I disagree with your assessment of the reasons for Rand training with the sword. I always believed that the sword training was the physical embodiment of the "am I Tam's son or the Dragon" subplot. The sword was an extension of his relationship with Tam (even when the original blade was destroyed). Given that that particular thread was unfilmable because it couldn't be made visual, emphasis on the sword training wasn't a driving factor. Other reasons, like mental discipline or tactics training mean that it might be useful to introduce, but it should never be a major plot point like in the book. The books always made the case that he could kill far more opponents much easier with the power. Don't you remember the several references in the books to people asking him why he was so fixated on the sword when he had the power.

WTF man. I was addressing a specific scene you asked me about. So without discussing the points I tried to raise, you jumped to another scene you didn't like. To make it easier, the point I raised was that there are two ways to view the series, one from a more holistic viewpoint where the overriding concepts are more important than the exact actions taken to get there and the second to value the actions as discrete points in their own right. Neither is objectively correct and is based on individual interpretations of what an adaptation should be. Based on the discussion, it seems I am more interested in the big picture and willing to give the showrunners the benefit of the doubt on the small details and you are the opposite. You are more interested in the small details and really want to see them on screen. Given the difficulties of the adaptation, you will likely be continually disappointed.

I went back and reread some of the thread and understand what you are asking now. Primarily, I think you completely misunderstood the larger context that the scene. In the books, the important issue was that Nyn and the others didn't abandon Egwene, risked their lives in trying to find a way to help her, and finally attempted a rescue. The mechanics of the rescue are completely generic and uninteresting. In the series, Nyn and the others didn't abandon Egwene, risked their lives in trying to find a way to help her, and finally attempted a rescue. The series was true to the important element of the story and also attempted to highlight Egwene's character by changing the (unimportant) details of the rescue. I think that it is telling that you concentrated on a specific set of actions as the key to the scene instead of the broader overall context the scene was trying to tell. I think this is one of the important disconnects between us, I am trying to see the series from a holistic/emotional level without being too caught up in specific actions while you see the actions themselves as a fundamental part of the story.

I don't remember what scene you are referring to here so I have no idea, but why are you fixated on single scenes? The adaptation requires major changes for reasons I've given in this thread. That particular change might have been bad/unnecessary or it might be part of a larger mosaic which was put in for specific reasons like trying to infuse the necessary elements of cut material back into the story, presenting the characters in a visual setting instead of a POV setting or any number of other adaptation reasons. Again, the only argument I'm trying to make is that not liking it because it isn't the books is self-defeating because it never was and never could be the books. I've never argued that the writers didn't make mistakes in their adaptation decisions or their implementations. This change might well have been a mistake.

I never disparaged anyone for not liking specific changes. I don't think that all the changes worked, but I can understand why they made the change in most cases which is good enough to let me enjoy the series for what it is instead of reflexively hating it because "it's not the books". My argument has always been that the books COULD NOT BE FILMED as written, so major changes were unavoidable in any adaptation. Like any other human endeavor, those changes could be good or bad, necessary of unnecessary, well written or poorly written. Any argument that begins and ends with make it closer to the books, all new material is bad, are irrelevant. So hate (and discuss) on what you think are bad changes but understand that these changes were a necessary part of the adaptation process.

Anyone who says that 14 books and 12000 pages is perfect and has no problems which an adaptation should address is not arguing in good faith. Deciding beforehand that the books should be filmed as written and refusing to think about the "why" for specific changes doesn't promote useful discussion. Liking the specific changes that try to address potential problems (book issues, POV characterization, dialogue/scenes that don't work on screen, structural filming issues) isn't necessary to understand why the writer's made changes and didn't just film the book.

One of the most interesting things coming out of the series is that it has given me a greater insight into the books. The changes from the books caused me to think about why the writers made the change and if they were good or bad. I realized that there were a lot of things in the books that I just read causally and never really thought about. I found instances where there were things that made me like the book better, but I also found instances where the books were weak that I had just brushed off earlier by ignoring them. Thinking through the issues made me feel I had a better understanding of the books.

Or just indicates prejudice. People look down on the folks on the other side of the tracks all the time. Any reasonable sized group of people will have both good folks and bad folks. I found the black or white vision that all the EF5 and their folks were good and all Congars and Coplins were bad was a major indication of the bad writing of EF in the book. This was why I liked the mixing of good and bad characteristics for the EF5 side of town (e.g., Mat's dysfunctional family) was a vast improvement from the book. It was much more realistic. It also justified why Mat was the one and only jerk (e.g., trickster, gambler, drinker, womanizer, reluctant hero) from the EF side of town, which improve his characterization.

This argument is used all the time and doesn't really pass any serious thought. Let's take it in order: 1. Do you agree that to fit the material in the time frame of the series, they have to cut and combine things from the books? 2. Do you agree that there is material from the cut/combined portions that are still necessary to introduce into the series? 3. Do you agree that there are important elements of the books that don't work well on screen? 4. Do you agree that most of the lore development in the books were verbal instead of visual? 5. Do you agree that there are elements of the books which are not perfect and can be improved? In my case examples include thinking the ending of book 1 and the characterization of EF were both poor in the books. While the series didn't improve on the ending of book 1, they did improve the characterization of EF (as discussed above). 6. Do you agree that much of the characterization of the main characters was POV and could not be shown directly on screen? So if you agree with me on some or all of the above points, please tell me how they can fix them without introducing new material not in the books? 1/2. Cut or combined material is in not in the books, so they require new material to introduce. 3. Since they are trying to produce and interesting TV series, important book material that doesn't work on screen needs to rewritten so that it makes interesting TV while keeping the story moving forward. 4. World development is important. Doing it with dialogue makes a very clunky TV series. Creating visual scenes to introduce world development is a better option. 5. New scenes are needed to fix book problems. Whether they are done well or badly is an individual decision, but just putting bad book stuff on screen is not the right answer. 6. POV can't be put on screen. New material is required. Since most characterization is done via POV in the books, this step can't be skipped. The characterization is critical to the story and absolutely requires new material. Like or dislike some (or all) of the new material, but to make blanket statements about the need to stay with the original story is just silly. If you think it can, you also need to address the structural issues (like the ones above, but also includes technical issues like availability of actors/sets etc.) that mitigate against just putting book material on screen.

I think the actual opening scene was a good choice. It introduced the fundamental tension of the series, male channelers go mad and the world is deathly afraid of them. Will Rand go mad before he saves the world?

Extreme disagreement with this take. A long time between series is a major negative and impacts the show writing. VERY few people will rewatch several years of shows to refresh themselves on nuances and subtle plot points before watching a new season. I like the series and am rereading the books for the second time, which makes me a fairly hardcore fan, and I have no desire to rewatch the series prior to season 3 to refresh myself on the series nuances. Since you don't like the series and only watched a few episodes in season 1, I'm not sure you have your finger on the pulse of series viewers. The implication is that the writers have to introduce broad strokes that people can remember and stay away from too many subtle points, outside of easter eggs and some surprises for the hardcore fans. A good example might be the Steppin storyline which many people disliked. Instead of a short bit of dialogue to establish important issues with the bond, they introduced a set of scenes to dramatize the issue. Would they have made the same choice if the seasons were closer together and the writers thought that the viewers would remember and understand it presented as dialogue? Don't know, but possible.

You don't have to show anything and can criticize the series anyway you want. The rest of us will just think that your criticisms are shallow and uninteresting.

Lazy, maybe. Disingenuous, yes. The whole thrust of my argument was to look at the series holistically instead of looking at pieces in isolation. Your counterexample to prove me wrong is to take an isolated scene and determine that it could be rewritten to be closer to the book without breaking anything else (ignoring any knock-on effects the rewrite may cause). Congratulations, you win. I'm willing to concede that you can take isolated scenes and rewrite them to be closer to the book, but this doesn't come close to showing that the adaptation as a whole, not isolated scenes, is better if written to more closely follow the source material.

If it sounds like I'm going on a rant here, I apologize in advance. I am getting very tired of this lazy argument that the show is against RJ because some individuals don't like it. Fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion and there are certainly things about the show to dislike. I call it lazy because these individuals never present arguments, but simply state they don't like it and that shows the bad intent/incompetence of the writers and proves the conspiracy against Robert Jordon. There are 3 factors that come into play that have to be accounted for in deciding how well the show is adapted. These are production constraints (e.g., budget; transforming a series as sprawling as WoT into maybe 64 episodes; routine filming issues like sets, costumes, actors, locations, and stretched out real world running time etc.; and WoT specific issues like the number of characters and the use of internal monologue for much of the character and plot development), the need to produce an interesting TV series, and inspiration from the source material. I and others have repeatedly invited the commentors who think that the series is an affront to Jordon to address how to better adapt the series while taking all three factors identified above into consideration. Yet, time after time, they only address the third point that the series is not faithful enough to the original and that shows that the series is insulting Robert Jordon. I, at least, would be far more open to their arguments if they addressed the show holistically instead of from the comparatively narrow perspective of book fidelity.

Not being "interested in the explanation" is on par for this discussion. It adds nothing substantive, just another assertion that I'm right and the writers are incompetent or evil. I'm one of those who thinks that WoT is basically unfilmable as written, especially when you include all the production issues involved, so I'm not as hung-up on book fidelity as others. The one thing that I would like in this discussion is a good faith effort from those who think that the book can be filmed as written to address all the real writing and production issues. I am not a writer or producer, but here is a short list of random things I think impact the writing and cause changes from the written source (DigificWriter can probably add more). Mundane issues: Standard issues in every multiyear project Money: 1. How many sets can we afford to build - Is our money better spent on a set used once (e.g., Camelyn in season 1) or other things. 2. How many costumes can we afford to create - is our money better spent on a set of costumes used once or other things 3. How much CGI can we afford 4. How to structure the story for efficient filming (cost, time, crew implications). For example, show most of Rand's/Mat's adventures in one place in season 1 instead of multiple locations. Actors: 1. What actors do we hire - WoT has lots of people who disappear for books and then reappear. Options include hire a known actor and hope they are available 5 years in the future when they are needed again, ignore the character, hire a complete unknown and hope they are available in 5 years when they are needed again, change the story to give them something to do during the 5 years to ensure their availability (e.g., Moiraine/Lan in season 2), recast the character in 5 years etc. 2. Training the actor - If an actor needs specialized skills (e.g., Rand and sword fighting), is it worth the time and money to train the actor, will the skill look good on screen, and how often will they use the skills. Good TV: 1. Show, not tell. Dialogue must supplement the visuals, not be the main mechanism to accomplish major plot and character points. 2. Identify the things in the books that work on TV and those that don't work on TV - All things that the writers determine don't work on TV have to be modified, eliminated, or accomplished through other means if critical to the story. 3. This is a long series that will take place over 10-12 real world years if all 8 years are produced - Subtle details will be lost over the years, so everything important has to be memorable or repeated ad nauseum. People remember long, in your face story arcs much better than dialogue or short, subtle scenes. 4. Heros must be likable (in the long-run) and relatable to the modern audience. You may call this an agenda, but nobody is going to watch 8 seasons over 12 years for characters they don't like and they don't relate to. Things that the audience won't relate to must be eliminated, modified, or achieved through other mechanisms if critical to the plot. WoT specific: 1. Most of the character development was driven through inner monologues. This character development had to be shown on screen in some fashion. 2. Lots of world and magic system building required. Several points above address why it might be better to do this through new material than try to force book material on screen. 3. Parts of the books were not very good (e.g., ending of EotW, depiction of EF, vast repetition of material to ensure readers remember the details from previous books, how many fights with Ishy were needed to climax books etc.) 4. Multiple simultaneous plot and character threads (after book 3 there are almost always 4 or 5 main threads and a couple of minor ones on-going at all times) with limited screen time is hard for an audience to follow. Agree that the writers missed on some decisions and it's too soon to know on others, but I don't see how "follow the books more closely" doesn't result in an unfilmable train wreck. I wish you would prove me wrong, but that would require addressing the writing and the decisions holistically within the context of the problems and constraints of adapting a long book series to a multi-year TV series. Just saying, follow the books is not convincing. I loved that change. I thought the book's description of EF was badly flawed because everyone was too gentile which is not realistic for a place like EF on the far edge of civilization. One of my main issues with Mat in the books was why was he, of all the EF folks, a jackass. He was a trickster, cad, gambler, and money grubber. Coming from a broken home answered the questions. He was a trickster to relieve the pressure from a bad home. He got his other bad habits as a result of his home life. Finally, his reluctant hero motif was a powerful redemption story on how his heroic nature transcended his broken home. So for me, the change greatly improved his character arc.