Goodkind's Sword of Truth series optioned

[Guest Egwene]

so much of an understanding, that apart from the difference of opinion, I though I was looking at two peas in a pod :lol:

 

The biggest difference between TG and RJ in my books... I have just introduced my young niece to WoT... I won't recommend TG to her until she is at least eighteen. If this was a cinema, Wot would get a PG certificate whereas TG would be X-rated...

.

[Kadere]

WoT PG? I really don't buy that. Even LotR was PG-13. WoT is chalk full of adult themes, it could certainly be done for PG-13, while I don't think SoT could go for less then R, but you'd have to chop out a lot, and/or water it down to make PG, especially with the later books.

[Hannibal King]

Sorry Egwene, WoT would be a strict R.

SoT(if it were in a theater which it won't be) would also be an R. WoT would suck to hell if it were made into a pg movie.

[Guest Egwene]

R or X... what I was trying to say... over 18 only.

 

The WoT story is too complex for under tens certainly, but looking at how many people here first read the books at eleven... Having just had a look at what the certificates here in the UK actually are, I'd say I'd be happy with a 12A. It would be no more brutal or explicit than many other films that are allowed for that agegroup. I remember that Orc in LotR getting his head chopped of... I was surrounded by young kids in the audience at the time. My gasp probably was louder than theirs. :oops:

 

... and swearing... I think I would prefer WoT style swearing to what the kids are screaming at the moment.

[Kadere]

WoT could do very good justice with a PG-13, an R would only be necassary if the director was a little demented. WoT isn't much worse then LotR, but it would certainly be over the heads of children 10 or under.

 

SoT on the other hand could not be done justice without recieving an R rating. The brutal actions of the Order, the love scenes between Richard and Kahlan, the sadism/masocism, and the philosophy behind the books all call for an R rating.

[Werthead]

There are certainly things in WoT that would demand a higher rating than LotR, although mostly these can be avoided:

 

Shaidar Haran raping Moghedien in ACoS and later Mesaana in CoT. Both are only implied, though, and the actual act takes place off-page.

 

The vast field of corpses after Dumai's Wells. Take out a lot of blood (as Peter Jackson sanitised the heaps of corpses after Pelennor Fields in RotK) and no problem.

 

The lesbianism. Implied, for the most part, and not too much of a problem.

 

Rand getting wounded and various limbs blown off: not a problem for Luke Skywalker, so doable for Rand on-screen.

[Guest Egwene]

I totally agree with you Werthead. Whilst there is a lot of nasty stuff as you would when there is fighting, a lot of it is really left to your imagination as to how nasty it is. Whereas in SoT, you have it described down to the last detail...

.

[merlinspetrock]

18 c'mon dont you want to be the cool aunt? I gave my cousin (12) the first Martin book last time I saw him. He had already burned through RJ at 10 and 11. Of course other members of my family were giving him James patterson serial killer books at 10. Woe is the day he comes to me and tells me that he found a new great author, Terry Goodkind. I did tell him not to tell his parents graphically about Martins work in order to save me a headache.

[Werthead]

Won't happen. No-one reads and enjoys Martin, then can read and really enjoy Goodkind. It's like watching and loving Heat, then being satisfied with a Steven Segal 'thriller' afterwards.

[Guest Egwene]

merlinspetrock... I am trying to be a responsible aunt above being a cool aunt. I gave WoT to my niece because I know she is mature and intelligent enough for the content. I would not give her Martin yet. Whilst I am in favour of giving kids books/toys that are taxing, rather than too young for them, I don't believe in making them grow up faster than need be either.

 

There is plenty of other fantasy stuff that is more suited for that age group... Edding for example. Your cousin would probably find them too tame... but I find the thought of a ten year old being give the sort of reading stuff you are talking about, quite abhorent. :shock:

[Hannibal King]

Won't happen. No-one reads and enjoys Martin' date=' then can read and really enjoy Goodkind. It's like watching and loving [i']Heat[/i], then being satisfied with a Steven Segal 'thriller' afterwards.

 

I read game of thrones and was totally unimpressed with Martin. Goodkind puts him to shame.

[Hannibal King]

SoT, I'm thinking, is gonna be on Showtime or HBO so that it can be given a MA rating and show brutality. On cable tv, I can't see Fox showing anything even remotely brutal.

[Werthead]

I read game of thrones and was totally unimpressed with Martin. Goodkind puts him to shame.

 

:lol:

[merlinspetrock]

:lol:

 

QFT :lol:

[Guest Karana Majin]

I read game of thrones and was totally unimpressed with Martin. Goodkind puts him to shame.

 

*blink*

 

*blink*

 

I'm sorry, but Mr. Goodkind is not fit to touch Mr. Martin's word processor.

 

That is all.

[GTPapabear]

I can't say too much about martin as I have never read him.

PLEASE suggest something and I'll put it to the test! :)

It always rocks to read something good anyway.

I hold Goodkind AND RJ in the same respect. Highly Talented authors. I would love to put a Third in that Category!

 

So Suggestions?

[Werthead]

Robert Jordan is a major fan of his:

 

George Martin and I know each other to the extent that we’ll have a beer together when we run into one another, or dinner maybe. I like his books. His style is very different from mine, but I don’t go around looking for people who write the way I do. Oh, yes. George is a good guy. I like him as well as his books.

 

Also, Robin Hobb, Katherine Kerr, Janny Wurts, Raymond E. Feist, Robert Salvatore, Orson Scott Card, Scott Bakker, Scott Lynch and Jeff Vandermeer are all big fans of his books as well. A pretty good team to have on your side.

 

GRRM's biggest work is the multi-award-winning A Song of Ice and Fire, which starts with A Game of Thrones. His best-regarded solo novel is Fevre Dream.

[Hannibal King]

I read game of thrones and was totally unimpressed with Martin. Goodkind puts him to shame.

 

*blink*

 

*blink*

 

I'm sorry' date=' but Mr. Goodkind is not fit to touch Mr. Martin's word processor.

 

That is all.[/quote']

 

 

Whatever.

[Guest Egwene]

A question I would like to ask: Why do people not like SoT?

 

As far as I can see, a lot of people object to him putting his ideological beliefs into the books. Others talk about WoT rip-offs (I myself never connect the two works whilst reading either of them). The argument always seems to boil down to emotions rather than rational critic. :roll:

.

[Kaznen]

Richard seems more in control of his emotions then Rand so I don't think comparing the two is justified.

 

Also there is something about characters and places; at a book signing I asked if he had intended for Nicci to become the charater she did when he wrote The Stone of Tears and Blood of the Fold. He said no. But when he was starting Faith of the Fallen he needed a women to be evil villian. Instead of making a new Sister of the Dark he decided to recycle Nicci. When she had disappeared in Blood of the Fold that was due to an over site so he didn't write her back story until FotF.

 

And then Chase, one guy asked at the same signing if chase was ever going to come back and Goodkind said maybe, it depends on if a need for Chase presents itself.

 

And I think Zedd is the best Fantasy Character EVER! Belgareth would be a contender but he was subjected to David Eddings horrid writing.

[Werthead]

A question I would like to ask: Why do people not like SoT?

 

As far as I can see' date=' a lot of people object to him putting his ideological beliefs into the books. Others talk about WoT rip-offs (I myself never connect the two works whilst reading either of them). The argument always seems to boil down to emotions rather than rational critic. :roll:

.[/quote']

 

Well, he cannot use the English language well, he cannot create interesting characters, he cannot build or sustain an original plot, his world lacks any kind of logical coherence and I've lost track of how many times either or both of his main characters have been kidnapped. He's also had Richard completely corrupted by the wielding of ultimate power and turn into a fascist demagogue, but rather than this being presented as a bad thing it's actually been depicted as a positive turn of events.

 

For more detailed criticism of specific passages in the books, I refer you to the posts here.

[Zardi]

A question I would like to ask: Why do people not like SoT?

I've only read the first two in their entirety, and couldn't finish the third (and that was years before picking up WoT). I just got plain old bored.

[joeybsmash]

I HAVE A RATIONAL CRITIQUE OF SoT!!!!

beginning in the very first book TG wuld write himself into a corner and then pull something out of his ass to save himself. his descriptions of violence are nowhere near disturbing enough. about the preaching, it seems like he is screaming against ideas that don't exist anymore. his charactors are unidimentional, and his storylines are formulac.

[Hannibal King]

I HAVE A RATIONAL CRITIQUE OF SoT!!!!

beginning in the very first book TG wuld write himself into a corner and then pull something out of his bunny to save himself. his descriptions of violence are nowhere near disturbing enough. about the preaching' date=' it seems like he is screaming against ideas that don't exist anymore. his charactors are unidimentional, and his storylines are formulac.[/quote']

 

You're really not showing a whole lot of intelligence here joey. He thinks those ideas exist still and so do I. The fact is that TG is a great writer and you just don't get the point that he writes about so you intend to bash him as much as possible. Another thing, I have seen countless threads saying he has too much "graphic" violence and you complain that it's not disturbing enough? TG's battle scenes are more descriptive than RJ's are or ever will be. TG has also written some of the best characters ever to appear in fantasy.

[Hannibal King]

Well' date=' he cannot use the English language well, he cannot create interesting characters, he cannot build or sustain an original plot, his world lacks any kind of logical coherence and I've lost track of how many times either or both of his main characters have been kidnapped. He's also had Richard completely corrupted by the wielding of ultimate power and turn into a fascist demagogue, but rather than this being presented as a bad thing it's actually been depicted as a positive turn of events.

 

For more detailed criticism of specific passages in the books, I refer you to the posts [u']here[/u].

 

First off werthead. TG has managed to craft one of the best series in fantasy even while battling dyslexia(some disease that hampers reading and spelling). He is excellent at creating interesting C's, including Richard Rahl who is one of the best characters in fantasy ever. His plot has held together throughout all of his books. Icould count the number of times a main C has been taken prisoner on one hand. TG wrote his ideals into Richard's actions, he is totally against fascism and believes it to be a great evil.