1. #3421
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    14,151
    I find it funny how rhorle is just out here defending the garbage that Amazon has been churning out recently in the fantasy genre. Just like in the Rings of Power thread. Why do you care so much about defending corpo media garbage? If they wanted their own Game of Thrones type of smash hit, maybe they should have put people in charge who actually had the vision to produce and properly adapt a series like The Wheel of Time faithfully in order to make it a smash hit that people would want to watch. Instead they gut so many core aspects of the story, hamfist diversity into the main cast where it doesn't belong in a world that is diverse and is a matriarchal society where women predominantly hold the most power in many nations. WoT is a far more respected fantasy series than Game of Thrones ever was before the TV series got popular, so there's no reason to not be faithful to the original works for it to be successful.

    Prime Studios has put out some great shows, but clearly they have zero interest in putting creators in charge of two of their biggest budget projects who will actually ensure that they succeed. That is why Jennifer Salke should have been canned. After the flop that was the first seasons of Rings of Power and WoT, there is zero reason why she should continue being the one in charge of managing who the creators are of these shows because she clearly has zero understanding of what it takes to make an adaptation work properly.

    There's so many glaring issues with the WoT show, from the characterization, the misrepresentation of what the actual narrative is supposed to be, cutting out core aspects of characters stories, cutting out core characters right from the get go like Elayne and Morgase, trying to hamfist in a love interest between Rand and Egwene that doesn't actually happen. Neither Egwene or Nynaeve at any point in the first like 3 books, are capable of channeling the One Power like they did at the end of the last episode of season 1. Not to mention taking away that entire pivotal part that defines Rand as the Dragon Reborn was absolutely fucking asinine. And the costume work is garbage tier. Why the fuck do so many men have fade haircuts? Travelers tend to have long hair because you aren't going to see a barber every week when you are traveling hundreds of miles between towns, and your clothes are going to look worn out so why do their clothes always look pristine? The Whitecloaks too, who always try to look as neat as possible, would have some sort of wear in their clothes and wouldn't be perfect.

    If I had to guess, they are going to rush the story as much as possible because they won't get renewed to finish it properly.

  2. #3422
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Even something widely praised as Lord of the Rings was said to be a poor adaptation by the son, and estate, of the original author. The taint you speak of is in the eye of the beholder rather then some universal constant.
    I disagree. You have the adaptation. You have the original. You can objectively compare them to make determinations regarding the quality of the adaptation that have nothing to do with subjective elements. It is possible for an adaptation to be objectively bad, which the WoT adaptation is. It is also possible for an adaptation to significantly deviate from the source while also being a high quality adaptation if the adaptor is creative enough. WoT is not such an adaptation.

  3. #3423
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    I find it funny how rhorle is just out here defending the garbage that Amazon has been churning out recently in the fantasy genre. Just like in the Rings of Power thread.
    I've been critical of some of the stuff in Wheel of time and Rings of Power. If I'm going to live rent free in your head at least try to be accurate. I just don't accept every single take against the show as valid. Neither should you, or anyone for that matter. Why should every negative go just because it equals your opinion and "group think"? It is always easier to insult though so kudos on taking the simpleton route.

    Amazon has already renewed Wheel of Time for a third season. They clearly have confidence in the show and by extension their CEO. "Creators who will succeed" manifested with their latest show Citadel that had the Russo brothers and Appelbaum and Nemec sign on. Two factions creatively emerged that led to two cuts of the series being filmed. They even spent $65 million, about 1/5th of the budget ($300+ million). It is also silly to say she doesn't know how to make an adaptation work properly when Reacher is seen as good and happened under her watch.

    Known creatives don't always produce a hit and it is silly to try and claim Amazon isn't interested in these types. It is just more of the same "I hate this" wishy-washy logic being employed to target that discontent onto a scapegoat.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  4. #3424
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    I disagree. You have the adaptation. You have the original. You can objectively compare them to make determinations regarding the quality of the adaptation that have nothing to do with subjective elements. It is possible for an adaptation to be objectively bad, which the WoT adaptation is. It is also possible for an adaptation to significantly deviate from the source while also being a high quality adaptation if the adaptor is creative enough. WoT is not such an adaptation.
    So you agree with the Tolkien Estate that the Jackson work was a poor adaptation? It was objectively compared by the authority of the original's work. Let's not pretend that objectivity enters into most of the discussions of this type. Wheel of Time is an objectively poor faithful adaptation but it isn't an objectively bad story. What objective standards are we using here anyways?

    The show has its flaws and problems that are beyond the story and way it has chosen to adapt source material.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  5. #3425
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    I wouldn't say that. Maybe it sold more books, but I would argue that the WoT series is a bit more pulpy than Game of Thrones, which tries to be more gritty and adult and has a lot more depth to it. There's an article in the New York Times from 2005 calling Martin "The American Tolkien".

    And guys, you should all stop feeding the troll. Just saying.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  6. #3426
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    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.
    I feel the difference between the three is that the hook for both Tolkien and Jordan is the depth they put into their world. They eschew gorier (even counting the Wells) and sex filled writing and are much more descriptive with their work. They see their stories as you following "the chosen one" through the world to see what is going to happen. Their worlds are rich with history, language and lore.

    Martin feels like a slightly more bird's eye view of all of the proceedings going on with the world, almost like watching a chess game where the other two spend most of the time following a pawn that you know will be a queen someday. Martin revels in the gore and sex aspects of his story as a hook, and that is what people see as more "adult". I don't necessarily feel that is true, as to some degree it came come off a bit juvenile, or oddly voyeuristic.

    They are all good in their own ways.

  7. #3427
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Wheel of Time is an objectively poor faithful adaptation but it isn't an objectively bad story.
    That's a pretty bold statement. 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. Objectively speaking, it sure as hell isn't "good". The plot's a mess, the characterization's a mess, the pacing is a mess, and way too often anyone unfamiliar with the source material would have absolutely no clue wtf is going on without someone who does know the source material to fill in the blanks for them. All of those things are objectively elements of a "bad" show.

  8. #3428
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    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.
    Nynaeve tugs her braid.

    Books 1-6 were excellent.
    Books 7-9 were decent, with an absolute excellent ending for book 9.
    Books 10 and 11 were MEH, this is where most people get absolutely sick of Perrin.
    Books 12-14 were great again, and finished well.

    I just reread the entire series over the past few months, and it was really only books 10 and 11 that were just slogs. They have their moments, and they have reasons to exist for the plot. The Perrin plotline is super boring and just felt like he was spinning his wheels.

    My favorite character has always been Egwene, and her plotline progresses through these books, so I can endure for that. Her becoming who she is and Rand's descent into "madness" needed alot of the plot from those middle books, but it is a slow burn to get through them.

    I absolutely hate the Egwene the stupid show gave us. She looks nothing like her, is not nearly attractive enough (which could be said for most of the cast), and can't act her way out of a box. The way they have messed her story up (and heaven knows will for what should happen in book 2) annoys me the most of the show. They aren't making something that will last long enough to see a real Egwene throwing lightning at dinosaurs while hanging out of a building.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    Not much to distinguish Sammael and Rahvin, for example.
    One is a basically Jordan's version of a Napoleon complex and the other is Andrew Tate if he had no rules. They feel pretty different to me. I mean think of Lanfear vs Moghendien vs Semirhage..... those 3 women couldn't be farther apart from each other.

    - - - Updated - - -

    How I always imagined Egwene.... boy did the show fall flat


  9. #3429
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    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.
    Very much this.

    Jordan builds a very, VERY detailed world, but isn't a master craftsman when it comes to character development. His characters are broad strokes, hero's journey archetypes, not finely detailed people with realistic human flaws and the like.

    Martin isn't quite as heavy on the finer world details, but IS a master when it comes to the dirty human element, the nuanced characters who do serious character development, and the brutal nature of medieval fantasy politics. He's not afraid to outright murder people you just spent half a book assuming were major players. Nobody's safe, cause that's part and parcel of living in a deadly fantasy world where dragons or ice demons or simple brigands could kill you at any moment.

    Tolkien was a combination of both, but the thing that I think sets him apart is that he wrote his stuff with a bit more of a high fantasy bent. Everything Tolkien did had that element of part mysticism, part fantastical whimsy to it that very few people since have managed to really capture.

  10. #3430
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    They may not be the same thing, but the Venn Diagram overlap of the two is pretty significant when the overall goal is: Bring the world of Wheel of Time to live action life, and someone decides a really shitty "adaptation" is the way to go about that.
    I still maintain that they're not the same thing.

    However if you're stated goal is to create a show that is a faithful adaptation....the Wheel of Time failed at that, miserably. On that we can agree.

    Even if the "show" is great, it is tainted by the fact that it's still a shit "adaptation" of the source material.
    To fans of the books who wanted, and rightly expected (because the director stated as much) a faithful adaptation, this is absolutely true.

    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.

  11. #3431
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    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.
    I mean fair the middle is a bit slow/drawn out, I could barely get through book 1 of ASoIAF, and partway through book 2 decided it just wasn't for me, meanwhile I have read through WoT 3 times.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  12. #3432
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    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.

  13. #3433
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    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.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  14. #3434
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Surfd; 2023-05-02 at 03:47 AM.

  15. #3435
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    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.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  16. #3436
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    we have plenty of evidence that people will watch absolute garbage as long as it keeps them mildly entertained.
    Case in point.

  17. #3437
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    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.

    "Take the time to sit down and talk with your adversaries. You will learn something, and they will learn something from you. When two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence. So keep the conversation going."
    ~ Daryl Davis

  18. #3438
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    Case in point.
    Did you think anyone doubted that most people consume entertainment to be entertained? Lmao.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  19. #3439
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    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.

  20. #3440
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragedaug View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •