[TV] The Wheel of Time

[Gumble]

However, the show isn't succeeding based on how popular it is with the book fans, it's succeeding on it's own despite those fans.

Given the trajectory it was on in the first season and how badly it ended that, I wouldn't expect a whole lot of "succeeding". Too many people judged it based on the first few episodes and said "it's a hit!"...... that didn't even last through the first season and the second season isn't looking to fix those issues.

[rhorle]

That's a pretty bold statement. While it may not be objectively truly awful

So what is the difference between objectively bad (your prior claim) and objectively truly awful? You don't find it strange how the objectively keeps getting applied to something that subjectively changes based on what argument you are responding to? It really seems like you don't know the meaning of objective.

It is also amusing that it doesn't stick to the source material while needing the source material to explain things. Given the changes the show has made you can't even use the source material to explain things since stuff is different and in some cases vastly different. Is that really different than other shows though? The issue seems to be you are knowledgeable about the source material so feel like explanations are lacking compared to what you already know.

[Surfd]

However, the show isn't succeeding based on how popular it is with the book fans, it's succeeding on it's own despite those fans. As rhorle also stated, the Lord of the Rings movies were also not faithful adaptations and those were a massive commercial success despite that. Telling a fan of the movies that it's not a faithful adaptation is mostly meaningless, regardless of the accuracy of that statement, because they enjoyed the movie for what it WAS not for what it WASN'T.

Not that I want to derail with somewhat more philosophical stuff, but this is pretty close to a "pearls before swine" argument.

Yes, we understand that a lot of people out there may have enjoyed the adaptation, but can you honestly say that they enjoyed it because it was "good" (at least to them) or is it more that they enjoyed it because they don't actually know what it could have been? That's the problem we have, as fans of the books. We KNOW what it could have been, and what we got is just horribly disappointing.

It's like being told by someone who is used to eating gruel that McDonalds is the best thing to ever happen to food, meanwhile you know that McDonalds barely qualifies as acceptable when it comes to restaurant fare. I mean, should I be happy for them that they absolutely loved their Mickey Ds "for what it was" when I know that they could have had something so much better?

How many amazon viewers are watching the show, not because it's quality theatre, but because fantasy anything is better than fantasy nothing and we haven't really had much in the way of fantasy (good or bad) for ages? How many of them would recognize good fantasy if they saw it? How many of them care?

We can't really say "ohh, this show is good because a lot of people like it", when we have plenty of evidence that people will watch absolute garbage as long as it keeps them mildly entertained.

[rhorle]

Yes, we understand that a lot of people out there may have enjoyed the adaptation, but can you honestly say that they enjoyed it because it was "good" (at least to them) or is it more that they enjoyed it because they don't actually know what it could have been? That's the problem we have, as fans of the books. We KNOW what it could have been, and what we got is just horribly disappointing.

Isn't this just copium? The show is only enjoyed, and getting 3 season renewals, because people are ignorant of the source material? Does it even matter that some could be ignorant of the source material if they like what they watched? Does it matter that it could be better if they still liked what they watched? The Lord of the Rings movies could have been better but they were still liked. Do you call those "good" (implying it is really bad)?

I would have loved a better adaptation. I got over it and accepted it is what it is. Not to great but not overly bad.

[Surfd]

So what is the difference between objectively bad (your prior claim) and objectively truly awful? You don't find it strange how the objectively keeps getting applied to something that subjectively changes based on what argument you are responding to? It really seems like you don't know the meaning of objective.

Pardon? Are you implying that Objectively grading something for quality must be a binary process? That something is either Good or Bad, and there are no other possible gradients? The fact that the WoT adaptation is not "truly awful" in no way prevents it from still being "bad".

It is also amusing that it doesn't stick to the source material while needing the source material to explain things. Given the changes the show has made you can't even use the source material to explain things since stuff is different and in some cases vastly different. Is that really different than other shows though? The issue seems to be you are knowledgeable about the source material so feel like explanations are lacking compared to what you already know.

I mean, it's not exactly difficult to wrap your head around. Well, maybe it is for you, but that's a you problem. They have made MASSIVE changes to the core elements of the way the literal metaphysics of his world are built, but haven't properly done the background work to make those changes seamlessly mesh together with the stuff they haven't changed.

They took his world, broke it like a ceramic plate, and then tried to jam the pieces back in ways that almost, but just don't quite, fit back together: They are trying to tell his story AND their story at the same time and doing BOTH badly.

- - - Updated - - -

I would have loved a better adaptation. I got over it and accepted it is what it is. Not to great but not overly bad.

we have plenty of evidence that people will watch absolute garbage as long as it keeps them mildly entertained.

Case in point.

[Ragedaug]

EHhhh someone was fluffing Martin up, cause while Martin is great, he is not Tolkien. I'd say that Jordan and Martin are better comparisons, as they both have very large/expansive worlds with some depth to them, but they do not reach Tolkien's level, and they have a differing tone to their stories, which some love both, some love one, and a few love neither.

It's tough to put anyone on Tolkien's level, but I think Martin is close...at least I would put him as "Tolkien-Lite w/ A.D.D."

The middle books in WoT are just bad. There's way too much repetitive plot, Egwene tugging her braid, etc. One gets the feeling that Jordan was just counting the $$$ and keeping the cash cow going as long as he could.

Jordan started WoT near Martin's level, but by the middle looked a lot closer to Terry Goodkind. Not that I'm happy we lost Jordan, but am definitely happy we got Sanderson in to clean it up and bring the series home. Curious if ASOIAF will need the Sanderson treatment as well.

[rhorle]

Pardon? Are you implying that Objectively grading something for quality must be a binary process? That something is either Good or Bad, and there are no other possible gradients? The fact that the WoT adaptation is not "truly awful" in no way prevents it from still being "bad".

Is it objectively grading something when you keep using subjective definitions for those grades? It started out as objectively bad, then was not objectively truly awful, and settled on between bad and mediocre. There is nothing objective about any of the descriptors you keep using.

If they made massive changes to the core elements and metaphysics of the world then the source material can't explain things, right? If it was massively changed it can't be used to fill in the blanks. As I said this is an issue of your knowledge of the source material and not the show fail to explain things (at least differently then pretty much any other show). Yet you claim I have a problem understanding things. Maybe focus less on insults and more on logic as neither seems to be your strong suit.

- - - Updated - - -

Case in point.

Did you think anyone doubted that most people consume entertainment to be entertained? Lmao.

[Surfd]

Is it objectively grading something when you keep using subjective definitions for those grades? It started out as objectively bad, then was not objectively truly awful, and settled on between bad and mediocre. There is nothing objective about any of the descriptors you keep using.

Really? You're going to play the pedantic and nitpick argue about the terms I used? Would it soothe your petty little pretentious heart if I had used a scale of 1 - 10 instead?

Christ it's exhausting trying to have a simple conversation with smug intellectual wannabies, especially when you aren't nearly smart enough to actually pull the act off effectively.

If they made massive changes to the core elements and metaphysics of the world then the source material can't explain things, right?

Except that it can, because you know where they started from, so when you catch something they didn't manage to effectively explain, you at least have the original as a frame of reference. So you can say things like: this thing happened in the TV series, but they never explained WHY it happened that way, and that's because it's referencing some thing from the Books that shouldn't work that way in the TV series but they didn't catch that this doesn't jive with the changes they have made.

Did you think anyone doubted that most people consume entertainment to be entertained? Lmao.

Completely unsurprising that you missed my point completely.

[Triceron]

Now it just feels like you are trolling me. I don't agree with you about this TV show, but that doesn't mean we have to be enemies. Just means we are our own people and can have our own thoughts without the person we disagree with being a bad person.

He is a troll. He's all bad faith with no intention of actually discussing opinions. It's best to be wary of him and his responses. It's all quite pointless since he's only interested in telling people how he thinks they're wrong.

[rhorle]

Really? You're going to play the pedantic and nitpick argue about the terms I used?

The meaning of words matters when talking about objective things. Why are you getting so triggered over your changing in how you rated the show? Ready to sling insults and show how it is pure projection at the slightest pushback on something you've said.

Except that it can, because you know where they started from, so when you catch something they didn't manage to effectively explain, you at least have the original as a frame of reference.

You can't because of those MASSIVE (your emphasis) changes. If the core elements and metaphysics of the world are changed then you can't use the source material as reference to explain anything. As you don't know what is changed and if that explanation actually fits the world built by the show. You aren't filling in the blanks of what the show doesn't explain but just pointing out differences between the source and the show as your own explanation indicates.

Completely unsurprising that you missed my point completely.

I didn't miss your point at all. We can say that people find a show good if a lot of people like it. Most people consume entertainment if they like it. They don't hate watch things like a lot of the people on this site apparently do. They simply no longer consume the stuff they don't like and move on to something else that will entertain them.

[Surfd]

The meaning of words matters when talking about objective things. Why are you getting so triggered over your changing in how you rated the show? Ready to sling insults and show how it is pure projection at the slightest pushback on something you've said.

Wheel of Time is an objectively poor faithful adaptation but it isn't an objectively bad story.

Do you remember this comment?

I'm sure you do, since you posted it only a few hours ago.

So, can you clarify: If the story isn't objectively bad, what is it then? If it's not bad, then it must be good then, I assume? How good?

I have not changed my position on the series by the way: I still think it's an objectively bad adaptation. Even if you look at it on just it's own merits, if you ignore that it's supposed to be a WoT adaptation and just consider it from the standpoint of a generic fantasy show, it's mediocre at best. However, I have never judged it as a separate entity from it's origins as an adaptation, and I will not.

While it may not be objectively truly awful, it sure as shit is so damn near straddling the line between bad and mediocre that it's probably got a permanent wedgie by now.

This is not me "changing how I rated the show". Saying I don't find it truly awful is simply an indicator that it could always have been worse, not that I have changed my opinion of it: I still think the show is bad. Saying it's straddling the line between bad and mediocre is not an indication that I have changed my opinion either. I still think the show is bad.

Again, you can objectively classify things on a gradient. This isn't a binary equation.

I didn't miss your point at all. We can say that people find a show good if a lot of people like it. Most people consume entertainment if they like it. They don't hate watch things like a lot of the people on this site apparently do. They simply no longer consume the stuff they don't like and move on to something else that will entertain them.

Nope, you still missed the point. "people enjoy something, therefore that thing must be good" is not a logical argument.

[Nymrohd]

Then they're conflating being a bad show with being a bad adaptation. Those aren't the same thing, however you can dislike a show for being a bad adaptation. That doesn't affect other's like or dislike of it though. And clearly doesn't change how successful it can be.

I found it hard to be objective about the show and enjoy it because of how far from the source material they went and how much of a fan I am for the books. The fact the director went on record to say what a huge fan he was and wanted to do it justice to then go out of his way to reject advice and feedback from Brandon Sanderson and other series lore nerds and butcher the source material like this really didn't score any points with me.

Honestly as a massive fan of the books, my disappointment is just that it makes it extremely unlikely that the books will ever be adapted in the future. I haven't seen the series and I don't plan to; I don't have that streaming service and I don't watch that many series to begin with (unless I get COVID AGAIN . . .) Reading about the plot of the series here I am not sure I'd even call it an adaptation; this is not just about making changes to better fit the novels to the constraints of a TV show. I very much doubt a faithful adaptation was ever possible anyway; the books are just too long, too detailed, with too many characters; some liberties would have to be taken regardless. They have a different vision and are just sharing a new story with similar characters in a similar world. But I am unhappy that chances are I'll never get to see the books I know as a series at a time when so many fantasy series get chosen for adaptation.

Just hope no one tries to do Malazan Books of the Fallen . . .

[Surfd]

Just hope no one tries to do Malazan Books of the Fallen . . .

Supposedly, the first novel was originally conceived as a movie screenplay before the author decided to make it a book instead, and at one point he may even have had a TV series concept either in the works or being shopped around, but it unfortunately never went anywhere.

So it's entirely possible it may happen at some point, as the author definitely doesn't seem to be unopposed to the idea.

I could see Malazan working if they gave it a treatment somewhat similar to the Sandman adaptation.

[Rennadrel]

I think the "adult" aspects of Martin's work is how it doesn't always work out the way you expect fantasy to - like Eddard getting his head chopped off and basically the Hound's entire character. That's what makes the series exciting.

While Jordan has a ton of characters, I don't get the sense that he has a ton of depth - like a lot of the Forsaken and the Kingdoms are pretty similar except for some superficial things like how they wear their hair. Not much to distinguish Sammael and Rahvin, for example.

I disagree. The Forsaken in particular all have their own end goals, they clearly don't like to work with one another because they all wanted to be favoured by their master above all others. I think because Sammael really didn't get much coverage outside of a couple of interactions he has with his compatriots and Shai'tan, made him mysterious. I would assume that he was intended to be brought forth in the story late, but RJ never got around to writing out his story and so Sanderson had to kind of place him into the story so that he had some sort of finality. They are all plotters and schemers though, that is where their similarities end. The funny thing is that had they actually worked together rather than be a bunch of egotists who want to rise above one another, they probably wouldn't have got the results that they did, primarily getting balefired out of existence.

[Nymrohd]

I disagree. The Forsaken in particular all have their own end goals, they clearly don't like to work with one another because they all wanted to be favoured by their master above all others. I think because Sammael really didn't get much coverage outside of a couple of interactions he has with his compatriots and Shai'tan, made him mysterious. I would assume that he was intended to be brought forth in the story late, but RJ never got around to writing out his story and so Sanderson had to kind of place him into the story so that he had some sort of finality. They are all plotters and schemers though, that is where their similarities end. The funny thing is that had they actually worked together rather than be a bunch of egotists who want to rise above one another, they probably wouldn't have got the results that they did, primarily getting balefired out of existence.

To be fair, that's part and parcel with the type of people the Dark One attracted. Honestly there were only two exceptions. Elan joined him because he philosophically agreed with him; every cycle will have to go through the same shit for infinity so the best way to minimize human suffering is to end it now. Graendal joined him because she just decided humanity was not worth it (I mean she was a psychiatrist, so it makes sense for her) so she was better of just having fun for however long it lasted. The rest were just petty or evil people who just wanted power or the freedom to do whatever they wanted.

[Nymrohd]

But again, compare those characters to the complexity of Sandor Clegane, who commits a list of horrible crimes but is somehow on a path of redemption and on his way to being quote unquote “good” - the guy who refuses to become a knight and ridicules Sansa but in the end rescues her, who has a deathly fear of fire due to childhood trauma, etc. there’s nothing that complex in wheel of time - the characters are mostly pretty one dimensional.

Absolutely. The Wheel of Time places the world on the forefront. With the exception of maybe Rand and Nynaeve, whose character development is very important to the story so their past, upbringing and trauma are explored, most everyone else is an actor in a play; they are there to help the story be told, not to tell their story (and maybe Moirane if you count the prequel). They are still internally consistent; I don't think I ever felt that a character acted in a way that made no sense. But they are not the focus because that is not the kind of story Jordan wanted to tell nor is it needed.

That doesn't really mean the characters are not compelling. When you finish watching or reading through Medea or Antigone, you know shit about them. They are still compelling characters though. It is just more about their story and their actions rather than their motives. Pathos and catharsis can be achieved without motives, if anything simpler characters, outlines and archetypes are much easier to empathise and project on.

[Shadowferal]

There's nothing remotely compelling or even interesting about this shit show.

[Katchii]

Not that I want to derail with somewhat more philosophical stuff, but this is pretty close to a "pearls before swine" argument.

Yes, we understand that a lot of people out there may have enjoyed the adaptation, but can you honestly say that they enjoyed it because it was "good" (at least to them) or is it more that they enjoyed it because they don't actually know what it could have been? That's the problem we have, as fans of the books. We KNOW what it could have been, and what we got is just horribly disappointing.

It's like being told by someone who is used to eating gruel that McDonalds is the best thing to ever happen to food, meanwhile you know that McDonalds barely qualifies as acceptable when it comes to restaurant fare. I mean, should I be happy for them that they absolutely loved their Mickey Ds "for what it was" when I know that they could have had something so much better?

How many amazon viewers are watching the show, not because it's quality theatre, but because fantasy anything is better than fantasy nothing and we haven't really had much in the way of fantasy (good or bad) for ages? How many of them would recognize good fantasy if they saw it? How many of them care?

We can't really say "ohh, this show is good because a lot of people like it", when we have plenty of evidence that people will watch absolute garbage as long as it keeps them mildly entertained.

People like what they like. Who are you/we to tell them that they're wrong? It's all subjective anyway.

This is entertainment, not high class art or food or anything of that nature where the pearls before swine argument makes any kind of sense. Bringing it up in this context makes you sound like an entitled elitist prick TBH.

The show is what it is at this point.

[Arikara]

I think the "adult" aspects of Martin's work is how it doesn't always work out the way you expect fantasy to - like Eddard getting his head chopped off and basically the Hound's entire character. That's what makes the series exciting.

While Jordan has a ton of characters, I don't get the sense that he has a ton of depth - like a lot of the Forsaken and the Kingdoms are pretty similar except for some superficial things like how they wear their hair. Not much to distinguish Sammael and Rahvin, for example.

You can't honestly stand here and hold that cheap hack Martin up as an exemplar of "depth" while handwaving the most detailed fantasy world ever written? Tell me you're joking.

[Gumble]

They took his world, broke it like a ceramic plate, and then tried to jam the pieces back in ways that almost, but just don't quite, fit back together: They are trying to tell his story AND their story at the same time and doing BOTH badly.

Not the same series, but it is what popped into my head immediately:

"Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made."

Sorta the running plot for alot of these shows.

- - - Updated - - -

But again, compare those characters to the complexity of Sandor Clegane, who commits a list of horrible crimes but is somehow on a path of redemption and on his way to being quote unquote “good” - the guy who refuses to become a knight and ridicules Sansa but in the end rescues her, who has a deathly fear of fire due to childhood trauma, etc. there’s nothing that complex in wheel of time - the characters are mostly pretty one dimensional.

I would argue that alot of Martin's "depth" is making things happen that have no reason to just to be contrary. Sandor Clegane rescuing and protecting Sansa makes absolutely no sense for the character he wrote. He basically became a different person instantly with no build up. That happens alot in Martin's books. He likes to write in a way where the reader expects X to happen because the narrative looks to be heading that way and then suddenly Y happens instead and throws it into chaos. Sometimes it works and makes for fun stories, and sometimes he just alters characters in ways that fans of his have to try to justify.

Ironically, the switch into mad murderous dictator that the showrunners did to Dani actually fits in Martin's world. "You thought the hero who cares about people and her kingdom so greatly is going to protect people? NAHHHHH she's going to murder them with fire!"

Sadly, it's totally a Martin thing to do. It sucks, and it's forced, but it fits with him completely.




As for depth to characters, I always liked Lanfear. Someone who goes to the dark for power is common, but she basically went because of curiousity and jealously. Even to the very end she was scheming to possess Lews Therin, be the one who saved the Dark One, and did it by spinning a ton of threads to bring her plan to bear. To be beaten out of sheer hubris that she thought she had everything under control, when so very little of the story actually was in her control, is quite interesting.

Many of the forsaken didn't get enough time to be fleshed out, but some did, and had quite a bit of depth.