[TV] The Wheel of Time

[Egomaniac]

If so, with only 8 episodes , there is no reason to go with the whole men who channel go insane plot line. It would be a waste of time. The whole point of the dragon being male is the extreme danger he poses to everyone.

Which is one reason why I don't think they will actually change who the Dragon is. Making the change to the prophecy mostly unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

There are going to be changes in moving from one medium to the next, but usually it’s for expediency. But with 4 episodes left there is no way they can finish eye of the world making what they did to Perrin’s backstory unnecessary. Not to mention what’s been left out of his so far

Like I have said all along...there's plenty of reason to be concerned about the show itself. 8 episodes for the entire first book is definitely one of them. I think they should have gone with at least 10.

The changes to Perrin's backstory is another, especially because, thus far, they haven't really done much to show why they decided to do them. I have theories about them...but they're just theories.

I just don't get hung up on changes that, in the large scale, aren't, in my opinion, likely to make a big difference.

- - - Updated - - -

But no more then normal given a world with "in control" female users of the one power. It changes the tone of everything by not having the threat of insanity as the thing to fear with all of that. It isn't the One power and conquering that is feared. It is a man, that carries the taint of the darkone, doing all of that while they go insane and break the world again that was the ultimate threat.

Right now the prophecies just talk about bombs going off. Where as in the books it was talking about nukes going off from Saidin. It changes the dragon from "Insane potential breaker of the world" to "rebel warlords conquering stuff". You don't want either one but one threat is more normal.

It doesn't matter if the person who breaks the world is sane or insane. World still broke, yo.

The prophecies hardly even mention madness...aside from saying that the Dragon will "heal the wounds of madness and cutting of hope".

[Triceron]

The problem is, that undermines a lot of the foundations of subsequent story lines. It erodes much of the structure of the Aes Sedai, for example - if females could be the Dragon, how do they deal with that within their ranks? Why aren't they constantly paranoid one of them might be the Dragon Reborn? Why is the Red Ajah so powerful if it's not fueled by the mission to subdue male channelers in fear of them turning out to be the Dragon? If the Red Ajah's militarism isn't as pronounced, how does the Black Ajah gain a foothold in the Tower? And so on and so forth.

Sure you can change things, but the world is built on top of foundational plot points - and if you change those, then everything built on top is in peril as well. They can just gloss over that and ignore the implications, of course; but weakening the world-building in a series beloved for its intricate world-building can backfire spectacularly.

The 'peril' stems from your regard that the worlds are one and the same.

They are not.

Let's take a step away to regard other adaptations like LOTR and GoT. The Movie/TV adaptations have major tonal changes for certain scenes, major lore changes, character and plot omissions etc. LOTR movie universe is one where Tom Bombadil does not exist, but Tauriel and a prominent Radagast do exist. GoT is a world where lady Stoneheart does not exist, and that would have had major ripple effects for the story down the line as well.

The worlds are not the same, and we should not necessarily regard them as having ramifications for later plots when we haven't reached them at all. It's a butterfly effect, but just as LOTR removed Tom Bombadil, they abridged his 'moments' with Treebeard. We don't have lady Stoneheart in GoT, but Brienne's storyline still continues regardless in a different way. These are part of being adaptations. They aren't all following the source in the appropriate order.

Effectively, adaptations are more like Marvel 'What Ifs' with branching timeline shenanigans. This isn't an audiobook of the novel, it's a TV adaptation with liberal creative differences. The Dragon Reborn potentially being female already assumes that world in the series will not be handled 'as it was in the book'. What you consider a peril is only in the perspective that the TV adaptation has to stick to the book. At the end of the day, it's not the book, so the 'peril' should really end there.

GoT TV isn't the books, right? The 'perils' that exist in the series start and stop with itself as the TV series. It has no direct connection to the novel world. It is effectively a 'parallel universe'. That's pretty much how any adaptation needs to be regarded as, especially those that we know have immediate changes like we have with Wheel of Time.

[Biomega]

The problem stems from your regard that the worlds are one and the same.

They are not.

I understand that perfectly. What I'm saying is, if you change everything from a foundational level, you risk it being bad. That's what we saw in GoT - as soon as the books dropped away, what the writers came up with on their own was terrible.

There's a REASON Jordan built the world the way he did. If you build it differently, chances are it won't be as good - because Jordan was a good writer, and good writers aren't easy to come by. If we had such an easy time writing good original series, there'd be a whole lot more of them instead of adaptation after adaptation, and reboot after reboot.

Is this a guarantee it'll suck? No. Nothing ever is. But it's a big warning sign, and historically more deviation has indeed translated to less quality. That's what people are afraid of, and/or are observing in the episodes we have so far.

Nobody is saying not like the books = bad, but people are saying straying from the books = higher chance it'll be bad. If you personally like the series, by all means, more power to you. What I've watched so far has not captured me, and has turned me off of the series entirely.

The key to a good adaptation is knowing what is fine to change, and what isn't. Nobody is saying 1:1 truth to the original is the optimal way; it couldn't be, given these are two different media. But there comes a point where you change things for the worse - not because it's different from the books (though it is), but because it's worse storytelling, world-building, character development, etc. all the parameters by which you ordinarily judge any form of content.

[rhorle]

It doesn't matter if the person who breaks the world is sane or insane. World still broke, yo. The prophecies hardly even mention madness...aside from saying that the Dragon will "heal the wounds of madness and cutting of hope".

The prophecies don't mention it because it is such a core thing of the male half of the power. It is tainted. It is what caused the world to break the first time. You highlight perfectly why changing it so Saidin is no longer the threat changes the entire fear of the Dragon. It matters if the person is sane or not. Because what elevates the fear of the Dragon Reborn to a different level is that insanity.

It is a person they are supposed to trust and work with to do things yet at the same time will be driven insane by the taint of the Dark One. A soul from the age of legends that will be reborn. Madness and all.

[Triceron]

I understand that perfectly. What I'm saying is, if you change everything from a foundational level, you risk it being bad. That's what we saw in GoT - as soon as the books dropped away, what the writers came up with on their own was terrible.

There's a REASON Jordan built the world the way he did. If you build it differently, chances are it won't be as good - because Jordan was a good writer, and good writers aren't easy to come by. If we had such an easy time writing good original series, there'd be a whole lot more of them instead of adaptation after adaptation, and reboot after reboot.

Is this a guarantee it'll suck? No. Nothing ever is. But it's a big warning sign, and historically more deviation has indeed translated to less quality. That's what people are afraid of, and/or are observing in the episodes we have so far.

Nobody is saying not like the books = bad, but people are saying straying from the books = higher chance it'll be bad. If you personally like the series, by all means, more power to you. What I've watched so far has not captured me, and has turned me off of the series entirely.

The key to a good adaptation is knowing what is fine to change, and what isn't. Nobody is saying 1:1 truth to the original is the optimal way; it couldn't be, given these are two different media. But there comes a point where you change things for the worse - not because it's different from the books (though it is), but because it's worse storytelling, world-building, character development, etc. all the parameters by which you ordinarily judge any form of content.

The TV series doesn't aim to be as good as the novels. I don't really know why you're applying this when there's a clear difference between a TV adaptation existing for reasons that a TV adaptation exists, and somehow propping it on a pedestal that if it exists then it's goal is obvious to retain the highest level of art form in translating the original series.

I mean look at Cowboy Bebop, the atrocity that it is. Or any anime live action adaptation, to be frank. The best ones aren't the ones that end up copying everything 1:1. That's not how this works.

Entertainment value is self contained to the show, to the adaptation, to the original source. Whether something risks being 'bad' is purely subjective, as well. Yes, GoT sucked, but that was mostly because the writers didn't give a fuck by the last couple seasons. If you actually take a look at the series in retrospect, they never adhered to the book in the first place! There's TONS of changes in the first 6 seasons which were all fine, because the broad story was still kept despite all the minor nit picks that many MANY online critics openly expressed. Look at any GoT fan review of the series and you'll find book people talking about how they wished X favourite character was in the show and would have made it better, or how Y storyline was omitted and that ended up omitting some important backstory for certain characters.

At the end of the day, the TV series existed as the TV series, and was not built on prior knowledge of the books. That's how WoT TV should be regarded as well. Not by what it needs to aim to be, but what it is creating for itself. It's pointless to criticize an adaptation for not being the source, because ultimately we already know it's not the source.

Nobody is saying not like the books = bad

Whether you outright say it or not does not change the tone of your argument, which does imply that changing a major world point = bad (you may have reworded as 'risk it being bad', but really you're using the same argument)

I mean it's like one of the people said a few posts earlier about 'I have no problem with eye changes' then goes on talking about how they have a problem with the eye changes. That's the basic tone I'm getting here, where you can say that you have no problem with changes, but that's not really how you're regarding the changes themselves here because every point you make is about how it potentially forsakes future plot/world points in the book. That's pretty much having a problem with change.


Again, this isn't Jordan's Wheel of Time universe. Just as the GoT TV series is not the universe that GRRM envisioned it to be. We have to be clear about what we're talking about. It's fine if the changes have turned you off the series entirely. Your reasons are based on judging that it forsakes the core philosophy of the books. And that's fine reasoning. But let's be clear that the TV series has not fully established any of those things you're criticizing, and the lack of clarity is what is putting you off rather than something the show has actually explained that has not fully made sense. As I said, all the arguments you've said are based on how the Book series works. The TV series has not established those same rules. Whether it has ramifications down the line will only be shown when we get there, not any time before that.

We can say it risks being bad, but we should also be clear that you're saying you're not interested in the series because it's risking being bad, rather than it actually being bad. And that's really all I'm trying to put into perspective here.

- - - Updated - - -

The prophecies don't mention it because it is such a core thing of the male half of the power. It is tainted. It is what caused the world to break the first time. You highlight perfectly why changing it so Saidin is no longer the threat changes the entire fear of the Dragon. It matters if the person is sane or not. Because what elevates the fear of the Dragon Reborn to a different level is that insanity.

It is a person they are supposed to trust and work with to do things yet at the same time will be driven insane by the taint of the Dark One. A soul from the age of legends that will be reborn. Madness and all.

Not a book reader, but doesn't that whole prophecy get bonked anyways since the Dragon Reborn was a male that ended up not being mad?

[rhorle]

Not a book reader, but doesn't that whole prophecy get bonked anyways since the Dragon Reborn ended up not being mad?

Yet. He does have battles with madness in the books until he eventually cleanses the taint. It is never out right stated if the voices and stuff he hears is insanity or actually the Dragon. But at one point after Nynaeve learns she can heal the madness in male users she finds that Rand's brain is fully encased in madness but also has a glowing web of light as well. So something was protecting him but very few would have known that and it is a late in the story revelation anyways.

There is still the 3,000 years of "Fear of Saidin and the Dragon the most powerful user of Saidin ever" that is changed by removing that fear. It would change the core of how views, actions, etc all played out over time to not fear the Dragon as much since it is a chance they are just the same as a Aes Sedai. The 3 oaths didn't always bind them so the world had a taste of potential women Dragons for at least 1,000 years from any women chaneller.

[Shadowferal]

The prophecies hardly even mention madness...aside from saying that the Dragon will "heal the wounds of madness and cutting of hope".

In the books this becomes very clear.

[Egomaniac]

]The prophecies don't mention it[/B] because it is such a core thing of the male half of the power. It is tainted. It is what caused the world to break the first time. You highlight perfectly why changing it so Saidin is no longer the threat changes the entire fear of the Dragon. It matters if the person is sane or not. Because what elevates the fear of the Dragon Reborn to a different level is that insanity.

It is a person they are supposed to trust and work with to do things yet at the same time will be driven insane by the taint of the Dark One. A soul from the age of legends that will be reborn. Madness and all.

There you go. The prophecies don't mention it. You're adding extra context into it yourself, because of what you know from reading the series.

Now, if you were just an average person that didn't know anything about the book series...and all you heard was "The Dragon will break the world"...would it matter to you what gender the Dragon was? I mean False Dragons are scary as fuck...because they are nutcases with incomprehensible power that believe that they are the savior of mankind. But, in this version, regardless of gender, the Dragon Reborn breaks the world...and that's at least as scary. Once again, the sanity and motivations of the person that breaks the world are less important than the fact that they actually break the world.

[rhorle]

There you go. The prophecies don't mention it. You're adding extra context into it yourself, because of what you know from reading the series.

Well duh. That is the entire point of this discussion. How drastically they changed the theme of stuff from the books. It isn't about the average joe caring about that at all. Why is it that you continually combine two different arguments? We are talking about the quality of adaptation and not what an average joe who has never read the books would know or not.

[Biomega]

The TV series doesn't aim to be as good as the novels.

I mean, nothing says it HAS to be good. But if it WANTS to be good, what they're doing right now - at least in the opinion of me and others of a like mind - is not the way to go. That's not to say we are the definitive authority - we're not (and neither is anyone else). No show will ever please 100% of people. But they need to understand WHY we're unhappy with the changes they're making, and it's not simply "it's not like it is in the books" - that implies that there's only two options, 1. follow the books exactly 2. it sucks. That's not true. All I'm saying is 3. what you're doing there isn't working for me. The fact that it's also different from the books is not unrelated, but also not the deciding factor - plenty of other changes from the book I have zero problems with.

The best ones aren't the ones that end up copying everything 1:1. That's not how this works.

Thank you for explaining to me something I've literally already said myself, down to the "1:1". Are you being patronizing on purpose, or did you just miss it?

[Egomaniac]

In the books this becomes very clear.

Yeah, it does.

But this is not the books.

This is an adaptation.

In case you are unclear of what that means I'll give you some definitions:

https://introtofictionf18.web.unc.ed...ng-adaptation/

An adaptation is the recreation of a piece of art, literature, or film by using the same concepts but changing certain aspects such as the setting or the characters

The process of recreating and presenting an existing work in a way which draws a new meaning.

An adaptation is new story, or a retelling of an old story in a new media form, that is based on an already existing work. Adaptations include intertextuality from the previous work, or the use of elements from the original work in the new work or work that retells the old story. Adaptations are used to creatively expand from the original idea in a new way.

If you were expecting them to follow the books exactly... you set yourself up to be disappointed. It was always going to have differences.

- - - Updated - - -

Well duh. That is the entire point of this discussion. How drastically they changed the theme of stuff from the books. It isn't about the average joe caring about that at all. Why is it that you continually combine two different arguments? We are talking about the quality of adaptation and not what an average joe who has never read the books would know or not.

I'm not just talking about the audience. I'm talking about the people in the world and why they would have cause to fear the Dragon Reborn, regardless of gender.

[rhorle]

I'm not just talking about the audience. I'm talking about the people in the world and why they would have cause to fear the Dragon Reborn, regardless of gender.

Right. Which when it was shown the people of the world wouldn't you turned to BS about the average joe who doesn't know anything about the book series. The entire reason why people are afraid of the Dragon Reborn is because of the Saidin being tainted. That is why he broke the world the first time and why they fear the world breaking a second time. If you remove the taint you remove that fear. It changes everything that would have changed how the world acts over 3,000 years of living in fear of the Dragon coming back and using the tainted male half of the one power.

Of course they have reason to fear anyone using the one power to conquer the world. The fears are no where near equal though. No one has said that they have nothing to fear from a female Dragon. Just that it changes the entire theme and premise of the books. And if the show doesn't actually make the Dragon female it is all for no real reason at all. That fear of women using the one power exists. It is the entire reason why the Whitecloaks exist and why they have the White Tower has the 3 oaths to begin with.

You just keep highlighting how drastic of a change it is and why that change is ultimately pointless. It is a bastardization of the story that doesn't fit an adaptation.

[Katchii]

Thing is, if you haven't read the books...and most of the audience hasn't...you wouldn't know anything about the prophecy. So it can still serve to allow the people that are coming in fresh to believe that any one of those kids could be TDR.

Which again, is pointless virtue signaling. If they have no intention of actually changing who TDR actually is, paying lip service to the audience to make them believe it could be a woman, just because they can say "it can be a woman too, see we're inclusive!" is stupid and doesn't do anything for the narrative and only serves to undermine the lore of the world.

TDR being a male is central to the lore of the world, because of male channeler madness and how powerful they become, along with how unstable and therefore dangerous they are. It's why the White Tower is women only, it's almost exclusively why the Red Ajah exists, it's central to the prophecies and why certain cultures treat men the way they do. Changing it so a woman can be TDR so they can...what? I don't even know WHY, besides try and be inclusive with women, in a story that is already incredibly women empowered and inclusive. It changes all of that.

It's stupid, pointless changes for the sake of change and does nothing to actually improve the plot or make it easier to adapt to TV. The only thing it serves to do, as far as it's impact on the Wheel of Time story, is undermine itself. Because it builds characters up who aren't really TDR so disappoints some of the TV only fans when that happens, and disappoints the fans of the books from the beginning for changing stuff that shouldn't be changed.

That said, they haven't done anything in the show yet that pushes me away. As long as they stick to the actual core narrative from the books I think it will be fine. But the sooner they focus on who the actual TDR is, the better rather than try and build hype on the 5.

[Triceron]

I mean, nothing says it HAS to be good. But if it WANTS to be good, what they're doing right now - at least in the opinion of me and others of a like mind - is not the way to go. That's not to say we are the definitive authority - we're not (and neither is anyone else). No show will ever please 100% of people. But they need to understand WHY we're unhappy with the changes they're making, and it's not simply "it's not like it is in the books" - that implies that there's only two options, 1. follow the books exactly 2. it sucks. That's not true. All I'm saying is 3. what you're doing there isn't working for me. The fact that it's also different from the books is not unrelated, but also not the deciding factor - plenty of other changes from the book I have zero problems with.

Perhaps it's a perspective issue, but let's play devil's advocate for a moment.

I get that you don't think the male female Dragon Reborn is a good thing to have, since the books have it tied very closely to the mythology of the world and the prophecies which the people have organized themselves around in reaction to the Breaking of the World. Now, in your own opinion, is there any way this adaptation could be seen as being good to open up to female Dragon Reborn that has a universe that reacts to that premise that would make sense to you? Because the way I am reading your argument, it's basically that the change doesn't make sense because of the books, so I want to take the books out of the equation for a sec and consider if there's any possibility for this new world to exist cohesively, with a new structuring and reasoning for factions to continue to exist the same way, but under a different premise that still makes fundamental sense.

Because if your argument is no, it can't be good at all because it's too fundamentally changed, then the crux of your argument still is rooted in '#nochange'. It's not an actual criticism of the TV universe lacking cohesion. And I'm arguing this point specifically not because I agree with the TV show universe, but because as a casual watcher I do not see the same conflicts that the book readers here are explaining, because the TV series has literally not established those rules. Hell, we don't even know the power of the Whitecloaks or how they were able to capture Aes Sedai without incurring massive casualties, since we're now seeing how powerful the Aes Sedai can be. How did that whitecloak dude track down and capture the Aes Sedai? We haven't seen, we don't know. It's completely ambiguous in the TV universe. I'm sure the book could have explanations and elaborations, but it doesn't pertain to the TV universe at all. What we see is what we get in the TV series, so if it's not outright stated, it doesn't exist. Rules that aren't outright stated simply do not apply.

Thank you for explaining to me something I've literally already said myself, down to the "1:1". Are you being patronizing on purpose, or did you just miss it?

Take it as you will. I didn't patronize you, I simply said adaptations are not better for being closer to the original story and that's not how we gauge things. Whether you know it or not, you're not really conveying that properly in your tone. I'm reading the things you're saying, but they're not coming across as genuine to me considering you're still using the book as the jumping point for all of your criticisms where the TV series has not even started to establish any of those rules, and you're basically letting that affect your impression of the TV series as a whole.

Like Elves added to Helms Deep that made the situation seem less hopeless for the Humans? Depending on who we talk to, this change can be seen as good because it raises the stakes in favour of an epic battle, but also be seen as bad because it undermined the utter hopeless odds that Rohan faced in the situation without the aid of anyone, especially not those of other races. The context of good and bad are not universal here, and right now I don't think the WoT series has progressed far enough where we can actually see good or bad ramifications for the changes in the lore opening up to the Dragon Reborn being female.

I will say though that as a casual audience member, the 4th episode ending was indeed more dramatic with having more material that supports the change of the 'prophecy'. It keeps the audience guessing at who the Dragon could be, at least those who are not book readers, and I think it worked really well to maintain that hook as a week-to-week cliffhanger. Whether it will fuck up the rest of the lore down the line is yet to be seen.

[Biomega]

Now, in your own opinion, is there any way this adaptation could be seen as being good to open up to female Dragon Reborn that has a universe that reacts to that premise that would make sense to you?

I don't know. I'm a critic, not a writer. It's neither my job nor my competency to come up with the good ideas - I simply judge ideas that are presented to me. Could they have done it in a smart way that doesn't obviate the established mythology? Maybe? I can't say for sure. I just know the way they DID do it doesn't work for me.

Because the way I am reading your argument, it's basically that the change doesn't make sense because of the books

That's not entirely accurate. The fact that it differs from the books isn't JUST incidental, but it's also not the reason I don't like the change - I don't like it because it leads to so many other changes that the overall plot suffers. My problem is with the plot being worse now, not with accuracy in respect to the books. The plot is ALSO different from the books, but that's not why I think it's bad - the loss of the gendered motive that underlies so many structures in the WoT world is.

I simply said adaptations are not better for being closer to the original story

I didn't say this, either. I said that the more you DEPART from the source material, the higher the chance you'll have something bad. That doesn't simply work in the inverse, because - as I've repeatedly said - a 1:1 adaptation doesn't do the medium justice and isn't desirable either.

you're still using the book as the jumping point for all of your criticisms where the TV series has not even started to establish any of those rules, and you're basically letting that affect your impression of the TV series as a whole.

I can only judge the series by what is available. What I've seen so far doesn't work for me. Maybe they'll change things up 5 episodes down the line or whatever, I have no way of knowing. But my time is limited. I can't just watch everything I want to watch, I have to make choices. And based on what I've seen so far, I doubt I'll watch more of this.

I mean, did you criticize GoT or LOTR having changed major plot elements?

YES. Extensively.

[Egomaniac]

Of course they have reason to fear anyone using the one power to conquer the world. The fears are no where near equal though. No one has said that they have nothing to fear from a female Dragon. Just that it changes the entire theme and premise of the books. And if the show doesn't actually make the Dragon female it is all for no real reason at all. That fear of women using the one power exists. It is the entire reason why the Whitecloaks exist and why they have the White Tower has the 3 oaths to begin with.

Fear of the end of the world is fear of the end of the world. When you're afraid of the your entire world ending...the gender of the person ending it is unimportant.

[Skizzit]

I understand that perfectly. What I'm saying is, if you change everything from a foundational level, you risk it being bad. That's what we saw in GoT - as soon as the books dropped away, what the writers came up with on their own was terrible.

Except that's not really true. The changed loads of things from the start, both changing and removing whole characters and plot lines. Even the "bad" seasons were not bad because of the actual story but because they were told terribly. The biggest issues (at least in my opinion) were how rushed and poorly structured everything was. If they had put the same time and effort into the last two/three seasons as they did the first few I really don't think people would have hated it as much as they did.

Maybe this WoT adaptation will end up being awful. But if so, it won't be simply because it is different than the books.

[Redwyrm]

For myself I am happy with the series so far. I haven't seen that much that would have me stop watching it out of hate or spite. I have come to the realization that this is the one and only chance we will get to see a live action adaptation of the WoT. Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones will get multiple chances to screw up and still get another shot. So it's this or nothing when it comes to WoT.

That doesn't mean I will not criticize the changes or things I think could be done better or completely differently. And if it goes completely off the rails into Shannara/Sword of Truth territory I will be right there in condemning the writer/director. But we aren't at that point yet.

And I can already here the "better off with no adaptation than a flawed/disrespectful one"... Possibly, but this series does not change the books. And if it leads to more people reading the source material, than all the better. I am curious to see where this series goes, because I will most likely not get another opportunity to see it done again in my life time.

[Triceron]

YES. Extensively.

Did it get in the way of your enjoyment of the films overall? Genuinely curious, because I do not know what extent of criticism you had, and whether or not it would be comparable to the criticisms you have of WoT, which I feel is getting in the way of your enjoyment of the show.

- - - Updated - - -

Which again, is pointless virtue signaling. If they have no intention of actually changing who TDR actually is, paying lip service to the audience to make them believe it could be a woman, just because they can say "it can be a woman too, see we're inclusive!" is stupid and doesn't do anything for the narrative and only serves to undermine the lore of the world.

It undermines the book lore, but does nothing for the TV lore so far since the prophecy hasn't even been properly established. We just know inklings of what it is about, from various expositions.

If the book were a weekly series like a Comic/Manga, it would be written very differently than if it were as a novel. The purpose of this change does serve the narrative of the TV series, because it works as a hook to keep people guessing on who the Dragon may be. And 'no intention of changing' is not the point, since we all know who the Dragon is, and let's face it, would it ever be acceptable to anyone to make such a drastic change? That's He-Man Revelations level of bait and switch.

[Biomega]

Did it get in the way of your enjoyment of the films overall?

I personally did not like the LotR films, no. As for GoT it's a complex issue because it's such an extensive work. Certainly some parts I agreed more with than others, and some changes I liked while others I did not. No question the last season is an absolute train wreck, but everyone knows that. For the first few, I think they did an overall good job of adapting things. In the middle it's a bit of a letdown in places, but at least acceptable. A little bit of an exculpating factor is the IMMENSELY obsessive attention to detail that the books have, which no one could (or should) translate to the screen, so there's more room to maneuver. I'd say GoT seasons 1-4 are good adaptations, 5-6 are adequate, 7 is questionable, and 8 is a complete failure, if I had to put a rough rating on things. But at the very least they did a good job representing what's key about the books pretty much from the start, which is why I kept watching.