[TV] The Wheel of Time

[Biomega]

I just don't think it's fair to say that every change made from the books is "bad" simply because it's a change from the books.

And almost no one is actually saying this - the people who ARE claiming this are people accusing others of making that argument when they're (mostly) not.

What they're doing is way past irrelevant details. And fans are not happy, that seems quite clear from the reactions so far. Whether or not that fan unhappiness will matter is another story - as people have pointed out, they can well just make a WoT-inspired show that isn't too beholden to the original plot, and that could (at least conceivably) be financially successful. Maybe the fans won't like it but that doesn't have to matter if enough other people do like it. The problem, of course, is that generally shows like this tend to rely on fans to spread the word to non-fans, and vouch for the quality of the show. If instead fans are telling non-fans to stay away, that could have significant impact on the performance. But nothing is set in stone, and Amazon will, of course, know better than to immediately go "omg everyone hates this!" and exacerbate the spiral. So we'll have to wait and see what happens.

For me personally, the show is pretty much dead. I gave it a shot, I hated it, that's that.

[Egomaniac]

And almost no one is actually saying this - the people who ARE claiming this are people accusing others of making that argument when they're (mostly) not.

They aren't giving any other explanation as to why the changes are bad.

[rhorle]

Your whole post is "The prophecies are core to the series". You aren't saying what exactly makes the changes bad.... you're just pointing out that its different from the books and therefore bad.

See. People give reasons but you just dismiss them as not valid. That is being dishonest and stacking any argument people have with you in your favor. The prophecies being changed is a reason for why it is bad. It isn't just one but all of them. From one that happens as the birth of the dragon reborn happens, to ones passed down from the Age of Legends. It changes to allow for a female to channel Saidin as the Dragon wouldn't be a threat if they channel Saidar like other females. Because it is untainted.

But sure I'm simply saying "it is different so it's bad". Lol.

[Biomega]

They aren't giving any other explanation as to why the changes are bad.

So ask them, and don't just assume they're going "not book = bad". Also a lot of the time the reasons are simply implied in the statement, and not exactly spelled out. But it doesn't take a 10,000 word essay (to paraphrase an earlier post) to see why something like making the Dragon Reborn potentially female is a bad change.

[Egomaniac]

See. People give reasons but you just dismiss them as not valid. That is being dishonest and stacking any argument people have with you in your favor. The prophecies being changed is a reason for why it is bad. It isn't just one but all of them. From one that happens as the birth of the dragon reborn happens, to ones passed down from the Age of Legends. It changes to allow for a female to channel Saidin as the Dragon wouldn't be a threat if they channel Saidar like other females. Because it is untainted.

But sure I'm simply saying "it is different so it's bad". Lol.

No, the prophecies being changed is not a reason why it is "bad". It's just a difference from the books. It doesn't mean it's automatically good either. Just different.

And a female dragon could be just as dangerous...even while connecting to Saidar. Not all the Forsaken were men after all. Women just don't go insane using the power. It doesn't mean they can't use it for Evil.

[rhorle]

And a female dragon could be just as dangerous...even while connecting to Saidar. Not all the Forsaken were men after all. Women just don't go insane using the power. It doesn't mean they can't use it for Evil.

No. A female dragon wouldn't be just as dangerous because the female half of the power, Saidar, is not tainted by the Dark One. They are no more of a threat then any other female user. Just because they don't take the 3 oaths doesn't mean they are some scary evil threat. The entire part of the Dragon Reborn that people hated was that he would break the world again. Just like the Dragon did that brought about the end of the Age of Legends.

The Prophecies changing erases that entire threat. Because it was the taint of the Dark One that drove the Dragon mad and caused the world to break. That threat of the taint causing the world to break again doesn't exist if it isn't a tainted power.

[Biomega]

And a female dragon could be just as dangerous...even while connecting to Saidar. Not all the Forsaken were men after all. Women just don't go insane using the power. It doesn't mean they can't use it for Evil.

Really, you think that someone who MIGHT perhaps do evil is "just as dangerous" as someone who WILL go insane?

Also, this kind of misses the whole point of what happened to the Dragon. He wasn't evil. Far from it - he was, in point of fact, one of THE most righteous men of his age. The reason he broke the world is because he went insane after the Dark One tainted the male half of the Power. THAT'S why everyone is afraid of the Dragon Reborn, because they fear it'll happen all over again. That by definition is not the same for a female channeler, because they don't go insane. It's a MASSIVE deviation from the original story.

[Egomaniac]

No. A female dragon wouldn't be just as dangerous because the female half of the power, Saidar, is not tainted by the Dark One. They are no more of a threat then any other female user. Just because they don't take the 3 oaths doesn't mean they are some scary evil threat. The entire part of the Dragon Reborn that people hated was that he would break the world again. Just like the Dragon did that brought about the end of the Age of Legends.

The Prophecies changing erases that entire threat. Because it was the taint of the Dark One that drove the Dragon mad and caused the world to break. That threat of the taint causing the world to break again doesn't exist if it isn't a tainted power.

Again, you're not proving that the change to the prophecies are "bad"...you're just proving that it's different from the books.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a MASSIVE deviation from the original story.

Thanks for proving my point.

[sunxsera]

Saw the first 3 episodes today ... and it's kinda strange. Everything looks so "clean" like actual film sets. It just doesnt feel good somehow.
Trollocs look like from an 1990/2000s movie; story is told in the most boring way.

Pretty dissapointed so far.

[Biomega]

Thanks for proving my point.

Are you being deliberately obtuse there or do you genuinely not understand how a fundamental change from the original plot can have disastrous consequences for an adaptation? There's countless subsequent plot points and world-building elements inherently founded on the fact that the Dragon Reborn would be a man; changing that fact isn't just some detail you can flip around willy-nilly and nothing happens. THAT is why people have a problem with it, and not just "oh but it's not like it is in the books!".

[Coniferous]

Again, you're not proving that the change to the prophecies are "bad"...you're just proving that it's different from the books.

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks for proving my point.

Just how does one prove something subjective - like "this change is bad"? It's an opinion. Asking for someone to prove an opinion is like asking someone to make a house out of water.

[Egomaniac]

Are you being deliberately obtuse there or do you genuinely not understand how a fundamental change from the original plot can have disastrous consequences for an adaptation? There's countless subsequent plot points and world-building elements inherently founded on the fact that the Dragon Reborn would be a man; changing that fact isn't just some detail you can flip around willy-nilly and nothing happens. THAT is why people have a problem with it, and not just "oh but it's not like it is in the books!".

Oh, I understand that changes from the source material can have huge consequences in the adaptation.

I'm just saying that that doesn't make the adaptation bad. It just makes it different.

[Biomega]

Oh, I understand that changes from the source material can have huge consequences in the adaptation.

I'm just saying that that doesn't make the adaptation bad. It just makes it different.

I mean, you're basically just saying "good or bad are subjective" which is both definitely true and eminently unhelpful. It's not as though we have objective ways to judge how good a show is - but in terms of as objective-as-it-gets, adherence to major plot points does rank up there as a possible metric.

The problem with adaptations diverging significantly from the source material is that it's less and less of an adaptation that way. Which begs the question of why not simply do something original in the first place. Additionally, past experience has shown that the percentage of adaptations that make significant changes to the plot at the fundamental level are MAGNITUDES more likely to fail critically and commercially than those that don't. Not a guarantee, of course, but a very clear, very loud warning. It's no coincidence that GoT, for example, took a nosedive straight to the bottom the second it stopped following the plot of the books (though in that case it was because there were no more books, of course). THAT is what fans are concerned about - that they won't like the stuff the showrunners come up with on their own, because there's a reason WoT was successful and the abilities of the writer to write good plots was probably a big part.

And having watched the first 3 episodes, I personally have seen all my fears exactly realized: that this adaptation fails to understand some of the fundamental characteristics of the books, or at least fails to convincingly transfer them to a new medium. The changes to the plot are a big part, but not the only part. It's killed all my desire to see any more of this. And yes of course that doesn't make the show objectively "bad" in any way - because that's a laughable categorization to employ in the first place. It just makes it something I don't like, and judging from a lot of responses, I am not alone in that.

[rhorle]

Again, you're not proving that the change to the prophecies are "bad"...you're just proving that it's different from the books.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is not a reason. You keep trying to dismiss anything you don't agree with as just saying "different is bad" when that isn't what is being said at all. What is the point in even discussing things if everything is dismissed? How can I prove that something is bad when you have even said that the changes are not good or bad? You even stated that you won't call them bad until they change who the Dragon Reborn is.

So why wait to bring attention to problems with the adaptation until your arbitrary line is crossed? Why not admit they are big changes to the story before that line is crossed?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just saying that that doesn't make the adaptation bad. It just makes it different.

So something can be a good adaptation but make major changes to the story? That is by virtue a bad adaptation because it isn't faithful to the story it is adapting for TV. Changing core story elements is not something that is required to make it work on TV. It is a poor adaptation but a good fantasy show. It is less an adaptation and more "inspired by".

You are saying that if they hinted that Hermione was the baby that survived in the Harry Potter films it would be a good adaptation. It be a one because she wasn't that role in the books and the story elements wouldn't work if she was. It would still be a Harry Potter based film but just not an adaptation of the books.

[Egomaniac]

I mean, you're basically just saying "good or bad are subjective" which is both definitely true and eminently unhelpful. It's not as though we have objective ways to judge how good a show is - but in terms of as objective-as-it-gets, adherence to major plot points does rank up there as a possible metric.

The problem with adaptations diverging significantly from the source material is that it's less and less of an adaptation that way. Which begs the question of why not simply do something original in the first place. Additionally, past experience has shown that the percentage of adaptations that make significant changes to the plot at the fundamental level are MAGNITUDES more likely to fail critically and commercially than those that don't. Not a guarantee, of course, but a very clear, very loud warning. It's no coincidence that GoT, for example, took a nosedive straight to the bottom the second it stopped following the plot of the books (though in that case it was because there were no more books, of course). THAT is what fans are concerned about - that they won't like the stuff the showrunners come up with on their own, because there's a reason WoT was successful and the abilities of the writer to write good plots was probably a big part.

And having watched the first 3 episodes, I personally have seen all my fears exactly realized: that this adaptation fails to understand some of the fundamental characteristics of the books, or at least fails to convincingly transfer them to a new medium. The changes to the plot are a big part, but not the only part. It's killed all my desire to see any more of this. And yes of course that doesn't make the show objectively "bad" in any way - because that's a laughable categorization to employ in the first place. It just makes it something I don't like, and judging from a lot of responses, I am not alone in that.

I've never said "You have to like it". I've watched all 4 episodes. I wouldn't say it's great. I havent been scared off yet....but I have concerns.

And of course "Good" and "Bad" are subjective. I'm not saying it's objectively either one. I'm just asking why, in your subjective opinion, the changes are bad. And the only answer I'm getting is "because the books say X".

The prophecy being less specific in this series is "bad" because in the books it was specific. But that doesn't change the fear/hope that normal people are going to have regarding The Dragon being Reborn. He/She is either going to save the World...or Break it again. Plenty reason for normal folk to have concerns...regardless of gender.
Whether The Dragon is male/female when he/she saves/breaks the world is rather unimportant to the average person.

[rhorle]

Whether The Dragon is male/female when he/she saves/breaks the world is rather unimportant to the average person.

You seem to be arguing two different things and equating the two. A show can be good or bad while also being a good or bad adaptation. A poor adaptation won't matter to the average person but it will still be a poor adaptation.

[Biomega]

And of course "Good" and "Bad" are subjective. I'm not saying it's objectively either one. I'm just asking why, in your subjective opinion, the changes are bad. And the only answer I'm getting is "because the books say X".

No offense, but that seems to me more like you wanting to read people's responses like that. Without getting into the usefulness of "good" or "bad" as binary judgements, the vernacular, intuitive understanding of "a bad adaptation" does seem to me to be inherently connected to adherence to the source material's major plot points. Not to every detail, mind you, but to the "big stuff". Once you depart from that, it becomes less and less an adaptation, and that's what people (very colloquially) call "bad". But it's important to understand that this is distinctly different from the adaptation just not being like the original - it's about the original being (again colloquially) "good" BECAUSE of certain plot points; and therefore undermining those points is problematic not because they deviate, but because that deviation makes for a worse story. That's very different from details that are largely quality-agnostic - a character's eye color, say, or other largely non-functional details where "you just don't like it because it's not like that in the book" might indeed be a fair and reasoned objection.

You might as well as what makes a "good" or "bad" story in the first place, and that's perhaps a more useful approach. It allows us to reframe people's objections as "this is a bad story now" rather than just "this isn't how it is in the books", and it has all the clout (and all the problems) of similar judgements made just for the work itself rather than an adaptation.

But that doesn't change the fear/hope that normal people are going to have regarding The Dragon being Reborn. He/She is either going to save the World...or Break it again. Plenty reason for normal folk to have concerns...regardless of gender.
Whether The Dragon is male/female when he/she saves/breaks the world is rather unimportant to the average person.

That's just not true, though, as people have repeatedly pointed out.

When faced with the idea that one person could either be 1. sane or 2. insane, who do you think people would think is more likely to do something catastrophic? Because, again, the original Dragon was a GOOD person. He fought against the Dark One. He was a paragon of virtue. He only did bad things and broke the world BECAUSE HE WENT INSANE. If you take that part away, why would people be afraid?

[Roship]

If you go into it expecting it to strictly follow the original plot the to letter, you'll have a bad time. I went into the show with the mindset of never having heard of WoT(I've read the series about 3 times myself), and im thoroughly enjoying it. You cant sit there, and pick apart every little difference the books and the TV show has. There'll be small, and big differences. Instead, just sit back and enjoy it for what it is.

[eschatological]

A "bad" adaptation sounds like a judgement on the quality of the work already, because the word adaptation already implies change from the source and medium. I think the terminology "loosely based on" vs. "strict" adapatation serve the discussion better, the latter being little to no change from the source, and merely changing the medium (book, to television).

[Xath]

No, the prophecies being changed is not a reason why it is "bad". It's just a difference from the books. It doesn't mean it's automatically good either. Just different.

And a female dragon could be just as dangerous...even while connecting to Saidar. Not all the Forsaken were men after all. Women just don't go insane using the power. It doesn't mean they can't use it for Evil.

The prophecies being changed is a nebulous concept. What you continue to refuse to accept is Gitara's foretelling led the entire past 20 years of both Moiraine's and Siuan's lives and appears to have been completely stripped out of the show. This despite it being the entire reason Moiraine eventually ends up in two rivers.

- - - Updated - - -

A "bad" adaptation sounds like a judgement on the quality of the work already, because the word adaptation already implies change from the source and medium. I think the terminology "loosely based on" vs. "strict" adapatation serve the discussion better, the latter being little to no change from the source, and merely changing the medium (book, to television).

When you break backbone level pieces you are no longer an adapt you are the story someone wanted to tell but packed the credentials to push so they tacked it onto an existing franchise. That's also why I said spoilers won't matter here because it's the story Rafe wants to tell he just used the wheel of time name and audience to get it green lit.