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.

On 3/3/2024 at 4:50 AM, books of Robert Jordan said:

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/DEIA_InclusionReport_2023_RF.pdf

If you check enough boxes then the quality of the product doesn’t matter.  The subjective value of art is secondary to the objective value of making sure you’ve got more checked boxes than the next guy.

On 1/16/2024 at 8:14 AM, Jaccsen said:

Their UI, at least on Roku, is terrible. This makes the experience just poor. I used to purchase movies and TV shows via Amazon but the UI is so bad that it makes it not worth it. For example, I purchased Macross 2. It is unavailable for purchase now. I still have it but I have to scroll through everything to find it (search does not work). You cannot even organize your purchases alphabetically.

 

I barely use Prime Video any longer because of it. Paying a monthly fee for a service that has maybe 1-2 watchable shows is just not worth it.

 

 

Prime’s UI is one of the worst I have ever seen.

Some people can’t taste the subtleties between different glasses of wine and are happy with a mediocre house red.

Some people don’t know the difference between a prime cut of beef and chuck and are happy with whatever steak they are served.

Some people can’t differentiate the tone of a show with its basic plot map and are happy with whatever they’re served as long as point A and point B are the same.

Others are more sensitive to subtle and non-tangible change and recognize how it alters the end product.

On 12/14/2023 at 2:49 PM, Kaleb said:

I've seen people address this point with what seems like a sensible justification for not doing that. In TV, audiences can get really upset if they expect a family-friendly fantasy show from a first season and then end up with more sex and violence as the show goes on. Basically, if a show is going to have any mature-level sex and violence, the producers want to show at least some of that right up front.

There’s also the old adage that sex sells.  I fell like what we see far more often is a show luring an audience in with sex and nudity and then toning it down later in the series.  Sometimes this might be because of renewed contracts with renewed language but I also think that some studios (HBO more than others) really try to use sex and nudity as a hook.

They changed the entire tone of the show and completely changed most of the characters just to try and make it “darker” and “more edgy.”  Robbing the EF5 of their early innocence was unforgivable character assassination; what they did to Thom was laughable.  There are many issues with the show and the shift in tone right out of the gates was a slap in the face to fans.

Since they cast Shiriam as a woman with grey hair maybe the can make Cad a redhead?😂

Agreed to all of the above!  She’s been great so far.

9 hours ago, Samt said:

I’m calling it as I see it. If you want to be offended, that’s a you choice.

 

We have the show runners stating their political goals. We have people on this forum praising the show for changing certain political aspects.  

 

Then we have people above claiming there weren’t political changes.  Assuming that this is a blindspot caused by personal bias is actually the less offensive assumption.  The alternative is that Daddyfinn is intentionally gaslighting for his own subversive political goals.

They are absolutely blind to it.  I've said the same exact things as you.

If you want to see something very interesting, watch the review I post of S1E1.  The reviewer is freelance editor and she is simply amazing.  She understands writing and storytelling and breaks down the episodes very thoroughly.  She is highly critical but in a very technically proficient way.  She's also not a book "fan" and has only begun reading the series just enough to stay ahead in the books of where the show is.  It is a very interesting perspective.  I'm sure she'll be disregarded simply as a "hater" by some but her analysis is far better than any others I've seen or read.  She has reviews of the entire first season up through S2E2 so far and they do get progressively longer, but they are worth listening to in the background, though her editing is excellent as well and worth a view.

16 hours ago, books of Robert Jordan said:

No data... (= not in the Top Ten in the Original subcategory)

(According to Nielsen it's under 289.)

Please expound.  Is this in response to someone or are these the latest numbers?  I’m not ratings savvy so what does the Nielsen rating mean?

23 minutes ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

However, you might disagree, the rules of logic are what they are. If we were arguing about a quote from the book, it would completely be wrong to appeal to any one as an authority on the book. Not because their knowledge is not worthwhile but because it is not a valid argument. 

 

While being an expert in something can add weight to your opinion, it does not elevate the subjective into the objective. 

 

And also describing what is wrong with something and why is not the same as making a blanket judgement based on being an expert. 

 

And the one issue you are overlooking is that if Brandon Sanderson was arguing with me, he would be wrong 🙂

You reference the rules of logic but in inductive argumentation, appeals to authority are not de facto fallacious and in fact can offer validity.  
 

I love logic.  I won’t cite my experience because you seem to find that fallacious but if you want to talk logic and its rules in the framework of this show we could start a whole thread as this show has more logical inconsistency than most shows I’ve seen.

This is all interesting and certainly something that can happen in this day and age of streaming.  It’s like patching a show 😀

I watched season 1 twice but it has probably been a year and I don’t know if I’d pick up on changes if they aren’t drastic.

I’m interested to hear more.

On 11/4/2023 at 5:24 PM, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I would suggest you come better armed to a discussion with me. 

Come off it with this garbage.  Authority is not de facto fallacious and him offering his experience actually adds cogency to an argument.  What an insufferable response from you.

By your illogic, Brandon Sanderson couldn’t argue with you either because his bona fides would be, according you you, a fallacious appeal to authority.

On 10/30/2023 at 6:03 AM, Scarloc99 said:

also Black Ajah it is in character to also give misinformation and lie? 

Except Moiraine witnessed the scene.  Liandrin couldn’t be lying in this scene or Moiriane would have identified her as black.

Simply put, more run time does not fix the writing problems.

Could a story of this scope use more screen time?  Probably.  Is that the solution for this team?  No.

20 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I truly do not understand why people are trashing the writing and direction of this show. I get that some of you are consumed by rage that the show isn't a shot for shot adaptation of the source material but the books are still there for you to read if you want to. You don't even have to watch the show, much less come onto fan sites and complain about it. The complaints you raise have been made ad nauseum since the first trailer was released and no one is changing their mind based on your repeated claims that Jordan has been insulted.

People trash the writing and direction of this show because it is D-Tier amateurish and the source material deserves better.  If the books were just “Twilight”-level schlock maybe more of us would be willing to roll over and praise whatever they are shoveling but many of us expect better for a higher-tier work of literature.  We wanted  Lord of the Rings and we were given Rings of Power.   Nobody is here to change your mind or to say that you can’t enjoy the show but we have every right to be critical and to argue back against complacency.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.