that one scene brought tears to a friends eyes, and then minutes later another then made them cheer out loud. 

[DaddyFinn]

2 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

I mean he said he loved the show and thought the writers had done a brilliant job, so i think we have to balance any minor criticism he has for the fact that he was also very very very praising of it and all that it has done. 

It feels to me that BS dislikes some very specific writing choices while the overall structure of the show and the way it's adapted is fine for him

[Mirefox]

41 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

It feels to me that BS dislikes some very specific writing choices while the overall structure of the show and the way it's adapted is fine for him

He’s also complimentary of production, which is justified - issues with COVID aside, production has been good, though open to subjective criticism.

 

I believe you also have to read in to BS’s words a bit.  When he says things like that he is amazed a show like WoT can be made well, he’s clearly expressing his excitement where we live in a day and age that shows of the scope of WoT (or GoT, or, presumably RoP) can actually be made.  We live in a day and age where no work is too big or too fantastical to be adapted and he appreciates that.

[Mirefox]

9 hours ago, DigificWriter said:

 

In your opinion

Poor writing can be evaluated objectively and this show has objectively poor writing.  If you enjoy it, that’s great for you.  I enjoy some shows with bad writing.

 

I for the life of me, though, do not understand the writing apologists.  Why can’t we demand better?  Why can’t we point out that every single episode is packed full of nonsense?

 

I know we aren’t listened to around here because there are a dozen or so posters who live in their little echo chamber of sycophancy but there are plenty of sources out there that break down the show’s writing in analytic ways that can be rather enlightening if you’re ever open to listening.

 

Shad over at the Knight’s Watch channel is a very acerbic reviewer and I understand if anyone is put off by his personality.  That said, he’s an author (though I’m not a big fan of his book) and he spends hours per episode critiquing the writing from an objective point of view.

 

If you want a less polarizing personality, the reviews on the Sword and the Pen Reflections are very insightful.  The hostess is a professional editor and she spends hours per episode critiquing the writing from and objective point of view.

 

The bottom line, though, is that writing/story/script can absolutely be analyzed objectively - and separately from subjective enjoyment- for things like logical consistency, lore consistency, character consistency, setup and payoff, etc.

 

The writing in this show is objectively rough many of us wish for better.  Trying to pretend that every aspect of the show is entirely subjective is disingenuous and close-minded.

[notpropaganda73]

In general I think a lot of writing quality is obviously subjective, however screenwriting in particular is a lot more mechanical than other forms of writing imo. So it's a little easier to say whether something is good or bad when it comes to a script, than say a novel because a writers' prose is going to be liked by some and disliked by others. With a script you can trace through the set ups and payoffs, character motivations and arcs being following through on. 

 

But that is my subjective opinion ha 

[Mirefox]

13 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

In general I think a lot of writing quality is obviously subjective, however screenwriting in particular is a lot more mechanical than other forms of writing imo. So it's a little easier to say whether something is good or bad when it comes to a script, than say a novel because a writers' prose is going to be liked by some and disliked by others. With a script you can trace through the set ups and payoffs, character motivations and arcs being following through on. 

 

But that is my subjective opinion ha 

There’s also a willingness in film to sacrifice better writing for more spectacle.  The whole “it doesn’t make sense but it looks cool” plays better with some people than ohers.

[Elder_Haman]

16 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

The bottom line, though, is that writing/story/script can absolutely be analyzed objectively - and separately from subjective enjoyment- for things like logical consistency, lore consistency, character consistency, setup and payoff, etc.

Sure. But if you are going to make the claim that “this show has objectively poor writing” then you need to provide examples of “objectively good writing” and explain how WoT fails in comparison. 
 

Further, if you want to compare apples to apples, you need to compare WoT against other fantasy television and demonstrate how WoT fails to measure up to those other properties in the categories you mentioned (logical consistency, lore consistency, etc.)

[DigificWriter]

Outside of scientific or historical fields of study, the term "objective analysis" is an oxymoron and does not actually exist. 

 

You cannot offer a 100% unbiased and objective review, critique, or analysis of the quality of how something is written, regardless of your level of expertise, because your analysis is informed by your own understanding and knowledge and is therefore not actually objective.

[RitualM]

5 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

I think the kind of show that some on here would want to see whould end up being an atrocious mess of long exposition followed by cuts from scene to scene with no real character development or growth, a confused mess of a story that even book fans would watch and hate. 

making a TV show is not easy, you might want all sorts of things on screen but you have a budget, you have time restrictions and you have limitations. Lord of the Rings took 438 days pretty much filming every day, it took 7 film units, 150 locations and peter jackson monitoring each unit remotely via satellite feed. He was constantly re writing the script and ony got about 4 hours of sleep a night. 

 

WOT does not have that budget, it does not have that amount of time, 438 days to make 9 hours of movie. So decisions have to be made as to what can be shot, what locations can be used, where to spend the money on effects. That then feeds into the creative choices. 

I would love to see "almost anyone" on this board have a go at making that al come together in something passably looking like WOT lol. You might not like the WOT tv show, that is your personal opinion, there are many many who do, who think it is a really good show, that might confuse you but, guess what, its opinion there is no right or wrong here. What is a fact is that a human being does not pick up a project like WOT intending to use it as a vanity project, trying to prove they are a "better writer" or  "wanting to tank the show". Have mistakes been made, yes, in my opinion minor ones that in the grand scheme of things don't stop it from being one of the best fantasy shows on TV at the moment.

 

Is season 2 an improvement, yes, where changes always going to need to be made, yes, and is there a version of this show that makes everyone, book reader and non book reader happy all at the same time. Absolutely not, there is no way this show could be adapted and make everyone happy with everything. A version that stuck "closer to the books" whatever that means would probably have tanked with non book reading audiences and that would have killed the show 100%. 

 

 

So you are saying you agree that it's not that good but it's ok because they didn't have the time or budget to make it good?

 

Lol

[notpropaganda73]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

Sure. But if you are going to make the claim that “this show has objectively poor writing” then you need to provide examples of “objectively good writing” and explain how WoT fails in comparison. 
 

Further, if you want to compare apples to apples, you need to compare WoT against other fantasy television and demonstrate how WoT fails to measure up to those other properties in the categories you mentioned (logical consistency, lore consistency, etc.)

 

I actually think there are good examples within the WoT adaptation itself, where there is very good writing to contrast against the poor writing when it happens. 

 

I am quite repetitive about what I think has been good about the show so forgive me for repeating myself. But good writing, in my opinion:

 

- Introduction of the Whitecloaks in S1. An Aes Sedai tied to the stake, her hands chopped off, highlighting their brutality, and danger to Aes Sedai (being a magic wielder isn't a protection here). The entire scene sets Valda up in terms of his motivations, the type of character he is etc. Later in that episode we worry for our heroes as they meet the Whitecloaks on the road, is this monster with them? Are they all like him? But this leader seems more civil - until Valda appears. It's tense. Aes Sedai cannot lie, what if he asks them directly? The way he creeps around her, Lan restraining himself. Moiraine's answers, dancing around the truth. It's all really well done - set up of the Whitecloaks (Valda in particular), some worldbuiling (the Aes Sedai are not universally respected), payoff in the very same episode, paid off again further in the series when he captures Egwene and Perrin - as a villain he works because of his introduction, and that's good writing. The final payoff in S1 with Valda doesn't necessarily work for me, it's a little weaker than the rest of the writing - Perrin should have broken free/showed the "wolf within" more than just his eyes. It would have made Valda's reappearance and seeing Perrin again land a lot more effectively in S2 imo. 

 

Bad writing:

- Nynaeve and Elayne capturing the sul'dam. It sets up them helping Egwene escape, and also sets up something about the a'dam that should shake the foundations of Seanchan society. It goes absolutely nowhere within S2 - no payoff for the discovery, no payoff for either Nynaeve or Elayne in capturing the sul'dam, they learn little to nothing (that is shown in the finale), and Egwene just frees herself and discovers the same thing they did regarding the a'dam anyway. Functionally within the series, Elayne and Nynaeve capturing the sul'dam serves absolutely zero purpose. And that is poor writing for a TV show or film. If a scene or action does not serve any wider purpose to the story or characters, it's simply poor writing. 

[Elder_Haman]

3 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

I actually think there are good examples within the WoT adaptation itself, where there is very good writing to contrast against the poor writing when it happens. 

 

I am quite repetitive about what I think has been good about the show so forgive me for repeating myself. But good writing, in my opinion:

 

- Introduction of the Whitecloaks in S1. An Aes Sedai tied to the stake, her hands chopped off, highlighting their brutality, and danger to Aes Sedai (being a magic wielder isn't a protection here). The entire scene sets Valda up in terms of his motivations, the type of character he is etc. Later in that episode we worry for our heroes as they meet the Whitecloaks on the road, is this monster with them? Are they all like him? But this leader seems more civil - until Valda appears. It's tense. Aes Sedai cannot lie, what if he asks them directly? The way he creeps around her, Lan restraining himself. Moiraine's answers, dancing around the truth. It's all really well done - set up of the Whitecloaks (Valda in particular), some worldbuiling (the Aes Sedai are not universally respected), payoff in the very same episode, paid off again further in the series when he captures Egwene and Perrin - as a villain he works because of his introduction, and that's good writing. The final payoff in S1 with Valda doesn't necessarily work for me, it's a little weaker than the rest of the writing - Perrin should have broken free/showed the "wolf within" more than just his eyes. It would have made Valda's reappearance and seeing Perrin again land a lot more effectively in S2 imo. 

 

Bad writing:

- Nynaeve and Elayne capturing the sul'dam. It sets up them helping Egwene escape, and also sets up something about the a'dam that should shake the foundations of Seanchan society. It goes absolutely nowhere within S2 - no payoff for the discovery, no payoff for either Nynaeve or Elayne in capturing the sul'dam, they learn little to nothing (that is shown in the finale), and Egwene just frees herself and discovers the same thing they did regarding the a'dam anyway. Functionally within the series, Elayne and Nynaeve capturing the sul'dam serves absolutely zero purpose. And that is poor writing for a TV show or film. If a scene or action does not serve any wider purpose to the story or characters, it's simply poor writing. 

I absolutely agree that the writing is up and down in this series. There are definitely some very weak parts and some very strong parts. 

 

Keep in mind that, having been planned for multiple seasons, some of the plot points that “didn’t go anywhere” or “didn’t pay off” may get more attention in future seasons. 

[Mirefox]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

Sure. But if you are going to make the claim that “this show has objectively poor writing” then you need to provide examples of “objectively good writing” and explain how WoT fails in comparison. 
 

Further, if you want to compare apples to apples, you need to compare WoT against other fantasy television and demonstrate how WoT fails to measure up to those other properties in the categories you mentioned (logical consistency, lore consistency, etc.)

But why?  Then it is no longer objective but comparative.  Objectivity isn’t a bell curve.  WoT might be the best fantasy in TV right now (because RoP sucks and I haven’t seen House of the Dragon) but that doesn’t change a more objective analysis.

[Mirefox]

1 hour ago, DigificWriter said:

Outside of scientific or historical fields of study, the term "objective analysis" is an oxymoron and does not actually exist. 

 

You cannot offer a 100% unbiased and objective review, critique, or analysis of the quality of how something is written, regardless of your level of expertise, because your analysis is informed by your own understanding and knowledge and is therefore not actually objective.

Ok, sure, 100% objectivity is perhaps impossible, but it isn’t impossible to have general standards that help define good versus bad writing and fit a work into those standards.  There is too much in this show that can be picked apart and questioned from a pure writing point of view to call it anything other than poorly written.  

[Mirefox]

5 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I absolutely agree that the writing is up and down in this series. There are definitely some very weak parts and some very strong parts. 

 

Keep in mind that, having been planned for multiple seasons, some of the plot points that “didn’t go anywhere” or “didn’t pay off” may get more attention in future seasons. 

In general I agree with this analysis.  My assumption is that my ratio of bad to good writing is different than yours, but I can agree that there have been some moments of good writing and that there are obviously payoffs saved for the future.

[Elder_Haman]

4 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

But why?  Then it is no longer objective but comparative.  Objectivity isn’t a bell curve.  WoT might be the best fantasy in TV right now (because RoP sucks and I haven’t seen House of the Dragon) but that doesn’t change a more objective analysis.

Because you can pick apart the writing of any show in a similar fashion. If you want to label something as “objectively bad” there must be something that is “objectively good” against which to measure it. 

[Mirefox]

1 minute ago, Elder_Haman said:

Because you can pick apart the writing of any show in a similar fashion. If you want to label something as “objectively bad” there must be something that is “objectively good” against which to measure it. 

That simply isn’t how objectivity works.  It is by its very nature not comparative.  If my son comes home with a D on a math test it doesn’t matter if he got the highest grade in the class or of there is an example of a kid who did better.  What matters is that he did not perform well with an objective standard.  
 

To answer your question directly, even though it truly has no bearing on objective analysis, I don’t have many recent comparisons.  I thought Rings of Power was one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen so Wheel of Time is certainly better, but that’s comparative; I still think Wheel of Time writing is generally poor.  I haven’t seen many fantasies lately that I can think of so I go all the way back to the first couple of seasons of GoT for what I remember as good writing, but I am a long way removed from those.

[Elder_Haman]

8 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

That simply isn’t how objectivity works.  It is by its very nature not comparative.  If my son comes home with a D on a math test it doesn’t matter if he got the highest grade in the class or of there is an example of a kid who did better.  What matters is that he did not perform well with an objective standard.

Right. Because math has truly objective metrics. There is a right answer.

 

The only truly objective thing about writing is grammar. But using poor grammar doesn’t necessarily make for bad writing (see William Faulkner for example). 

[DaddyFinn]

45 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

Nynaeve and Elayne capturing the sul'dam. It sets up them helping Egwene escape, and also sets up something about the a'dam that should shake the foundations of Seanchan society. It goes absolutely nowhere within S2 - no payoff for the discovery, no payoff for either Nynaeve or Elayne in capturing the sul'dam, they learn little to nothing (that is shown in the finale), and Egwene just frees herself and discovers the same thing they did regarding the a'dam anyway. Functionally within the series, Elayne and Nynaeve capturing the sul'dam serves absolutely zero purpose. And that is poor writing for a TV show or film. If a scene or action does not serve any wider purpose to the story or characters, it's simply poor writing. 

- In S2E2 Egwene and Elayne were talking while Nynaeve eavesdropped them. Egwene said "Where is Nynaeve when I really need her?". The finale was about that either purposely or accidentally. Yes, Nynaeve was trying to save her but was unsuccessful.

-In the books, Eg&Nyn&El and Seta(?) learn the truth about the sul'dam. It doesn't have any major plot relevance (that I recall) for the seanchan POV's we get. Who even learns about it? Even though Tuon learns it in AmoL she doesn't do anything about it. Maybe it would have had a major role in the "outrigger novels". We'll never know.

-If everything pays off the way it's supposed to, it would take away some of the tension.

-Future seasons have the option to make the sul'dam reveal have a much bigger impact than in books.

-Nynaeve trying to heal Elayne showed us the scale of her block. She will have even more reasons to (try to) get rid of it.

 

These are generally about the a'dam connection.

 

-Renna said if she dies, Egwene dies. Seta died and Nynaeve didn't. Renna lied trying to get free. This knowledge is perhaps important, perhaps not.

-Renna released Egwene somehow by removing the bracelet. It didn't happen in S2E6 when she hung it up in Egwene's cell. Is there a secret button or is it a mental thing or what? Maybe they'll figure it out somehow.

 

 

Just some thoughts.

[fra85uk]

8 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

I think the kind of show that some on here would want to see whould end up being an atrocious mess of long exposition followed by cuts from scene to scene with no real character development or growth, a confused mess of a story that even book fans would watch and hate. 

making a TV show is not easy, you might want all sorts of things on screen but you have a budget, you have time restrictions and you have limitations. Lord of the Rings took 438 days pretty much filming every day, it took 7 film units, 150 locations and peter jackson monitoring each unit remotely via satellite feed. He was constantly re writing the script and ony got about 4 hours of sleep a night. 

 

WOT does not have that budget, it does not have that amount of time, 438 days to make 9 hours of movie. So decisions have to be made as to what can be shot, what locations can be used, where to spend the money on effects. That then feeds into the creative choices. 

I would love to see "almost anyone" on this board have a go at making that al come together in something passably looking like WOT lol. You might not like the WOT tv show, that is your personal opinion, there are many many who do, who think it is a really good show, that might confuse you but, guess what, its opinion there is no right or wrong here. What is a fact is that a human being does not pick up a project like WOT intending to use it as a vanity project, trying to prove they are a "better writer" or  "wanting to tank the show". Have mistakes been made, yes, in my opinion minor ones that in the grand scheme of things don't stop it from being one of the best fantasy shows on TV at the moment.

 

Is season 2 an improvement, yes, where changes always going to need to be made, yes, and is there a version of this show that makes everyone, book reader and non book reader happy all at the same time. Absolutely not, there is no way this show could be adapted and make everyone happy with everything. A version that stuck "closer to the books" whatever that means would probably have tanked with non book reading audiences and that would have killed the show 100%. 

 

 

short reply:

One Piece showed that you can be successful and be true to source material

 

Now, imagine the One Piece Ip in the hands of someone like Rafe and his Fors...ehm Chosen.

Actually no need to imagine because this was the Cowboy Bebop disaster.

 

Then the same people learnt from their mistakes and understood that maybe maybe the existing fanbase of a beloved IP wants something respectful to the source material.

Results: they got a big success...while we can say that WOTshow  at best is not a super-flop.

 

[Mirefox]

53 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Right. Because math has truly objective metrics. There is a right answer.

 

The only truly objective thing about writing is grammar. But using poor grammar doesn’t necessarily make for bad writing (see William Faulkner for example). 

Logic.  Logic is objective and is a crucial element of storytelling and world building.  This show suffers so, so much from logical inconsistency and and internal inconsistency.

[SinisterDeath]

59 minutes ago, fra85uk said:

short reply:

One Piece showed that you can be successful and be true to source material

It's most definitely True to the style of the source material. 

It had a significant number of cuts to the source and rearranging going on.

If someone were arguing about the accuracy of One Piece as an Adaptation, I'd say that the Netflix Adaptation of One Piece only covered about ~25% of the content that the Anime covered and I'm assuming that the Anime covered at least 95% of the Manga content with an additional 20% filler content.. and that's just based off of what I vaguely remember from watching One Piece over a decade ago.
Here's an article from screenrant talking about some of the changes.
https://screenrant.com/one-piece-live-action-manga-changes-creator-convincing/
 

The Netflix adaptation also had the original creator of One Piece heavily involved in the creation of the Netflix Adaptation.
 

As an adaptation, it went from the text/visual format of Manga before being adapted into an anime. Which was then adapted and condensed by Netflix into a TV Show with 8 episodes.
For Reference The anime up to "Arlong Park" Covers 44 episodes. 

The next closest example we have of this. Is the Expanse. Where the literal Writers of the Book Series, were also Writing the Show.

And then Game of Thrones were Martin was moonlighting by Writing some of the Scripts but not there for the day-to-day show running.

For the Story, they used the "main starter arc" of the Manga/Anime that introduces the major prime characters/cast for the first 8 episodes and does it in an arc path that was fairly coherent without including all the filler content that is generally included with Anime, while introducing certain characters earlier in those 8 episodes rather then springing them in the last episode or two to keep it "accurate" to the source material. I really don't know how much exact dialogue they ripped from the manga or anime.
 

Like I've said before. One Piece is an example to DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVES, and PRODUCERS, that you can create content that is as WEIRD as One Piece is, and still be successful. Audiences aren't nearly as dumb or weirded out by strange things as they seem to think we are.

[fra85uk]

Yes. 

You can have cuts and still be faithful to source material as it is sanely possible.

Or you can make Luffy having sex with Nami, Zoro coming from a drunken and abusive father, Sanji freezing his made-up wife...

 

[Mirefox]

22 minutes ago, fra85uk said:

Yes. 

You can have cuts and still be faithful to source material as it is sanely possible.

Or you can make Luffy having sex with Nami, Zoro coming from a drunken and abusive father, Sanji freezing his made-up wife...

 

Careful, they are going to tell you that a) that really changes nothing and b) that’s essential for an adaptation to visual media.

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, Mirefox said:

Logic.  Logic is objective and is a crucial element of storytelling and world building.  This show suffers so, so much from logical inconsistency and and internal inconsistency.

Logic is objective? Classical logic, perhaps. But most of what people refer to these days as “logic” has nothing to do with classical logic and is simply a shortcut for “makes sense to me.”

 

Moreover, evaluating a show where magic exists using classical logic is a fruitless exercise given that “magic” can fill in gaps. 
 

But what are a few examples of these logical and internal inconsistencies that this show “suffers so much from”?