A better take

[Samt]

2 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

I’m not sure I follow. What “choice in his own suffering” are you referring to? In any event, I think that there are still some opportunities for him to sheathe the sword before he goes Darth Rand - possibly in the Waste. 
 

I don’t know that we know this. He really hasn’t shown us any “powers” yet. Something happened when he blew the horn, but we aren’t sure what. And we don’t know that the Finn have been cut. 

 

This one makes the least sense to me. How is Thom and Moiraine’s relationship fundamental? There are plenty of reasons to go rescue Mo and plenty of time for Thom to develop a relationship with her. Nothing about their history together has been foreclosed by the story they’ve told so far. 

 

Rand has to go to Rhuidean and be named Car’a’carn. Egwene has to learn from the Wise Ones. Perrin has to return to the Two Rivers and unite them. Siuan must be deposed. Nyn and Elayne must become exiles. 

 

Mat has to visit the Finn. Removing the Finn entirely would be a huge blow to the fundamental structure of the novels. 
 

Asmo (or another Forsaken) needs to train Rand with the Power and Lan must train him with the sword before Dumai’s Wells. (I suspect both will happen in S3)

 

Thanks for the well thought out response. 

 

In regards to the wound, I see the wound as a direct reference to Jesus Christ and a symbol of Rand agreeing to suffer for the world. Drops of blood on Shayol Gul is very evocative.  Losing that loses a lot.  A major part of Rand's arc is that he embraces the fact that he will die but it will be worth it to save the world and the people he loves.  It has to be a choice.  

 

In general, I think order matters at least a little bit and you can't just put some of this stuff back in later.  If we go to Rhuidean without ever going to Tear, that's a big change.  Callandor is kind of important.  The arches in Tear are pretty important, too (to both Rand and Mat).  

 

But even if you could just fit it all back in, I'm just not optimistic that the showrunners care to do it.  If they thought it was important, they would have just done it right the first time.  They've already shown they don't think it's important, so why would we expect them to put in more creative effort to bring it back? I guess a bit of wait and see, but I'm not optimistic.

 

In any case, why is Dumai's Wells the cutoff for Rand learning the sword? I would have put the cutoff at Falme if we were talking about a blank slate series since that is where he does the most with a sword and also where Tam's sword gets broken.   By Rhuidean, he has stopped using swords entirely for actual fighting.  

[Elder_Haman]

7 minutes ago, Samt said:

In any case, why is Dumai's Wells the cutoff for Rand learning the sword?

He needs to be a fully formed character before he takes his dark turn, IMO.

 

9 minutes ago, Samt said:

If they thought it was important, they would have just done it right the first time. 

Your position assumes that they haven’t planned ahead. I think they have. 
 

Just as the whole “it could be a boy or a girl” thing was a piece of incorrect information that was used in service of demonstrating just how out of her depth Moiraine was, I believe many of the changes are meant to be paid off later. 

[Samt]

2 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

He needs to be a fully formed character before he takes his dark turn, IMO.

 

Your position assumes that they haven’t planned ahead. I think they have. 
 

Just as the whole “it could be a boy or a girl” thing was a piece of incorrect information that was used in service of demonstrating just how out of her depth Moiraine was, I believe many of the changes are meant to be paid off later. 

Does that mean that you think Dumai's Wells itself is a critical point that has to happen?

 

In regards to planning, I'm not sure whether they didn't plan or just the people who planned and the people who executed didn't talk to each other.  I think they plan and then throw the plans out and make it up.

 

For instance, they cast, advertised, and costumed Turak so that they could Indiana Jones him.  Was that really the plan?  It's kind of funny if you read the book, but is ultimately underwhelming and kind of pointless for non-book readers.  

 

They cast and built up Ingtar so he could die Leroy Jenkins style without any explanation.  Was that the plan?  

 

They spent a ton of time with Elayne and Nynaeve creating a rescue plan and then had Egwene rage choke the Suldam.  Was that the plan?  

 

There are tons of signs that they aren't really following a plan (even if they did make one).

[Mirefox]

To address the original question, rights holders can give the rights to their properties to whomever they want, and derivative rights are all separate from each other - so a right holder can give film rights to one party and stage production rights to another, for example.  The key is what the contract between the rights holder and the derivative author details.  My guess is that Amazon bought the exclusive rights to any film adaptations, and that would bar another party from doing the same.

 

That’s a very general overview but considering that this Amazon, I’m sure that a) a team a lawyers pored over the agreements and b) plenty of money was spent to make sure that all rights were exclusive and as broad as possible.

 

There has been talk about some other project dealing with other Ages and that’s possible because it is outside the rights granted to Amazon but if you’re looking for a third party to step in to my would either be buying the rights from Amazon or it would be far in the future where Amazon’s rights terminated.

[Elendir]

On 3/28/2024 at 6:42 PM, Elder_Haman said:

What FUNDAMENTAL changes have been made? Not plot points being shifted or character origins being changed. I’m talking changes to the overall plot and structure. 

 

The first meeting of Dragon and Amyrlin seat:

 

Book:

Show stubborn dragon who don't kneel before stronger opponent.

 

TV show:

Dragon kneeling in front of Amrylin would kneel in front of far stronger Forsakens. Very bad for champion of light.

 

And that is just the more impactful change of this scenes. It change other aspects of story too, like Siuan character.

Edited March 30 by Elendir

[wynand]

7 hours ago, Elendir said:

 

The first meeting of Dragon and Amyrlin seat:

 

Book:

Show stubborn dragon who don't kneel before stronger opponent.

 

TV show:

Dragon kneeling in front of Amrylin would kneel in front of far stronger Forsakens. Very bad for champion of light.

 

And that is just the more impactful change of this scenes. It change other aspects of story too, like Siuan character.

Well that falls right in line with the “evil patriarchy” narrative where a strong man can’t be a good man. The only useful man is  one that is weak enough to control or a cheating bastard who we can sneer down on.

[Elder_Haman]

8 hours ago, Elendir said:

 

The first meeting of Dragon and Amyrlin seat:

 

Book:

Show stubborn dragon who don't kneel before stronger opponent.

 

TV show:

Dragon kneeling in front of Amrylin would kneel in front of far stronger Forsakens. Very bad for champion of light.

 

And that is just the more impactful change of this scenes. It change other aspects of story too, like Siuan character.

Explain to me how this fundamentally alters the story as opposed to simply slowing Rand’s growth as the Dragon. 

[Skipp]

8 hours ago, Elendir said:

 

The first meeting of Dragon and Amyrlin seat:

 

Book:

Show stubborn dragon who don't kneel before stronger opponent.

 

TV show:

Dragon kneeling in front of Amrylin would kneel in front of far stronger Forsakens. Very bad for champion of light.

 

And that is just the more impactful change of this scenes. It change other aspects of story too, like Siuan character.

 

While Rand didn't kneel in his first meeting with the Amrylin his entire outward facade crumbled, he possibly lost the void as well, when Suian names he The Dragon Reborn.  He then reverts to the nervous shepard asking meekly what they are going to do with him.

 

Not all that different from what we saw on screen.  Rand, having never been cut off from the source, loses his outward facade when he loses access to the One Power.  Remember that it is suppose to be a terrible feeling to lose that.

 

Now would I have directed the scene differently, sure.  i didn't care for having Rand fall to his knees.  But it works for an audience who don't yet fully understand what losing the source means.

[Elendir]

6 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

Explain to me how this fundamentally alters the story as opposed to simply slowing Rand’s growth as the Dragon. 

 

It change core character. TV Show Rand wouldn't succeed if we respect character integrity. Book Rand didn't kneel in front of any challenge, his own death, torture. It was his character atribute. TV show Rand kneel easily. How will he stand against what await him?

 

5 hours ago, Skipp said:

 

While Rand didn't kneel in his first meeting with the Amrylin his entire outward facade crumbled, he possibly lost the void as well, when Suian names he The Dragon Reborn.  He then reverts to the nervous shepard asking meekly what they are going to do with him.

 

Not all that different from what we saw on screen.  Rand, having never been cut off from the source, loses his outward facade when he loses access to the One Power.  Remember that it is suppose to be a terrible feeling to lose that.

 

Now would I have directed the scene differently, sure.  i didn't care for having Rand fall to his knees.  But it works for an audience who don't yet fully understand what losing the source means.

 

Book Rand was near to fill his pant with .... yet he stand tall still. It is about standing against stronger opponent. Being almighty when you challenge only weaker one, hardly test character.

[Elder_Haman]

38 minutes ago, Elendir said:

It change core character. TV Show Rand wouldn't succeed if we respect character integrity. Book Rand didn't kneel in front of any challenge, his own death, torture. It was his character atribute. TV show Rand kneel easily. How will he stand against what await him?

No. TV Rand’s growth has been slowed down, which allows it to progress more naturally than in the books. (Rand is basically nerfed after Book 3). I think you’ll find him develop his power and the arrogance you’re looking for this season. 

[king of nowhere]

1 hour ago, Elendir said:

 

Book Rand was near to fill his pant with .... yet he stand tall still. It is about standing against stronger opponent. Being almighty when you challenge only weaker one, hardly test character.

so, in the book we were in his mind and we saw him maintain a strong face while he was crapping himself. great.

how exactly would you show that in the tv show?

if you show rand maintaining a strong front, the viewers will never know he's in trouble. in fact, they may think he's an idiot who don't know the danger.

this is another of those cases where a scene just doesn't work in a different media. hence it must be adapted with something else.

 

In the same way, I wonder how a book accurate Lan would work in tv. I guess they could just sculpt a human figure out of granite and put it in front of the camera; it would have the book accurate facial expressivity and they would save the money on hiring an actor.

Edited March 30 by king of nowhere

[expat]

These types of threads always make me bounce my head off the wall a few times.  WOT was long considered an unfilmable series due to factors like the following:

1. 12000 pages

2. 2000 named characters

3. 5-7 major arcs and 2-3 minor arcs competing for attention at any given time for most of the series

4. taking place on 8 planes of existence (Randland, dreamworld, ways, portal stones, Aelfinn and Eelfinn worlds, and the arches in the Tower and Rhuidean)

5. complex magic system

6. complex lore

7. takes place in ~10 countries across the continent

8. 7+ major (and unique) cultures that need to be explained since they play important roles (Aeil, multiple Randland countries, Seanchan, Forsaken, Aei Sedai, Sea People, Ogier)

9. significant amount of CGI needed

10. massive amount of POV which encompass most of the character development

11. massive amount of POV

 

We seem to have two viewpoints about how best to film an unfilmable book series (and make it visually interesting as a TV show): adapting it requires changes and additions to overcome the problems making it unfilmable; or film it like it was written.  I know which viewpoint I subscribe to.

 

I think that the hardest of the issues to overcome is the amount of POV and all the character development advanced by the POVs.  I've asked this question several times to posters calling for a closer book interpretation, how do you incorporate the POV information into your idea of how to film the series?  You could:

 

1. ignore the POVs entirely

2. put the character development and other important information contained in the POVs into dialogue (lots and lots and lots of dialogue)

3. introduce new scenes/arcs which show the character development and other important information in another way

4. other

 

In reality, the first three should all be used and someone more knowledgeable than me might know other methods.  Some things should be ignored, some limited amount of dialogue can be used to highlight some things, and some visual way should be found that create the same character development.  So far, I get crickets to my question, just "it should be closer to the books"

 

It's a valid opinion to think that the choices the showrunners made to try to overcome the issues identified above were bad and unsuccessful, but I don't believe that the correct answer to "the choices made in trying to film this unfilmable series were bad" is "make it more like the book".  Maybe I'm wrong and you think that the book is easily filmable as written and makes a visually interesting TV series.  If so, please tell me how you would film the POVs.

 

[Samt]

7 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

In the same way, I wonder how a book accurate Lan would work in tv. I guess they could just sculpt a human figure out of granite and put it in front of the camera; it would have the book accurate facial expressivity and they would save the money on hiring an actor.

Does Lan even have any POVs? Certainly not in the early books.  The books create an interesting and likable Lan without the need to show us what is in his head.  The POV problem is just an excuse for lazy writing and directing.

Edited March 31 by Samt

[Elder_Haman]

8 hours ago, Samt said:

The POV problem is just an excuse for lazy writing and directing

No it isn’t. It is a massive problem that will dog any writer trying to adapt the series for the reasons stated above. 
 

Your question about Lan is a complete non-sequitur. As you point out Lan has few POV chapters (he has 25 total all coming after ToM or in New Spring), but pointing that out does not answer @expat’s question. 
 

You can like or dislike Lan’s characterization in the show (I’m on the record saying that I dislike it), but it is not an answer to the question. 

[Samt]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

No it isn’t. It is a massive problem that will dog any writer trying to adapt the series for the reasons stated above. 
 

Your question about Lan is a complete non-sequitur. As you point out Lan has few POV chapters (he has 25 total all coming after ToM or in New Spring), but pointing that out does not answer @expat’s question. 
 

You can like or dislike Lan’s characterization in the show (I’m on the record saying that I dislike it), but it is not an answer to the question. 

I wasn’t responding to expat.  I clearly responded to king of nowhere.  He made a point about POVs being hard to adapt and then talked about Lan. I presumed that was an example and think it’s a bad example because Lan is developed as a character without having any POVs through the first half of the series.  If it wasn’t about POVs and just about Lan in general being hard to adapt, I feel that is pretty silly.  Strong, stoic man of action who shows little emotion is practically an archetype that has been shown on screen more times than I can list.  That’s almost literally the only character that John Wayne ever played. 
 

In regards to POV more generally, I just don’t think it’s a valid excuse.  GoT is also written in the same type of POV and adapted the early seasons in an engaging way while changing very little of the story.  The ability to show things instead of telling is so powerful that failing to tell the same story is just a solid sign of failure.

[Elder_Haman]

2 minutes ago, Samt said:

 GoT is also written in the same type of POV and adapted the early seasons in an engaging way while changing very little of the story.

GoT is a poor comparison. First of all, GRRM cut his teeth writing for television and the books are structured in a way to make them far more easy to adapt. They are heavy on dialogue and very light on internal monologue. 

 

On the other hand, WoT relies heavily on the characters' internal monologues. Rand's madness, Egwene's political maneuverings, virtually all of Perrin's character development occur almost entirely inside their thoughts. You seem to think it's super easy to just film that, it's not.

 

I'd like to see you take a crack at writing a season. Tell me how easy it is to script.

[king of nowhere]

2 hours ago, Samt said:

I wasn’t responding to expat.  I clearly responded to king of nowhere.  He made a point about POVs being hard to adapt and then talked about Lan. I presumed that was an example and think it’s a bad example because Lan is developed as a character without having any POVs through the first half of the series.  If it wasn’t about POVs and just about Lan in general being hard to adapt, I feel that is pretty silly.  Strong, stoic man of action who shows little emotion is practically an archetype that has been shown on screen more times than I can list.  That’s almost literally the only character that John Wayne ever played.

lan is not a stoic man of action who shows little emotion.

lan is a stoic man of action who shows little emotion but has depth.

you can totally show lan being stoic, but you lose all his character. he just becomes another stereotype.

 

besides, Lan was an example for a general, very common theme: almost every single character in the books is good at keeping a very straight face while undergoing inner turmoil - which we know by pow or are informed in some other way. if you show them on show with a straiught face, you miss the inner turmoil.

it was a direct response to your comment that showing rand kneeling in front of siuan completely changes his character, because he allowed his insecurity to show. well, in tv, if a character does not show visible reactions, then he's not reacting. in the book, often the pow character muses on how the other guy is slightly flicking the finger, which indicates great surprise because it broke their perfect mask for a second. in tv, 99.9% of viewers would miss the clue, the remaining one will think it a nervous tic of the actor.

[Samt]

55 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

lan is not a stoic man of action who shows little emotion.

lan is a stoic man of action who shows little emotion but has depth.

you can totally show lan being stoic, but you lose all his character. he just becomes another stereotype.

 

besides, Lan was an example for a general, very common theme: almost every single character in the books is good at keeping a very straight face while undergoing inner turmoil - which we know by pow or are informed in some other way. if you show them on show with a straiught face, you miss the inner turmoil.

it was a direct response to your comment that showing rand kneeling in front of siuan completely changes his character, because he allowed his insecurity to show. well, in tv, if a character does not show visible reactions, then he's not reacting. in the book, often the pow character muses on how the other guy is slightly flicking the finger, which indicates great surprise because it broke their perfect mask for a second. in tv, 99.9% of viewers would miss the clue, the remaining one will think it a nervous tic of the actor.

That wasn’t my comment about Rand.  In regards to that scene, the failure of the show comes from the fact that we didn’t see Rand being trained by Lan.  It is Lan that explains to Rand the importance of how he should act and avoid showing weakness, etc.  While the books have inner monologues, much of the important character building and world building that was cut is actually dialogue.  Perrin would be developed a great deal by the dialogues with Elyas that were mostly cut.  Perrin and Elyas have a dialogue about the axe and the hammer and the leaf.
 

In regards to Lan, you seem to be ignoring the crux of my point.  All of the depth and inner turmoil and complexity of Lan as a character is conveyed to the reader without any POV from Lan.  That can be done on screen.  Cary Grant in High Noon is another great example of a character with great depth that doesn’t need to show dramatic emotion.

[expat]

6 hours ago, Samt said:

  While the books have inner monologues, much of the important character building and world building that was cut is actually dialogue.  Perrin would be developed a great deal by the dialogues with Elyas that were mostly cut.  Perrin and Elyas have a dialogue about the axe and the hammer and the leaf.

How does the first sentence even begin to make sense?  By definition, all the POVs, which makes up something like 50% of the books, is cut unless the writers find another way of conveying the information (which you constantly rail against because they aren't book cannon). yet you claim that most of the important character development and world building cut came from dialogue.

 

If we get all 8 seasons, it will take 12+ years at the current rate.  A single conversation happening in an early season laying out the problem won't be remembered in later seasons that might be 5 or more years later in the real world when the resolution comes in the series.  So no, a conversation between Perrin and Elyas is not a good way to convey a major character issue like Perrin's inner conflict which is expressed symbolically in the books as having to choose either the axe or the hammer.  In the books, this conflict came up repeatedly in Perrin POVs which gave meaning to the scenes when he finally choose the hammer.  Are you suggesting that Perrin should have this same dialogue a bunch of times in the series so the viewers will remember it? That's boring TV.  Some kind or arc, although outside the books, is more interesting TV and will allow viewers better understanding of his inner conflict.

 

As an aside, the whole focus on Lan training Rand is similar to the problem with Perrin and the axe/hammer.  Rand training with a sword is the symbolic representation on his inner conflict of Tam's son or the Dragon.  As the Dragon, using a sword is silly, but as the son of a blademaster, the sword is his link to his adopted father. Lan providing advice on how to be a better man can and did happen outside his sword training.

 

You choose to ignore my question about the difficulty (or ease) of filming POVs when responding to Elder_Haman earlier, perhaps you will reconsider.

[Samt]

12 hours ago, expat said:

How does the first sentence even begin to make sense?  By definition, all the POVs, which makes up something like 50% of the books, is cut unless the writers find another way of conveying the information (which you constantly rail against because they aren't book cannon). yet you claim that most of the important character development and world building cut came from dialogue.

Which part of, "Much that was important to character development and world building that was cut was contained in dialogue" doesn't make sense.  I even gave examples of dialogue that was important that was cut.  You're also going to need to explain to me what you think POV is.  POV makes up over 99% of the books.  Everything but the few paragraphs about wind at the beginning of each book and a few other random paragraphs here and there is POV.  The dialogue is expressed through the POV of a character who participates in or overhears the dialogue.  The descriptions are always the POV of a character who is seeing the things described.  

 

It's somewhat debatable as to how much of the contents of a POV should be apparent to other characters.  Lan would probably describe Baerlon very differently from Rand at the beginning of TEotW.  But both characters see it.  Some emotions and thoughts are probably private, but emotions can also be expressed by actors.  Literally ever movie and TV show ever made has the same challenge of expressing the inner thoughts and emotions of characters without having a voiceover telling us what they are thinking and feeling.  My point about Cary Grant and John Wayne wasn't that the characters don't have emotion or depth.  They just have emotion and depth without crying and beating their chests.  The viewer can feel a deep emotional connection to them because of great acting and directing and we don't need to see drama to feel that.  

 

In regards to the difficulty of adapting books to screen, I don't think POV is some unique challenge.  Practically every book tells us the emotions and thoughts of some of the characters.  POV just means that we only get the inner thoughts and feelings of one character at a time.  How is that worse than 3rd person omniscient?  

12 hours ago, expat said:

How does the first sentence even begin to make sense?  By definition, all the POVs, which makes up something like 50% of the books, is cut unless the writers find another way of conveying the information (which you constantly rail against because they aren't book cannon). yet you claim that most of the important character development and world building cut came from dialogue.

 

If we get all 8 seasons, it will take 12+ years at the current rate.  A single conversation happening in an early season laying out the problem won't be remembered in later seasons that might be 5 or more years later in the real world when the resolution comes in the series.  So no, a conversation between Perrin and Elyas is not a good way to convey a major character issue like Perrin's inner conflict which is expressed symbolically in the books as having to choose either the axe or the hammer.  In the books, this conflict came up repeatedly in Perrin POVs which gave meaning to the scenes when he finally choose the hammer.  Are you suggesting that Perrin should have this same dialogue a bunch of times in the series so the viewers will remember it? That's boring TV.  Some kind or arc, although outside the books, is more interesting TV and will allow viewers better understanding of his inner conflict.

Stretching this thing out over 12 years is a bad idea and a bit of self-inflicted wound by Amazon.  If you think people are going to forget what happened in earlier seasons, that is an independent challenge that the showrunners need to overcome.  That exists whether people are forgetting that Perrin killed his wife or that Perrin talked to Elyas.

 

Perrin talking to Elyas was just one example of a dialogue that was cut that would have helped to explain a lot if it had been included.  I'm not suggesting it would be the only bit of character development for Perrin over 8 seasons.  Perrin also has discussions with Moiraine in regards to Boundless that could continue his development, for instance. It's just that the claim that it's hard to show Perrin on screen because it's all in his head is disingenuous because actually he talks about it at various points.  They just cut him talking about it and then claim it's all in his head.  Likewise, Lan talking to Rand about how he should behave with the Amyrlin would have helped give the scene depth and meaning.  Instead, we get claims that it's just an inner conflict and he needed to kneel to show that. 

13 hours ago, expat said:

As an aside, the whole focus on Lan training Rand is similar to the problem with Perrin and the axe/hammer.  Rand training with a sword is the symbolic representation on his inner conflict of Tam's son or the Dragon.  As the Dragon, using a sword is silly, but as the son of a blademaster, the sword is his link to his adopted father. Lan providing advice on how to be a better man can and did happen outside his sword training.

So what you are saying is that the book provides outward, visible symbols and dialogue to help explain the inner conflict.  Symbols and dialogue that could have easily been shown on screen but that the showrunners decided to cut.  

 

13 hours ago, expat said:

You choose to ignore my question about the difficulty (or ease) of filming POVs when responding to Elder_Haman earlier, perhaps you will reconsider.

For starters, I would include the dialogue and symbols that I have talked about.  I think the "difficulty of filming POVs" is a red herring.  Books tell us what people think and feel.  Movies and TV need to show us.  That is inherent to the genre and part of the challenge of adapting.  But movies and shows do this all of the time.  Many action heroes don't need to be showing deep emotions on screen.  

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, Samt said:

But movies and shows do this all of the time.

Most movies and tv shows aren’t adapting source material that relies heavily on internal monologues for character development the way WoT does. 
 

You’re conflating the POV with the internal monologues of the POV characters. A great deal of the motivation for all of the main characters in WoT is expressed via internal monologue, which means that much of the character development occurs entirely within the characters’ heads. That’s difficult to film, no matter how great your actors. 
 

The solution is to externalize those internal conflicts. Which is what the writers are trying to do.

[Samt]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

Most movies and tv shows aren’t adapting source material that relies heavily on internal monologues for character development the way WoT does. 

Most of the character development for the first few books isn't based on internal monologues.  Yes, we get a view inside the heads of characters and that helps us understand how they see the world.  But that isn't the center of the development or conflict. Perrin is actually incredibly easy to build through conversations with Elyas and the Tuathon.  Rand has a bit of internal conflict around the sword and his father, but the show has completely ignored that anyways.  And if they wanted to include it, sword training scenes with Lan would have made it easy.  

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

You’re conflating the POV with the internal monologues of the POV characters. A great deal of the motivation for all of the main characters in WoT is expressed via internal monologue, which means that much of the character development occurs entirely within the characters’ heads. That’s difficult to film, no matter how great your actors. 

I'm not conflating them.  I'm pointing out that everything in the books is POV, but most of it can be presented in the show normally.  You're greatly exaggerating the amount of the books that is actually internal monologues (especially the early books) and also ignoring the fact that the internal monologues that do exist also come out in dialogue and actions from the characters.  Just because we get a particular character's take on an event doesn't mean that we have to alter that to present it.  Most of the narrators are mostly reliable most of the time.  

 

Which internal conflicts from the early books would be difficult to present on the screen while just presenting scenes from the books?  I hear Perrin a lot, but that's actually mostly in dialogue anyways early on. 

 

Yes, some things will get lost when adapting a book to screen. I suppose we would miss the running joke that all 3 of the Taveren are confused by women and think that the others understand them.  Books always have more time to explore and develop characters.  But there would have been plenty of material to develop the characters without making such huge changes and adding so much extraneous stuff.  

 

I would add that after 16 hours of TV, most of the characters still feel pretty poorly developed.  I don't think there was a problem to begin with in regards to developing the characters, but, if there was, they certainly haven't solved it.  

[Elder_Haman]

20 minutes ago, Samt said:

Perrin is actually incredibly easy to build through conversations with Elyas and the Tuathon

Okay. I’m intrigued. Let me see your script. Not the whole thing, just the dialogue that will build Perrin via conversation between him, the Tinkers, and Elyas. 

[Samt]

44 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Okay. I’m intrigued. Let me see your script. Not the whole thing, just the dialogue that will build Perrin via conversation between him, the Tinkers, and Elyas. 

I don't have to write them.  These scenes literally exist in the book.  Perhaps the dialogue would need to be altered somewhat because of things they did or didn't include in the show, but the same idea could be maintained.  If necessary, you could add a bit to the dialogue.  At the beginning of chapter 30, for instance, after Elyas says that Perrin should throw away the axe if he ever likes using it, Perrin tries to ask, but can't, "What if I wait and then can't throw it away?"  That could easily be added as a line for Perrin to actually say, maybe as Elyas is walking away and doesn't hear it.  

 

Perrin has a discussion with Raen and says that he would hit someone back if he or she hit him in chapter 25.  This scene actually sort of exists in the show except that Elyas isn't there and the detail is cut (and Perrin doesn't advocate for self defense in the show).  

[Cipher]

I think this show is going to canned after the 3rd season.

 

The show runners didn’t care about Rand (as can be shown by their bad characterization of him—literally working with a Forsaken in Lanfear and being a murderer) and therefore neither does the audience.

 

I have hopes in a few years they will either sell their rights or may be do an animated adaptation that is more faithful.

Edited April 1 by Cipher