[TV] The Wheel of Time

[Katchii]

It's an adaptation whether you choose to call it that or not.

Just as Blade Runner does not follow the plot of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but is still considered an adaptation regardless. This isn't something that is subjectively defined. What you can do is choose to define it as being a true, loose, good or poor adaptation, but it remains an adaptation no matter what.

As I said, the word you seem to be looking for is bastardization.

Sure, whatever. Mince words. That doesn't make you smart, it makes you tiresome and pedantic.

Based on the Wheel of Time series written by Robert Jordan. Developed by Rafe Judkins. Written for TV by *insert writer of the episode*

If you're going to choose to be ignorant, at least don't display it publicly for it to be easily called out. There's no bait and switch here when it's clear and plain fucking English. The TV series isn't written by Robert Jordan.

Here you go again, mincing words. That's not as much of a "gotcha" as you seem to think it is. It say right there that it's based on the series written by Robert Jordan. Not Rafe Judkins.

You're not speaking of anything when you're literally using the wrong words and seem to stick to wanting to continue to use the wrong words to describe what you actually want to say...

You can go away now. I'm done listening to you do this crap.

[Rennadrel]

How is that exactly different from any adaptation of any fantasy series to TV or film? Peter Jackson would have 'hijacked' LOTR and Dan and David 'hijacked' Game of Thrones all the same.

And if they're telling a different version of the story, then that's not what plagiarizing means...

Holy christ I didn't think people could be so willfully dishonest. See, what Peter Jackson did was remain extremely faithful to J.R.R Tolkien's books. Sure, The Hobbit movies were not completely faithful to the book and were a bit over dramatized in order to be better on the big screen, but LotR is extremely faithful to the books and I think he did an exceptional job at presenting Tolkien's vision on the big screen. GoT would also be exceptionally terrible if it were completely faithful to the source material, but at least it also didn't try to change the narrative or even misrepresent what the writer intended for much of the shows seasons. And up until they started running out of source material, the show was pretty good and even fans of the books generally liked it.

The difference? It's called living up to expectations. All of these stories are driven by quality story telling and good characters, flaws and all. What's that line I've heard numerous times from shit show runners, directors and writers in Hollywood over the last few years? Oh yeah, something about subverting expectations? Every time that phrase has been used, the end result has been a complete and utter bastardization of beloved characters and franchises. People don't want their expectations subverted, they want to see the characters they know and love represented with respect. Know why Kevin Smith keeps getting his ass reamed out on Twitter for that pile of shit He-man show? Because it disrespects the protagonist, ruins the character of his main companion in Teela and makes her into a psychotic bitch with a Twitter activist haircut and completely lacks any form of nuanced writing that could actually tell a good story that focuses on her. That's exactly what I expect WoT to be because fuckheads like Rafe have zero fucking concept of nuance and none of those dumb fucks even passed Creative Writing 101. Pretty sure my characters in my 5th grade creative writing classes had more emotional depth and personality than anything these writers are trying to pass off as entertainment these days are capable of.

Also, the whole narrative of WoT could have been stuck to entirely and it could have been great, especially with all the crappy scenes that Jordan wrote that made men and women collectively look like a bunch of stubborn and idiotic people, especially the constant arguing that happened between characters. There's also tons of great character moments for the women in the series if that's the angle they wanted to go for, without neutering the entirety of the narrative. There isn't even really a true protagonist focus in the books, it's split so evenly and if anything, there's tons of writing time given to the women more than Rand, Mat and Perrin in a lot of books

[rhorle]

My point is that the in-universe explanation for why it is different from the books has not been unveiled in the TV series. That is what can be discussed. But otherwise, good job confirming that the TV series is not the Book series, as I've already said day 1.

I don't know why you are still on this thing that people are claiming it is the same. That is the entire point of the complaints that they are making core changes between the two. You are stuck in some weird argument land and keep bringing up stuff that no one is claiming for whatever reason. The show gave us the in-universe explanation with the trivia/facts on the "pause" screen. It doesn't matter if it showed up on screen because it was deliberate "additional info" given about the universe of the show.

Continuing to deny it because it doesn't meet your arbitrary burden is just silly.

[Triceron]

I don't know why you are still on this thing that people are claiming it is the same.

Because there are literally people here who think the TV aeries ks written by Robert Jordan. Just look two posts above yours.

[rhorle]

Because there are literally people here who think the TV aeries ks written by Robert Jordan. Just look two posts above yours.

It say right there that it's based on the series written by Robert Jordan. Not Rafe Judkins.

Yes, it is. They call it out at the start of every episode. This isn't the Wheel of Time story by Rafe Judkins. It's the Wheel of Time story, written by Robert Jordan, produced by Rafe Judkins.

I don't think it is saying what you think it does. Based on the book series written by Robert Jordan is not saying the TV show is written by Robert Jordan.

[Katchii]

I don't think it is saying what you think it does. Based on the book series written by Robert Jordan is not saying the TV show is written by Robert Jordan.

This^

Thanks rhorle

I never once stated the TV series was written by Robert Jordan.

[Triceron]

Holy christ I didn't think people could be so willfully dishonest. See, what Peter Jackson did was remain extremely faithful to J.R.R Tolkien's books. Sure, The Hobbit movies were not completely faithful to the book and were a bit over dramatized in order to be better on the big screen, but LotR is extremely faithful to the books and I think he did an exceptional job at presenting Tolkien's vision on the big screen.

Actually, they aren't.

The Rankin Bass adaptation is more faithful than PJ's version, which has MANY changes.

The reason why the PJ films were good were not because of it being faithful, but because they were well produced and had sensible changes that fit for the purpose of the movie.

The fact you think that you consider them faithful adaptations shows how you can actually accept an adaptation of LOTR that can have a lot of changes and not shit all over it for not being as faithful as the comparably more faithful animated version. It's not actually as faithful as you think or remember it to be, but that's okay how faithful the adaptation is doesn't actually matter when it's done well and what we consider to be done right.

Again, I make the point of Elves at Helms Deep and how no one seems to have a problem with this change, yet it's a HUGE world changing thing to the book versions. It's well accepted for being done well and tastefully, not because it was faithful to the books.

And same with GOT. You think that it became terrible because it strayed from the books, but I'm sure you had no problem with seasons 5 and 6 even though GRRM has personally gone on record having said those seasons strayed from his template and that he wasn't happy about it. Most beefs with GOT come from season 7 and 8. So yeah, it isn't just about faithful or not, it's more about being done well or not, cuz even non-book readers HATED the last season regardless of how the book would actually end. These actually have little to do with being faithful or not.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it is saying what you think it does. Based on the book series written by Robert Jordan is not saying the TV show is written by Robert Jordan.

That's only because I corrected him by telling him it's only based on the book series...

Go one post earlier. He said:


Yes, it is. They call it out at the start of every episode. This isn't the Wheel of Time story by Rafe Judkins. It's the Wheel of Time TV story, written by Robert Jordan

- - - Updated - - -

I never once stated the TV series was written by Robert Jordan.

Yes you did, and I quoted above. Dude, you literally said these words last page and they are always gonna be there for everyone to see.

Why you gotta lie like that?

'Written by' and 'Based on the book written by' indicate very two different meanings, different ownerships. You were implying that the show creators were stealing the story, and I've explained how no matter how you want to personal view it, there's no way you could actually define this as stealing because credit has been appropriately given to the original author while it's clearly stated that this current show is only _based_ on the book series. The TV series is not beholden to the original author, it's just based on his works. Just like how Blade Runner is based on Philip K Dick's works, and aren't beholden to the original story or the author. Credit for the movie goes to Ridley Scott and his writers.

[Katchii]

Yes you did, and I quoted above. Dude, you literally said these words last page and they are always gonna be there for everyone to see.

Why you gotta lie like that?

I can see why you're confused (no sarcasm here, seriously). I did make a mistake and edited out almost immediately. I took the word "TV" out of that sentence as I had written it a different way and reworded it and missed taking that out before I posted. Check the post again or look at rhorles quote of it above.

[Chapel]

It is a poor adaptation that markedly adds unimportant changes to the core story.

It disparages the male protagonists to introduce flaws that did not exist in the completed book series (Rand isn't lecherous, Matt isn't a philanderer, nor is his father Abel and Perrin isn't a wife murderer with grief issues).

It reduces the male characters strengths (taveren) and inflates the female protagonists abilities in inappropriate ways (not possible for them to be Dragon Reborn) for no reason but to 'headline' the female characters.

I just treat it as an alternate universe 'Wobbly Wheel of Time' where the men are side characters and 'wamyn power'.

- - - Updated - - -

Plus adding the GoT treatment to sex up the show by aging the protagonists unnecessarily.

[Flurryfang]

After having watched the two first episodes, i do find it odd how little future proof the show is when it comes to the story to come.

There seems to many core elements of future plots/elements, that have been pushed away to make an interesting first season.

Like, channeling is completly de-mystified, while in the books it is mystical until the final end. That you can see channeling and that it has a clear effect on people is also odd, as one of the main factors of channeling is that it is invisible to people who can't channel.
It will make for some wierd scenes in the future, where channelers fight each other and people around are supposed to not notice......

[Shadowferal]

My bro was keeping tabs on the show, but after the 4th episode...and expletive laden criticism he said flat out he wasn't given "this piece of shit" any more of his time.

[Tyris Flare]

The difference? It's called living up to expectations. All of these stories are driven by quality story telling and good characters, flaws and all. What's that line I've heard numerous times from shit show runners, directors and writers in Hollywood over the last few years? Oh yeah, something about subverting expectations? Every time that phrase has been used, the end result has been a complete and utter bastardization of beloved characters and franchises. People don't want their expectations subverted, they want to see the characters they know and love represented with respect. Know why Kevin Smith keeps getting his ass reamed out on Twitter for that pile of shit He-man show? Because it disrespects the protagonist, ruins the character of his main companion in Teela and makes her into a psychotic bitch with a Twitter activist haircut and completely lacks any form of nuanced writing that could actually tell a good story that focuses on her. That's exactly what I expect WoT to be because fuckheads like Rafe have zero fucking concept of nuance and none of those dumb fucks even passed Creative Writing 101.

So, you should really watch Arcane. It like the complete opposite of so much modern garbage, you will immediately feel better.

[Delekii]

I wasn't the one who brought claims, you were and I was showing you a rebuttal. Nobody gives the shit of any one/small subsection of fans, but judging by the the various sources/media I have looked at a lot of people gave the show a chance (the high numbers you talk about) but have little to no interest in continuing to watch this bastard child of Rafe and Jordan (its called retention, and this show is going to fail there).

Maybe because I am not an egotistical nutjob that thinks not only can I adopt a series, but you know what, I am smarter than the author and let me arbitrary make changes to fit MY political/social agenda, not what made the story a cohesive and narrative respected piece of literature. Just because some people like to eat shit and call it chocolate doesn't mean I should. Usually if I am a fan of something I don't feel the need to constantly change pieces of the story to fit a social narrative, I let the piece I enjoy stand for itself. It's hilarious you think people that constantly change things to get social points give more than 2 fucks about the story they are turning into frankensteins monster.

"various sources/media"
85% amalgamated critic rating, 80% user rating

Like I said; people have tunnel vision and see what they want, but numbers don't. The numbers simply don't support what you are saying.

The reality is that the actual bubble is people like you on internet forums like this who think that social progression ruins things, when most people just don't give a shit.

[Corvus]

"various sources/media"
85% amalgamated critic rating, 80% user rating

Rotten Tomatoes has an unusual way of calculating scores. Its much higher than elsewhere. Metacritic has it at 55 critcs and 63 viewers, while IMdB (owned by Amazon) is at 75 from the viewers

[Delekii]

Rotten Tomatoes has an unusual way of calculating scores. Its much higher than elsewhere. Metacritic has it at 55 critcs and 63 viewers, while IMdB (owned by Amazon) is at 75 from the viewers

Sure, that's fine; 7.5 from viewers is still a-ok (and it's from 31k votes, so it's not a small sample). I can't even load metacritic.

Edit: there we go, I loaded metacritic. The score there is an average but the scores from critics range from 20 to 100. Literally, the full gamut from 20 to 100. Rotten tomatoes seems to veto outliers before taking an average, so when you say Rotten Tomatoes has an unusual score, I'd make the argument that it's metacritic's that is weirder.. but it's not, it's just a devisive show among the critics they use.

I don't know how anyone could realistically give the show a 25, that's just nonsensical. So is 100, but 25? Come on. Clicking through to read the actual review, it doesn't even show a score, so I'm not even sure where the number came from.

Edit: To add further, none of the low scoring reviews mention changes to the story or socially progressive motivations at all.

[Corvus]

7.5 isn't great given what they are aiming for. GoT, even after its disastrous last season is sitting at 9.2 from 1.9 million voters. Amazon (and Bezos more specifically) wants this to rival GoT - on those numbers it's a long way short.

[Biomega]

I don't even know where to go for review scores anymore. RT, IMBD, and Metacritic have been skewed so much by their industry conflict of interest it's really tough to find something you can believe is at least a little bit independent. So I have no clue what the prevailing opinion of viewers is - there is outcry from fans all over the place, but of course that's selection bias because people who like the show just fine are much less likely to post online than people who have something to complain about, so we have no idea how representative that reaction actually is.

At the end of the day, the only thing I can know for sure is whether or not *I* like it, and I don't. We'll have to see what happens to the show to get a gauge on overall reaction, if they cancel it at some point it didn't work; if it runs until the end, I guess it did.

[Kharadin]

I suppose if you like terrible color grading ren fair level costumes and butchering of good works of literature it's decent.

I don't think that's the case. And it seems to be doing quite well critically.

[Ragedaug]

As an average person who didn't know about this, I still don't care what the book says if I'm watching this show for the sake of watching the show.

I think the point is that that change would make it a completely different story, where just some of the people and places have the same name, but it's a different story happening.

That makes the title misleading. Instead, it should have a distinct title and the small print should say, "Inspired by Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series".

[Triceron]

I think the point is that that change would make it a completely different story, where just some of the people and places have the same name, but it's a different story happening.

That makes the title misleading. Instead, it should have a distinct title and the small print should say, "Inspired by Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series".

That's exactly what 'Based on' means. This is literally semantics when 'Based on' already implies that it's not the actual source. It's literally no different than 'Inspired by'.

You don't look at something that's based on something else and expect it to be exactly the same, otherwise it wouldn't even need to say 'based on'.

Like if we were to talk about the Back to the Future musical being 'based on' or 'inspired by' the movie, there's literally no difference in the wording even if the musical aims to translate the movie 1:1 in musical theatre form; it's still implied that it's not the same thing as the movie and will have creative liberties taken. Or say a movie literally 'based on' true life events, the movie can take creative liberties regardless. It's not a documentary or biography.

And circling back to points I've made all too many times, this is literally no different than how LOTR and Game of Thrones approached their respective movie/shows all while being 'based on' the original novels. There was no need to imply later seasons of GoT were simply 'Inspired by' because all the changes they made to the show, or have the Hobbit be 'Inspired by' because of all the additions and changes that never existed in the original novel. At the end of the day, we're still talking about Adaptations.