15 hours ago, henrywho said:

anyone who has read the books and believes the TV series is an acceptable adaptation of the books is NOT a fan of the books and is in desperate need of psychological evaluation.

It's not a very smart idea to directly insult the people who run this site and host these forums with a comment like this.

@SinisterDeath The writer's strike was primarily about the following things:

1. Writers' pay in an era of digital streaming

2. Protections against AI being used to replace writers altogether

3. Pension and Healthcare benefits

4. Job security for writers

None of these things have anything whatsoever to do with the general operation and functions of writers' rooms, which do still exist in far more television productions than you seem to think.

6 minutes ago, Samt said:

You keep trying to make this really complicated but refuse to answer direct questions about it.  I'm inclined to believe that's because they don't have good answers, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.  

 

So use your knowledge and experience to explain to me:

 

Why did the writers choose to call LTT the Dragon Reborn instead of the Dragon?

I'm not in their heads and therefore cannot provide an answer. You would need to pose that question directly to Rafe.

My guess, based on how my own individual thought process works when it comes to writing, would be that it provides an easy shorthand for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the books while also accurately reflecting a truth about the nature of reincarnation in the world of the books and television series.

You pedantically obsessing over it as if it's some egregious faux pas (it's not) only serves as an indictment of you, not the writers.

2 minutes ago, Samt said:

We get it.  You don't like the books and don't care about them.

 

Calling LTT the Dragon Reborn is not what is making the show bad and ultimately not a big deal on its own.  It's just an obvious example of the problem that pervades the writing.  It shows that the writers don't really understand or care about the source material.  It's basically inconceivable that some higher-ups forced them to not simply call him the Dragon.  The writers did it all on their own.  There was no greater plan.  No reason that it condenses the story or helps make it more understandable for TV.  They did it because they couldn't be bothered to get it right.  

 

That's the point of this thread.  For all of the constraints and setbacks and challenges, a lot of the failures are just an obvious lack of motivation to understand the books and faithfully adapt them.  

 

When I say that I'm not really interested as to why, it's because it all feels like an excuse.  It's like somebody explaining to me why a joke is funny when I didn't laugh.  The show is bad.  Explanations don't make it better.  

You can keep making these claims until you are blue in the face; however, repeating them ad nauseam will not change the basic fact that nothing you say even remotely comports with the knowledge and experiences that I have gained as it pertains to the actual general processes of television writing in general and adaptational television writing in particular.

4 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Producers/Studio Executives can and will interfere with how a Movie/TV show is written or directed.
The metaphor of "Architecture" and "writing" was used to illustrate the relationship between the Client (producer) and the architect (Writer). 

 

"Change orders" are a very real thing in the construction industry that causes Architects/Drafters to beat their head against a wall when the client makes a new demand.... and this is also something that 100% definitely exists in Hollywood... because ultimately the client is the person with the money (Producer).

What follows is a general description of how the television writing process generally works and how a television writing room typically functions, as per the experience of my TV writer collaborator.

The process for creating a television series typically begins with a writers' meeting that usually occurs about a month before production begins. At this meeting, the Showrunner generally presents an overall layout of stories that need to be taken from idea to completed script, and writing assignments for individual scripts are then given out, with the priority being the premiere episode(s) (if the premiere is intended to be a multi-parter).

Each individual writer is then given a predetermined period of time by the Showrunner in which to take their assigned projects from planning to initial draft to final approved script; this period of time is typically 7 to 8 days (which is the standard minimal shooting time for a single episode of television), and allows a television series to be continually filming without having to pause the workflow.

Some notes on the typical functions and duties of a Showrunner:

1. They are usually the seniormost writer in a writer's room

2. They are the final authority when it comes to the finalization of all scripts

3. They may or may not provide a 'final polish' on the scripts that are submitted to them

4. They may or may not reach out to or collaborate with other members of the production team (such as a Consulting Producer) before offering final approval to an individual script, or instruct an individual writer to do so themselves

1 hour ago, Jaccsen said:

 

There it is again. Directs insults of ignorance and then the tired gatekeeping argument that gets trotted out to malign anyone who disagrees with the elites who want to tell you what you should like. I can play the same game here. I have a degree in publishing with focuses on creative writing and screenwriting. I have worked in the field for a long time.

 

I find the writing on the show lazy and poorly done. Does my education suddenly make my opinion more worthy and less ignorant and naïve?

 

 

Nothing I said here is either insulting or gatekeeping behavior, merely commentary on how and why I believe that arguments against the show such as the premise upon which this thread is predicated are rooted in ignorance and lead to gatekeeping behavior.

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Do you remember Rafe's story where the other writers in the room were talking about changing Perrin's power from Wolves to Bears, and Rafe had to Interject before Sarah had an aneurysm and started stabbing people? (paraphrasing here)

 

Some of the other writers they hired were too worried about the optics of WoT looking like a GoT knock off that they wanted to change Perrin's core ability from Wolves to Bears... Making him... Bear Brother.

 

These same writers also couldn't see the implicit colorism/racism of making a black actor (Marcus Rutherford) a Bear Brother when his book counterpart was a Wolf Brother. Though it should be noted, I don't know if they had already cast people at this time, or if this was before casting. But Holy shit. If they went with, not only would it have pissed of every fan, the racism optics of that is just absolutely bonkers bad... It's also something Rafe never acknowledged from that story. (which at least leads me to believe this was before casting?)

Point is. That was one story that didn't get through the writing process. Obviously Mat's parents did.

The other thing you have to consider is that just because they finish a script in that room, doesn't mean they don't have to come back for rewrites when mother (amazon) says re-write.

 

Amazon might come back with redlined notes like "make this character darker". "Make this character a drunk". "Make this character gritter". "Make the episode darker". "Make it more like game of thrones".

 

Then the writers have to go back through, and tweak everything they've already written based off those notes.

 

Why didn't Egwene's father have more lines?

Probably because those notes cut him short.

Why did they cast "Cenn Buie", only to change him to "Old Man" in the credits?

Those notes all play a role...

 

If you want a better example then a racecar driver... Think of an Architect designing a house.

 

You approach an Architect and say want a 4000SF house and you've got $1M to build it. 

You present the Architect with the Land you've already purchased.  You show the Architect a picture of a house you really like, and some descriptions of what you'd like inside that house.

Few months later, the architect presents you the plans!

It's a two story, 50'x40' house, the exterior looks identical to the picture!

The interior layouts look nothing like you imagined it however! 

You wanted the bedrooms on the first floor, and the kitchen on the top floor. You wanted a walk-in-closet in the master bedroom. A shared bathroom for 2 of the bedrooms. A Large Pantry.

 

The Architect looks confounded as none of this was in the original notes! They even explain that typically bedrooms go on the top floor, and kitchens are on the bottom floor!

 

The Architect makes the changes a few weeks later. You return, look over them and ask if the architect could remove a wall down the center of building to add a pool. The Architect sighs and explains that's a load bearing wall and while it's possible it would cost a lot of money and would vastly change the core structure of the building.

 

And so it goes, for months and months. Redlining and changes and by the time the project is done, it looks nothing like the "original draft". If your lucky it's still under budget and doesn't get canceled for going over.

None of these things accurately represent the way in which a television writing room actually functions, at least based on the general practices that were explained to me by my aforementioned TV writer collaborator.

Objecting to a term like "the Dragon Reborn" being applied explicitly to characters other than Rand is emblematic of the ignorance and naivete that fuels threads like this one and that leads directly to gatekeeping and unfair attacks on the credibility and competence of the individuals responsible for this adaptation.

It's also the epitome of pedantry.

2 hours ago, Samt said:

In regards to fidelity being entirely subjective, that's a rather silly attempt to deny the failure by trying to break the measuring stick.  Your continued assertion that this is a reasonable position frankly undercuts my ability to take your judgment on any related issue seriously.  Even @Elder_Haman above acknowledged that of course it was possible to make a more faithful adaptation.  

I'm not under any obligation to agree with or endorse any other posters' assertions, especially when I fundamentally believe those assertions to be based on a false premise according to my own personal experiences and knowledge.

In my opinion, the entire premise of this thread is an example of subjective opinions driving people to ask the wrong questions and pass the wrong kinds of judgments based on ignorance and naivete.

14 minutes ago, Samt said:

So you are arguing that it would be literally impossible for a more faithful adaptation to be made?

 

Frankly, you just seem to be saying that it's impossible and that only the smart people can even understand why.  Without elaboration, I just take that to mean that you lack the imagination to solve the problems.  

The question of fidelity is irrelevant to this conversation because it is entirely subjective.

Not everyone is going to be happy with - or agree with - the choices that these writers have made. However, there is a stark difference between critiquing/criticizing those choices and using those choices to question these writers' commitment to the source material and their competency as storytellers.

41 minutes ago, Samt said:

Are you saying that the machine is so cumbersome and restrictive that the show creators and writers effectively don't have creative control of the products they are producing?  They just turn the crank and something comes out?  

 

That's like saying that we have this sausage machine and because of the way we clean it, the sausage always comes out with a strong taste of soap.  It's not our fault.  That's just how the machine was made.  

 

Even if that is true, it just means that someone needs to get the power and imagination to break the machine.  At some level, someone is responsible.  And I'm suspicious that guy likes the taste of soap.  

 

No.

I'm unequivocally stating - based on the personal knowledge and experiences that I detailed earlier - that I believe that comments questioning the competency and commitment of these writers ignorantly - and unfairly - ignore or dismiss the intricate realities of television writing and of the adaptation process itself.

2 hours ago, Jaccsen said:

I se this argument used in excess to defend this show. 

 

The showrunner has come out to say that this is his version of the turning of the Wheel. It is not complicated to hew closer to the books. The writers have written entire episodes that have no connection to the events in the books. The writers have not even tried to be internally consistent either.

 

It has nothing to do with how television writing works. The showrunner and writers have made purposeful decisions to change things and not to suit the needs for television but rather to suit their own vision of the story.

 

The argument that people are either not smart enough or not "educated" to the realities of TV writing is a bit insulting.

Not trying to brag here, but I have actually directly collaborated with a former television writer who taught me (and our other mutual collaborators, of which there were several) about the general established functions of a television writing room and about the hours and hours of work that individual writers put in to bring a television series to life.

Through my collaboration with the above individual and our other collaborators, I also learned firsthand about the difficulties, complexities, and subtleties involved in specifically adapting something from one medium to another.

Other people might trot out the "complainers don't understand" argument, but when I do it, I do so based on my own personal knowledge and experiences.

There's not a lot that I think I can say about many of the most recent posts in this thread without getting myself in trouble, so all I will say is that said posts demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge about how television writing works and the intricacies, difficulties, subtleties, and complexities involved in it.

On 10/30/2023 at 5:11 AM, Scarloc99 said:

There was plenty of stuff in the Simarilion to make a really good story without making all those changes and more

Amazon doesn't have filmic rights to The Silmarillion, so the creative team behind RoP were forced to create their own story by drawing on the sources - the LotR novels and their Appendices - that they did have filmic rights to and that didn't directly rehash the Peter Jackson LotR Trilogy (despite not being legally able to directly reference it, there was no desire to supplant it).

On 10/27/2023 at 6:42 PM, Berty1102 said:

This whole show is a train wreck if you know and loved the books.

There are a number of incredibly prominent, well-known, and well-respected die-hard book fans - many of whom I've previously cited directly by either their real names or their online handles - who would loudly and vociferously dispute this statement.

I voted 'Other' because I firmly believe that Rafe and his team will in fact 'kill' Moiraine, but then manufacture a storyline reason for having Rosamund continue to appear as the Series Lead and primary POV character.

I don't have any speculation as to how they'll go about doing so, but I do think that's the general route that they'll take.

4 hours ago, Mailman said:

If you break your own established world rules that is bad writing

Incorrect.

4 hours ago, Mailman said:

If you write your characters to do something that is completely against anything that character would ever do then that is bad writing

Also incorrect.

The author is the ultimate arbiter of how characters behave or what the 'rules' of the world are, and it may become necessary to intentionally have a character behave in a manner that is inconsistent or break the rules of the world as established in order to service the narrative. Doing so does not automatically or objectively equal 'bad' writing, nor does it objectively or automatically equal 'good' writing.

An objective standard of quality writing does not exist, regardless of how badly some might want to believe otherwise.

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.

10 minutes ago, RitualM said:

But it is a bad adaptation and bad writing

In your opinion

6 hours ago, Jake Sykwalker said:

Saying it isn't a good adaptation is objective truth

6 hours ago, Jake Sykwalker said:

Saying the writing is low quality is objective truth

A

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

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

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

5 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

Are you unable to accept that book lovers also love this show, enjoy it and are not just “accepting” but love it for what it is and enjoy the changes? 

Judging by both this thread and his/her/their other thread (Season 2 finale was so cringy, how are you all not upset? (Spoilers)), the answer to that question is 'Yes'.

As both a professional author and official Consulting Producer, Brandon has every right to be critical of aspects of the series' writing, but there is a distinct difference between being critical and being negative, and I don't see any negativity in the summaries of his comments that have been posted or alluded to here in this thread.

2 minutes ago, Maximillion said:

what happened to the head of the blue Ajah??

She was crushed to death by debris.

1 minute ago, Elder_Haman said:

Spoiler

As book readers, we can expect Moridin though.

 

Not necessarily.

13 hours ago, Mailman said:

Season 2 really poo's on the canon.

This is an incorrect statement.

8 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

I will admit that I didn’t anticipate it devolving into nonsense.  I never agreed with your stance but I thought they would at least have a logical resolution, not the self-contradictory idiocy they gave us.  Did anyone have “you remove the collar by removing the bracelet” on their WoT Bingo card?  Shame it didn’t work like that two episodes ago…

And that's not how it worked here.

Also, how did everything devolve into contradictory nonsense? The gist of the argument everyone was using to push back against my argument is that Sharon Gilham and freelance writer Amy Ratcliffe were wrong in stating that the collar portion of the a'dam could only be removed upon the death of the damane wearing it, which is exactly what this episode demonstrated.

Yes, the show found a way to get the collar off Egwene specifically that got around that caveat, but the caveat was still true nonetheless.