Just now, WhiteVeils said:

So, you are saying because that if a discussion does not condemn the series, you dismiss it?

I am saying that concluding that changes are good from a podcast that functions as a commercial is not sensible. I do not find one-sided podcasts like this credible.

1 hour ago, WhiteVeils said:

I've been listening to the Wheel Takes with Ali and Gus podcast (here:  Wheel Takes (buzzsprout.com)).  Ali is a professional scriptwriter and script 'polisher' (person who takes earlier drafts of scripts and cleans them up to be made professionally) for movies and television.  I used to wonder if those people saying the writing for this show is lazy or sloppy had a point, but after listening to it analyzed on this podcast, I just have to laugh. There is NOTHING about this series that is done lazily and thoughtlessly.  

Every change has been done for a reason, very intentionally, to heighten clarity or increase audience engagement and enjoyment.  So much of the point of what is going on that seems like changes are to set things up for future seasons.  They want to tell the whole story and they're doing everything that they possibly can to be able to give you ALL those moments you want, not just EOTW moments.

I took a listen to a couple of the episodes, and I found the podcast to be absolutely ridiculous. It is completely devoid of criticism, and sounds like hours of commercials. You're right. They defend every change, and it makes the whole "discussion" useless. 

5 hours ago, ilovezam said:

Logain's episode was pretty cool!

 

There you go, the one thing done well in the show. Kinda.

The scene with Rand's mom at the beginning of episode 7 was amazing! It made me think it was all going to be worth it. I was smiling the whole time. I even paused afterwards and called my brother (who has also read the books) to tell him my experience without spoiling, to get him onboard with the show again. After the episode had ended, I called him up again and apologized. I'm glad he dodged the last episode. 

IMDB uses a weighted average when calculating the average score for each show/movie. Which means that not all scores are worth as much when calculating the mean. This method is hidden as to avoid manipulation. It is, however, equally utilized. https://help.imdb.com/article/imdb/track-movies-tv/ratings-faq/G67Y87TFYYP6TWAV#

This, no doubt, is partly why shows are generally highly rated on IMDB. Of course, it does not mean that 7.2 is a "good" score. You have to look at what shows are within the same tier. Preferably fantasy shows. As has been mentioned, The Witcher and GoT has it soundly beat by whole points. 

At 7.2, WoT has the same rating as the Shannara Chronicles. Which shows that this show has not been well recieved, or that it is "good" in objective (numerical) terms. Some may enjoy it of course, but they are not objectively supported as strongly as one who claims for example that "GoT" as "good". 

For me it was the changes in episode 8. They are too many to list, so I'll be general. I had waited for that episode to clear up foundational aspects regarding the true source, character's motivations, the dragon reborn etc. At least, deliver the main character's defining moment. None of that happened. Instead, they made things even worse, and central structures from the book got obliterated. I can't even  imagine the horrorshows they can create in future epic scenes like Dumai's Wells. So, for me, they need to change things up drastically to bring me back in.

1 hour ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110830121754/https://www.metacritic.com/tv/game-of-thrones/season-1/user-reviews

 

https://www.metacritic.com/tv/the-wheel-of-time

 

The first of these links is from the Internet Archive. It's a page from August 2011 which shows the user reviews and score of GoT only a few months after its conclusion in June 2011. (The second link is self-explanatory). 

 

Notice that GoT Season 1 had as many positive ratings 2 months after airing as WoT has total ratings (good and bad), and it's user score is nearly double that of WoT. It's critic score was also significantly higher. 

 

There were fans of the GoT books in 2011. If GoT is comparable to WoTtv in the liberties it takes with its source material, where were the negative reviews? This show was nothing in 2011. People didn't yet feel obligated to like it, but its seems that most people loved it, book fans included. 

 

Ratings for Season 1 GoT began in the low 2 millions per episode but climbed to 3 million by the finale. In comparison, Amazon is touting 1.16 billion viewing minutes (whatever the heck that means). Estimates I've seen about the viewing numbers suggest WoT was pulling 10 million an episode (and that's on the low end). 

 

So why are the number of ratings equal? Why did GoT Season 1 pull in as many user reviews in 2011 (When the internet was a much smaller place) as WoT did in 2021 despite GoT having 1/5th the viewership? 

 

The sad truth is that no one cares about the WoT show. It was shoved in their faces, they ate it up, but they didn't go online to talk about it. They didn't leave reviews. They don't care. 

I have just begun watching season 1 of GoT again, intending to watch the whole series. The difference in quality when it comes to pacing, writing, music, world building, character building, couloring, acting is absolutely staggering.

I never expected WoT (show) to be competing on the same level, due to many factors. Still, I was really hoping it would not become so catastrophically weak im comparison. As a fan I've dreamt of the creation of this show for decades, especially after how GoT showed that it could actually be done. 

2 hours ago, EmreY said:

2 hours ago, Tamal said:

Of course "we do not know" is 100% error free, but that is a meaningless truism when it comes to statistics. You can infer all sorts of spurious correlations to any kind of result today, but that does'nt mean that polls are useless. If the poll was non-anonymous and we put in the read/not-read variable; Would that satisfy? We cannot know if the respondents are truthful. We also cannot know how many people pushed the wrong result, or have changed their mind afterwards, or hate both the show and the books.

 

Ah, you begin to see the strength of the logical side of the Force.  But...

The resistance to irony is strong in this one. 

2 hours ago, EmreY said:

You are seeking to define axioms where none may exist (how do you know the forum and the internet won't be superseded by something else?), and your inferences are just plain strange.  

 

How very Erasmus Montanus. ? I will take my reason, thank you very much. It allows me to assume that this forum has people with stronger and more substantive opinions on Robert Jordan than the local football pub on a given day, because they have read the books. An absolutely insane proposition, of course. 

1 hour ago, EmreY said:

 

Very logical conclusion.  Saying we do not know is the only conclusion that is 100% error-free.  

 

While I agree that it might be likely that there are more book readers responding to this than non-book-readers, I do not know.   Nor do you know.  In addition, we haven't the foggiest idea of how the breakdown goes on the like/dislike scale.  You can make assumptions all you like, but that doesn't mean anything.

Of course "we do not know" is 100% error free, but that is a meaningless truism when it comes to statistics. You can infer all sorts of spurious correlations to any kind of result today, but that does'nt mean that polls are useless. If the poll was non-anonymous and we put in the read/not-read variable; Would that satisfy? We cannot know if the respondents are truthful. We also cannot know how many people pushed the wrong result, or have changed their mind afterwards, or hate both the show and the books.

What we do know, is that this is the Dragonmount forum. It existed before this show, it shall outlast it, and it is made and represented by people who have read the books, bar an (hypotehetically) insignificant (in a statistical sense) number of people who have not. Logical conclusion:

The people who have voted generate a minority of people who like the show, and all values are represented by people who have read the books. 

In any case. Time for me to stop going on these off-topic rants. ?

1 hour ago, EmreY said:

No-one knows the breakdown of voting.  It could be that there were 100 book readers in the group of 101 that liked the TV series and 0 in the 137 that didn't.  Or the reverse.  To use it as an indicator of book readers liking or not liking the series is dangerous.  (Which is why I said that one needed to go and look at the comments.)

 

I would therefore argue that we cannot say whether book readers like the TV series or not based off the poll.  (Or whether non-book-readers do or not.)

Very dubious conclusion. Logically, the overwhelming majority of people on this forum are readers of the books. To separate the two (we agree on that one), is therefore a meaningless exercise. There is absolutely no reason to expect that this poll is not reflective of a general trend on this manner.

Namely, that regardless of hypothetizing regarding "readership status", more people on here dislike the show than those who like it. To a significant degree. And there is absolutely no reason why we should assume that a sizeable portion of those who have voted have not read the books. 

I depressingly concur with most of the choir here. Judkins and the producers had a gigantic budget for 8 episodes compared with other show. Most likely exceeding the first seasons of Game of Thrones, meaning around 10 million dollars for each episode. 

The fault lies with Judkins, the writers and the producers. One thing I'd also like to add is that the music and the score is of  extremely low quality. It's just mindbogglingy bad compared with e.g. GoT and other shows and movies, on an objective basis. 

I just cannot understand how this was possible. And how I wish I could be more positive. I tried so hard. 

49 minutes ago, EmreY said:

 

Thanks for making me feel old.  However, LoTR was made when the internet was around. ? 

 

 

 

Major character differences books-to-film

 

Gimli goes from being occasionally comical because he's out of his depth or place to a Disney comedy sidekick, who is funny because he gets thrown or has armour that is too big for him.

 

Legolas becomes a circus performer.

 

Aragorn goes from being "Aragorn son of Arathorn, the heir of Isildur, Elendil's son" (repeat at every intro and at various other points) to "the same weakness is in me, I am not worthy".  And where are the hands of a healer?  Half the reason Stuart Townsend was let go was because he wanted to play book Aragorn rather than the film.  Aragorn does not take a deep breath of responsibility settling on him when crowned.  In the book there are four heroes - Gandalf (the spiritual), Aragorn (the temporal) and Frodo and Sam (the practical).  In the films, the man who is supposed to lead the world in the Age of Man comes off eaxctly as Denethor describes him.

 

Denethor goes from tragic and complex figure to bad guy gorging himself while he sends his son out on a suicide mission.  Gandalf orders the beacons be lit?

 

Wormtongue goes from being poisonous to being generic Brad Dourif.

 

Faramir gets seriously rewritten/downgraded - for no real reason since he comes back to book Faramir.

 

Death.  "Far green country" indeed!?  

 

 

Scenes missing / changed

 

Aragorn wrests control of the Palantir (which does not backfire); the unfurling of his banner (instead we get the Green Suds of Doom); Houses of Healing and is at least temporarşly acclaimed king; Halbarad & Co;.

 

The Temptation of Samwise Gamgee.

 

The real reason why the Ring was destroyed at the end.  Which is kind of a big thing, you know.

 

 

 

 

 

In short, it seems to me that the issue here is not that the LoTR films are particularly faithful (they, IMO naturally, become less so as they progress) but that you consider the changes less important than others do.  You also believe the changes to WoT are greater in magnitude or importance.    

 

You, sir, are no Tolkien purist.

 

 

 

Great to see someone with true love for the books I too love so much! I do take offense to that last part though, good sir. Tolkien is my favourite writer of all time, and my memory is fine. ? All of those changes I observed and they irritated me, as I can see that they did you, which, I really appreciate. I still think they are done, mostly, with a high degree of respect, and the core of the story is maintained. But yeah, for example the death exposition and the devaluation of Aragorn? Pure irritation.

I do however think you bring it absolutely too far when you insinuate that they completely corrupted the real reason the ring was destroyed at the end. Gollum does'nt get pushed, granted, but they do have a fight earlier and he dances around in triumph.

In any case, I'll gladly discuss these changes and others, but, most people have'nt got the deep knowledge of the Tolkien books as you have, and the same goes for the Wheel of Time. The problematic issue I am talking about are the big events and the broad strokes of the characters, the thing that people who have only read either of the books only once instantly remember.

The second to last paragraph, you got me spot on. Absolutely. I believe that the EotW show decimated the book characters and events several orders of magnitudes more than the LotR adaption. I stand by that. 

5 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

  

Moving my response since this might be better suited in the adaptation thread. And to show how personal head canon can be, I would say that WoT has not yet made any single change anywhere near as massive as the decision to cut the Scouring of the Shire and leave the hobbits at home innocent of the horrors of war and industrialization. While I despise the Battle of Tarwin's Gap, it certainly didn't eliminate one of the major themes of the entire series by having the women do it instead of Rand.

 

I also don't think they left Gimli's personality intact ("throw me!"). They gave Faramir an entire movie's worth of "I'm taking the ring" because Jackson didn't think anyone could be that good. All while killing Saruman off screen and turning Helm's Deep - with help from the Elves even!- into a sixth of the entire series by run time. He had Sam leave Frodo on the stairs, and had Frodo stare down one of the 9 in Osgiliath, which would have been the ballgame. Fellowship may have a higher degree of fidelity, but the series as a whole didn't.

 

And for the record - I think LoTR was a much easier project than WoT will be. It has fewer cityscapes and locations / costumes, fewer cultures, far fewer named characters (there are more Aes Sedai in the books who will matter than all the named characters in LoTR), and to be honest, a lot less magic and SFX shots to be added in post production. And for all that it was a brutal 18 months of principle photography, LoTR was over and done with in about 2 1/2 years rom the time filming started. WoT will be a 10 year commitment for all involved.

 

Now - compare both of these series to the Harry Potter series, which has a much higher degree of fidelity. But they also were simpler in plot, tone, character, and setting. And had a built in audience that dwarf's WoT or LOTR, so more fidelity was both possible and required.

Good move. Definitely better suited here!

As for your post:

Not suprisingly, my favourite movie is the first one. Yet, even though the last two aren't as good, the equivalency simply does not exist. Someone with time on their hands could of course tabulate locations the two different "fellowships" travel to, characters they meet, and divide them (as you allude to with you Helm's Deep argument) by text spent on them in the books, but the LotR movies would simply come out vastly higher on a "adaption scale"-variable. I don't have that time, but if you have read both the EotW and LotR recentlt, that is easily apparent.

Some small examples are Caemlyn, Elayne, Morgase, Elyas, Elaida being completely absent in the show. 

The comparison makes even less sense when you then factor in changes to the story from the EotW (books). The rulebreakings of healing, saidin/saidar, the "breaking of the fellowship" before the Eye of the World. Aginor and Balthamel gone, Stepin as a major character, Liandrin in the woods as opposed to in Tar Valon. Tar Valon itself. Perrin killing his wife.

It is an argument without merit in my view. 

Now, the worst crimes the show does, together with the changes to the story and the book's very soul, is how it absolutely decimates critical developmental moments in the characters and the characters motivations. 

Gimli is not character assassinated in the movies because he provides some extra laughter. He also does that in the books. He is shown both places to be a proud, fierce, honourable, trusty companion that also provides comic relief. I would have loved to seen more of Faramir in the movies, and that they had not dragged out the ring debacle. Still: He is honourable, he does'nt die, he rejects the ring. He is intact. 

The Scouring of the Shire. I'm thankful that they skipped that one in the movie, even though it meant they had to let Saruman and Grima go in another way. Still, Saruman as a figure is intact. His motivations, his personality, his main arc is the same. It gave them time to focus on more important things from the books in the story.

In the EotW show, Lan is extremely more incompetent than in the books. Mat is somehow inherently evil, instead of shouting out war cries in the old tongue and shooting trollocs with arrows. Rand has almost no struggles with the questions of his parentage. Elaidas questioning, the dialogue with Gawyn, gone. He has lost his defining moment at the end. 

Perrin kills his non-existant wife. I could go on. 

Even though the adaption level of EotW(show) vs LotR (movies) is a useless comparison in my view, the most important thing, and saddest, is that the EotW show is just a terrible show. 

Compared to e.g. Game of Thrones, Lord of The Rings, which are great shows and movies. 

The changes made to The Lord of the Rings are miniscule compared to the complete rewriting we have seen in season one of the WoT-show. I was an absolute nerd about the Tolkien books and remembered even the most ridiculous details from the books, including Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and the other less known ones. I remember being shakingly nervous when going to the cinema to see the first one.

I loved it. They had removed inconsequential things to focus on the core of the story, and all the characters had their personalities intact. I still found the main characters from the book in the movie appealing, and none had their reputations damaged or big scenes taken away. 

In the WoT-show on the other hand, we have the equivalent of Legolas taking down the Balrog in Moria instead of Gandalf. And it's just the tip of an iceberg of disgraceful decisions made by the showrunners. A crying shame. 

My girlfriend has not read the books. She loved Game of Thrones, and thinks the Witcher is okay. She thinks this show is childish, boring and looks (and sounds) like a show made only for teenagers. She loved the scene with Rand's mom being a badass (as did I). After the scene we both got our hopes up again. 

Well.

I actually at times felt embarassed watching the show after hyping it up for her ("on your knees", the whole "Stepin" detour).  I looked forward to watching this with her, but this show's structure is just so unconvincing that I can't even compare it favourably to the most ridiculous of book adaptions on screen. 

Hi!

I signed up for this forum due to the last episode, I'm afraid to say. I wish the circumstances were better. 

What an abomination. I stuck through the entire season, ever hopeful for what would at least be a striking visual representation of the most memorable section of the first book. A chance to be hopeful for the series, and somewhat for the integrity of the show's creators as well. I was disappointed to my very core, and my heart sank when one of my childhood heroes moment was taken away. For absolutely no good reason. It was an active decision on the producers/directors part, and it is nothing less than shameful. 

The fact that Judkins is now referencing the books as a defense for the deprived decision of having a small group of non-Aes Sedai rivaling the power of the (newly unveiled) Dragon Reborn is ironic in the most terrible way conceivable. 

As many others have, I also cancelled my amazon subscription because of this. I really feel fans of the books need to be strong and assertive in saying that this is not acceptable. The work of Robert Jordan deserved better than this. It's an insult, and the lengths the showmakers have gone to decimate the world and frame of the books is despicable and disrespectful.