A different way to think about seasons 1 and 2 and books 1-2 and 3.

[Scarloc99]

So there is a lot of discourse on here about adaptations, how bad WOT is compared to others and Lord of the Rings is shown as how it should be done. 

I think if we do a side by side comparison of the 2 series and what the TV show has done so far people are right, but not for the reasons they expect. 

If you compare the 14 books series to the 3 book LOTR then you can argue that EOTW, TGH and DR are effectively the first bit of the fellowship book, they are in effect the hobbits finding out about the ring, and then getting to Rivendell for the formation of the Fellowship and Frodo's "I will carry it" line. 

By the end of Book 3 the characters are fully introduced, all of them have gone through a journey to reach this point, Rand has finally accepted he is the dragon reborn and wants to be the hero, for that matter each of the EF5 have. Gandalf is soon to go missing in action, and the ancillary hero's have been introduced. 

Now people are debating and arguing, rightly, that a lot of the first 3 books has been chopped, changed, removed and made different, characters have shifted and changed, and whole sections removed. 

If we compare that to the Movie of Fellowship, from the intro to the party arriving at Rivendell, then in many ways the movie has no comparison to the books. The introduction of Merry and Pippin is entirely different, the whole story of Frodo leaving the shire, the events that happen on the way, the cutting of Bombadiel, the great forest, the barrow wights (who's sword in the books is key to killing the witch king), I was making exactly the same arguments about the start of the fellowship movie when it was released  as you are all making about the opening of this series. 

As has been mentioned several times in the forum, and then ignored by many, books 1-3 of WOT are not the story that Robert Jordan ultimately ended up writing, or maybe even the story he really wanted to write in the first place. We all know that book 1 was a Fellowship Homage, both because that was what his publisher asked for, but also that was what he wanted to write at the start. We know he though it would be a trilogy and then at some point in the writing of book 2 realised it would be longer, we know that by the end of book 3 he has taken the reader through 3 "declarations" of the dragon reborn, has re fought the same battle 3 times, and finally has figured out the book he wants to write, and has shifted and changed his lead characters accordingly. 

This means that, as far as Rands story is considered, Tear is Rivendell, it is where he sends Perrin to the 2 rivers, where he, Matt and Egwene go to the 3 fold land and where Nyn and Elayne go off to hunt the black ajah. For RJ it was were he truly found his own voice, and that of most of his characters. So, as painful as it is, and trust me this is the 2nd time I have been here with an adaptation, you have to look at all the stuff in books 1-3 that does not directly get the characters to where they need to be at the start of book 4, as excess fat. Just as Bombadil, the Wight Barrow, meeting the elves (although a version of that that was in the directors cut) and all the build up to leaving the shire was fat that could be cut by Peter Jackson in order to start the story properly at Rivendell. 

 Yes it feels longer and is harder to stomach, because it is 16 hours of TV covering 3 books, as opposed to about an hour or so covering the first quarter maybe, of one book. But I think there is equivalence. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Scarloc99

[Mirefox]

We got the version of Fellowship where Sam is sleeping around with Rosie, Pippin is a sulky petty thief, Merry kills his wife, and Frodo never smiles.  Gandalf has no empathy and Aragon tears his shirt and rubs his nipples when Boromir dies.  All the hobbits have a magic ring, but we don’t know who has the One Ring yet. We know that the Nazgûl are hot on their heels but they didn’t bother to film them after the first 20 minutes so we can cut Bree and Weathertop entirely.  The Council of Elrond is that pesky exposition stuff that we can’t have on screen, so instead they film 30 minutes of some side-story elf hunting Nazgûl and getting killed because it is important for us to understand that elves are immortal and their deaths are bad.  Gandalf is the highest-paid actor so he doesn’t fall of the bridge in Moria, but the Balrog steals his powers.  A forlorn Gandalf wanders off and leaves the Fellowship behind to have his own journey of self-discovery (which will take up a good 25% of the next movie, but we aren’t there, yet).  In Lothlorian, Sam gets mad at Merry because he thinks Merry likes Rosie, but Merry tells him she likes her, but doesn’t like like her, so all is forgiven.  Frodo realizes that probably because all of the times he’s disappeared in the past he’s got the One Ring in his possession and it will be his responsibility to bring the Ring to Mount Doom.  So he wanders off.  The rest of the Fellowship continues their journey but a band of orcs comes across them while they are all sleeping.  Fortunately, Arwen shows up to fight the orcs off.  Fade to black as we hear Gollum whistling and realize it was him we heard whistling through the entire movie…

 

But hey, all the characters are about where they should be in the plot so none of the changes were bad and everything is necessary for character development and to “show not tell.”

[notpropaganda73]

I see what you're trying to say with regards to the point in the overall story, but the Fellowship movie is an excellent adaptation even with all of the changes up to Rivendell. We have established the ring's power/danger, we have established Gandalf, we have established the four hobbits and they're relationships with one another and their own personalities, we have established Strider and his willingness to protect the hobbits, and we have established the danger of the Nazgul as well. 

 

Yes we don't have any barrow wights or Tom Bombadil (and I was so sad not to see Tom), but if you are looking at an adaptation and limited time, do you need the Hobbits to face more than one extreme danger on their way to Rivendell? What is the most key incident on that journey? It's Weathertop. It establishes Frodo being stabbed, what happens when he puts on the Ring, the other three Hobbits showing their bravery to try and save him, and Aragorn coming to the final rescue. Barrow wights and Tom Bombadil are world-building elements, bits of LotR that fans adore and maybe upset not to have, but are they key to the overall story being told? No. 

 

So far I think the WoT show has done an ok job of getting everyone to "Rivendell", so to speak. But have they managed to establish our characters as effectively along the way? I would say no, personally.

 

Film and TV are different mediums, there is less material to adapt for LotR, so I do think it's an easier job in all honesty. And as a fan of LotR, the only movie I really like out of the Jackson movies is Fellowship. Return of the King in particular is verging on just a bad movie for me. 

[Scarloc99]

3 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

I see what you're trying to say with regards to the point in the overall story, but the Fellowship movie is an excellent adaptation even with all of the changes up to Rivendell. We have established the ring's power/danger, we have established Gandalf, we have established the four hobbits and they're relationships with one another and their own personalities, we have established Strider and his willingness to protect the hobbits, and we have established the danger of the Nazgul as well. 

 

Yes we don't have any barrow wights or Tom Bombadil (and I was so sad not to see Tom), but if you are looking at an adaptation and limited time, do you need the Hobbits to face more than one extreme danger on their way to Rivendell? What is the most key incident on that journey? It's Weathertop. It establishes Frodo being stabbed, what happens when he puts on the Ring, the other three Hobbits showing their bravery to try and save him, and Aragorn coming to the final rescue. Barrow wights and Tom Bombadil are world-building elements, bits of LotR that fans adore and maybe upset not to have, but are they key to the overall story being told? No. 

 

So far I think the WoT show has done an ok job of getting everyone to "Rivendell", so to speak. But have they managed to establish our characters as effectively along the way? I would say no, personally.

 

Film and TV are different mediums, there is less material to adapt for LotR, so I do think it's an easier job in all honesty. And as a fan of LotR, the only movie I really like out of the Jackson movies is Fellowship. Return of the King in particular is verging on just a bad movie for me. 

Lord of the rings is excellent in hindsight, trust me at the time people like me where accusing Peter Jackson of all sorts when fellowship came out. That experience has led me to sit back and say let’s wait and see what the whole looks like.

[notpropaganda73]

On 10/9/2023 at 9:31 PM, Scarloc99 said:

Lord of the rings is excellent in hindsight, trust me at the time people like me where accusing Peter Jackson of all sorts when fellowship came out. That experience has led me to sit back and say let’s wait and see what the whole looks like.

 

I remember exactly the fandom reaction to Fellowship, I adore LotR I remember it all very well. Much like this adaptation I was upset at some things but I could see the overall reasoning for things being left out - however I think Fellowship is a really excellent movie and a great adaptation. 

 

I don't think the other two entries are anywhere near as good and as I mention, I think Return of the King is actually quite a bad movie. However those two entries not being as good doesn't take away from how good Fellowship is imo. 

[Jaysen Gore]

Reading the thoughts on LOTR here, and combining it with something Sanderson said in his watch through - part of the issue with both WoT and LOTR is the substitutions that were made. Showrunners only get so much time, and for every new item added (Moiraine and her family) something has to be lost (Ingtar and the Hunt). And that's not a comment on quality, just reality.

 

Fellowship is the closest of the three to the book, and cutting Bombadil in favour of Aragorn / Arwen stuff was probably necessary; otherwise, there would only be women on screen for like 15 minutes in 12 hours. Although I don't hear the same complaints about Saving Private Ryan or Fury.

 

BUT... having Aragorn go off a cliff meant that they cut Saruman's actual death from the movies. Adding the Elves to Helm's Deep hurt one of the themes of the LOTR (men are now on their own). But most importantly, by blowing a one chapter battle in the books into 16% of the overall movies, we lost the Scouring of the Shire, and the loss of innocence for the home population when war comes to their doors instead of being far away. 

 

I also wish that they had let Aragorn and Faramir be complete in themselves and not send them through the character growth arcs, but that was going to be a losing battle. Which ties in to what WoT is doing to Lan. If Aragorn has to grow, so does Lan. 

 

The last piece on this part of the comparison to keep in mind, LOTR's total budget was $281 million; WOT is probably around $180 million. so we always have to be careful using LOTR as a quality benchmark for WoT

 

[EmreY]

3 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

character growth arcs

 

One day we'll move beyond this.  I hope to live long enough to see that day.

[Samt]

On 10/9/2023 at 1:31 PM, Scarloc99 said:

Lord of the rings is excellent in hindsight, trust me at the time people like me where accusing Peter Jackson of all sorts when fellowship came out. That experience has led me to sit back and say let’s wait and see what the whole looks like.

I wasn't connected online to any fan communities, but all of my in-person friends who were fans of the books really liked the LOTR movies when they saw them.  There was a fair bit of concern about rumors and reports about what the movies were going to be.  Reports that Arwen would join the fellowship, etc.  But I don't know anybody who saw the movie and then had the type of reaction you are talking about.  Lots of people thought that it would be bad and were pleasantly surprised when they saw it.

 

For WoT, lots of people were willing to wait and see, as you said.  We're already two seasons in.  The time for "wait and see" is over.  The entire LOTR trilogy was about 9 hours.  WoT is already 16 hours in.  None of the characters feel as well developed as the LOTR characters.  The WoT lore is much less well explained.  Rivendell is approximately 1 hour into the movie.  And it felt like we really knew what the characters were at that point.  I don't think WoT has achieved that same level of character development and connection after 16 hours.  

[Jaysen Gore]

2 hours ago, EmreY said:

 

One day we'll move beyond this.  I hope to live long enough to see that day.

Not sure which way you mean this - creators need to get over forcing character arcs where none existed in source material, or I need to get over wishing they wouldn't do it? 

 

[EmreY]

6 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Not sure which way you mean this - creators need to get over forcing character arcs where none existed in source material, or I need to get over wishing they wouldn't do it? 

 

 

I mean that we need to get over character development in general.  At the ages of most of the protagonists in this show, it may perhaps be a thing, but not any later.

[Scarloc99]

18 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Reading the thoughts on LOTR here, and combining it with something Sanderson said in his watch through - part of the issue with both WoT and LOTR is the substitutions that were made. Showrunners only get so much time, and for every new item added (Moiraine and her family) something has to be lost (Ingtar and the Hunt). And that's not a comment on quality, just reality.

 

Fellowship is the closest of the three to the book, and cutting Bombadil in favour of Aragorn / Arwen stuff was probably necessary; otherwise, there would only be women on screen for like 15 minutes in 12 hours. Although I don't hear the same complaints about Saving Private Ryan or Fury.

 

BUT... having Aragorn go off a cliff meant that they cut Saruman's actual death from the movies. Adding the Elves to Helm's Deep hurt one of the themes of the LOTR (men are now on their own). But most importantly, by blowing a one chapter battle in the books into 16% of the overall movies, we lost the Scouring of the Shire, and the loss of innocence for the home population when war comes to their doors instead of being far away. 

 

I also wish that they had let Aragorn and Faramir be complete in themselves and not send them through the character growth arcs, but that was going to be a losing battle. Which ties in to what WoT is doing to Lan. If Aragorn has to grow, so does Lan. 

 

The last piece on this part of the comparison to keep in mind, LOTR's total budget was $281 million; WOT is probably around $180 million. so we always have to be careful using LOTR as a quality benchmark for WoT

 

Ok losing bombadil was not done to add Arwen, the time spent on Arwen did not equal the 30-40 mins bombadil would have needed to do the scene justice. Bombadil was cut because it does not impact the story of how the ring gets to mount doom. The same reason scouring was cut (although I would have preferred scouring to the bloated end we were given). 
 

you are right about Aragorns story though, on screen you need an arc to go through, Aragorn in the book is just a constant in fact the only characters in the books really that develop are the hobbits. 
 

Saruman’s death was in the directors cut but I agree the pointless Aragorn off a cliff scene was not needed, I don’t know we would have got Saruman instead, Tolkien did leave gaps in the book that needed to be shown on screen for a cohesive story and an action scene to break up the walk to helms deep made some sense to show the danger. 
 

But your argument about helms deep indicates one of the biggest issues with translating book to screen, Dune is another example and something I am looking forward to seeing how they resolve. 
 

Helms deep in the book is told as a series of short paragraphs covering a whole seige. On screen that short section requires so much more screen time to make the fight worth watching. Rafe will have the same issue in WOT, battle for Emonds field, what 3 pages maybe, requiring an hour of tv time to do it justice, the rescue of Rand from the box, again a paragraph and then a series of flashbacks as Perrin remembers the horror, again on screen will have to be 45 mins probably. Set piece scenes in a book can be covered in very few words, but on screen where they have to happen in real time and show action and fighting they take much more time. Dune, dune the 2nd half Herbert didn’t even bother describing the big fights, you see the set up and then Paul is standing before the emperor, supposedly having just won some epic hours long battle. You don’t even see the attack that kills his children, he just hears about it over a radio message. But on screen it needs to be shown. 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Scarloc99

[Scarloc99]

6 hours ago, EmreY said:

 

I mean that we need to get over character development in general.  At the ages of most of the protagonists in this show, it may perhaps be a thing, but not any later.

No sorry great storytelling is built on character development, and storytelling on screen is built off showing a character evolve and change as the events affect and change them. Every great story has this theme, and the idea that people “stop” developing as they get older is just, well, makes no sense. 
 

Robert Jordan developed all his characters. Lan he tried to give an arc to when he realised he would need to last another 12 books, I mean he got rid of Moiraine in part to make that arc happen. 
 

Even comic books are built off character growth and change. Thor, Ironman, Captain America, in the comics had deep growth across arcs. Stories which rely on a constant unchanging character just doing things always come across as soulless. 

[Gypsum]

20 minutes ago, Scarloc99 said:

Stories which rely on a constant unchanging character just doing things always come across as soulless. 

 

Or Seinfeld.  But that's what Jerry Seinfeld himself said he was deliberately writing in order to make it funny -- have these dysfunctional people living in New York, being dysfunctional, and never figuring their sh*t out.

 

All great literature/TV/film has character arcs. I'd say Aragorn in the books isn't unchanging. He doesn't have the heavy-handed arc you see in the movies (and as much as I loved the films, the whole falling-off-a-cliff and being saved by the horse subplot was stupid), but he becomes more 'kingly,' more of a responsible leader as the books progress.

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, Scarloc99 said:

Stories which rely on a constant unchanging character just doing things always come across as soulless. 

And this goes triple for episodic tv shows. Digging in to the characters is the way to make WoT great tv. Trying to make the show focus on the plot and lore is a terrible idea. 

[Scarloc99]

1 hour ago, Gypsum said:

 

Or Seinfeld.  But that's what Jerry Seinfeld himself said he was deliberately writing in order to make it funny -- have these dysfunctional people living in New York, being dysfunctional, and never figuring their sh*t out.

 

All great literature/TV/film has character arcs. I'd say Aragorn in the books isn't unchanging. He doesn't have the heavy-handed arc you see in the movies (and as much as I loved the films, the whole falling-off-a-cliff and being saved by the horse subplot was stupid), but he becomes more 'kingly,' more of a responsible leader as the books progress.

I agree Aragorns arc moves from leader of the Rangers, to leader of a nation, but unlike film Aragorn he always knows exactly who he is going to be and embraces that, he is not the reluctant king or leader he takes narsil when the fellowship is formed, does not reluctantly look at it and take it later. That more than anything else really angered me about the movies, and still does to an extent. 

 

 

[Scarloc99]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

And this goes triple for episodic tv shows. Digging in to the characters is the way to make WoT great tv. Trying to make the show focus on the plot and lore is a terrible idea. 

Yep a show of Exposition, history, action, reveal, Exposition history action reveal with events just happening to characters makes for awful TV. People ask, why so much Alanna, well maybe because the writers want the audience to really care about her at the end, really care about what happens to her. Why so much Verin, again so we care about her as a character. There is also lots of Rand in the show, people who claim there is not are ignoring how much screen time he gets. We see his soft side, probably better then we see it in the books, Much of the softness of Rand, other then his time with Matt, is shown in the books by other characters who knew him (mainly the girls) talking about him to other characters, or reminding him of moments. long gone. This way audiences actually get to see him helping an old man in a mental assylum, which will then feel even more key in 4 seasons time when Rand starts sacrificing anyone to get the win. I always felt that while we saw the fall of Rand in the books, it was only ever through other peoples eyes. From Rands POV it made perfect sense why he did what he did to me, it was only Perrin, Egwene, Nynaeve and others talking about him that it showed how that fall could be a bad thing. In a TV show the audience have to care about him at his best in order to want him to get through his worst, and that does not mean making him a hero who can do amazing things, it means showing him be soft, giving a coin to a child, helping that old man, caring. 

[EmreY]

Well, I still disagree. 🙂 

 

My oldest friend - apparently we've known each other since I was three months old and he was a newborn - is still the very same naughty boy that he was in school, only he hides it better. 🙂  The same applies to everyone else I know too.  So I find character development to be a bit tedious and wholly agree with Seinfeld.

 

Buut OK if most of you like it, I can live with that, especially given the ages of the people in this series and the fact that they're going through some incredible stuff.

[Windigo]

21 hours ago, EmreY said:

Well, I still disagree. 🙂 

 

My oldest friend - apparently we've known each other since I was three months old and he was a newborn - is still the very same naughty boy that he was in school, only he hides it better. 🙂  The same applies to everyone else I know too.  So I find character development to be a bit tedious and wholly agree with Seinfeld.

 

Buut OK if most of you like it, I can live with that, especially given the ages of the people in this series and the fact that they're going through some incredible stuff.

Just learning to hide it better is character growth. You are correct though that there can be many people that go through life with gradual or not obvious character growth, and we tend not to see it with those closest to us. 
But I have yet to know anyone that has not had any growth or changes, everything creates changes and growth (forwards or backwards) from moving to a new area, new jobs, new friends, loss of someone close to you,  having a new partner or birth of a child.
No change makes for boring books or TV, which is why books, shows, plays... focus in on the characters and or plots that do have growth. 

In books we observe change because they can tell us with inner voice. Or they can deceive us with unreliable narrator.  In just 8 hours to develop characters so that we care about them they need to establish that on screen. 
It is impossible to really compare to any of the existing Fantasy shows, because of how RJ continually adds new important characters, or brings them back 8 books later. 

Liandra will probably replace some of the other BA Aes Sedai that are introduced later. Alanna is actually always a periphery to the main characters so establishing her early is beneficial to later Arcs. 

 

 

[DigificWriter]

There are two truisms about the WoT TV series that are absolutely essential when it comes to accepting - or at least understanding - how and why things have thus far played out narratively in th way that they have:

1) The TV series is very much an all-new Turning of the Wheel metaphysically and metaphorically

 

 2) Rafe and his team have taken all 15 novels and Remixed them

[Mirefox]

32 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

There are two truisms about the WoT TV series that are absolutely essential when it comes to accepting - or at least understanding - how and why things have thus far played out narratively in th way that they have:

1) The TV series is very much an all-new Turning of the Wheel metaphysically and metaphorically

 

 2) Rafe and his team have taken all 15 novels and Remixed them

There are two truisms about the new Justin Bieber album that are absolutely essential when it comes to accepting - or at least understanding - how and why things have thus far played out musically the way they have:

 

1) The Beiber album is very much a rearrangement of Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon”

 

2) Bieber has taken all the tracks from the album and Remixed them

 

You analysis sure sounds bad when you apply it to a work you respect and mediocre talent…

[DigificWriter]

Changing the context of my comment and parrotting it back doesn't really make the case for how/why the show isn't working.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by DigificWriter

[Mirefox]

3 hours ago, DigificWriter said:

Changing the context of my comment and parrotting it back doesn't really make the case for how/why the show isn't working.

 

You’re right.  That wasn’t my intent with the post.  I can talk about why it isn’t working elsewhere.  My point is that framing the show in that way really adds little value to the quality argument and certainly can’t be used as proof of quality.

[DigificWriter]

^ I didn't say anything whatsoever about quality, which is a subjective metric and therefore almost meaningless.

 

[notpropaganda73]

On 10/14/2023 at 2:25 PM, Scarloc99 said:

Why so much Verin, again so we care about her as a character.

 

I generally agree with your post but there hasn't been any meaningful Verin so far really. At least not enough for me (I loved her in the books). I think they have a real opportunity with her as a character for TV so was a bit disappointed at how little we got of her in S2. 

[Scarloc99]

38 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

I generally agree with your post but there hasn't been any meaningful Verin so far really. At least not enough for me (I loved her in the books). I think they have a real opportunity with her as a character for TV so was a bit disappointed at how little we got of her in S2. 

She is one of my wifes fav characters so far, she is a side character but is taking a large share of "side character" tv time, and the writers know they have 6 more seasons to build her story. She also should be peripheral at the moment, put to much emphasis on her and you give things away to quickly.