[TV] The Wheel of Time

[Biomega]

Adaptations are fundamentally different from the source.

"Fundamentally" is negotiable. There will be differences, almost inevitably; given it's a different medium, there SHOULD be differences even.

Most people aren't complaining because they made changes. They're complaining because they made SHITTY changes.

[Kharadin]

SHITTY changes

that's negotiable too. Subjectivity is a bitch, right?

[Biomega]

that's negotiable too. Subjectivity is a bitch, right?

I mean, yes, to absolutely everyone's surprise evaluations of cultural products still fail to provide objective absolutes. Thank you for clarifying that, I'm sure everyone is shocked to learn of this revelatory discovery.

[Kharadin]

I mean, yes, to absolutely everyone's surprise evaluations of cultural products still fail to provide objective absolutes. Thank you for clarifying that, I'm sure everyone is shocked to learn of this revelatory discovery.

So you agree your absolute assessment is incorrect? I'm proud of you.

[Shadowferal]

I don't quite follow - are you trying to say Cadsuane would be happy to unknowingly have given away half her lifespan, or for the Aes Sedai as a whole to have done so? I think that's a huge leap if I'm understanding correctly. If anything I'd think Cadsuane would be pissed to give away years should could spend showing these new youth Aes Sedai how to really get shit done and do so in a manner befitting their title.

1.) To speak no word that is not true
2.) To make no weapon with which one man may kill another
3.) Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends or Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme defense of her life, the life of her Warder, or another Aes Sedai.

These oaths were never necessary in the past, however sometime between the Trolloc Wars and the War of the Hundred Years it was decided that Aes Sedai needed to show the world that their use of the One Power was not a threat, and so the Three Oaths became part of the Aes Sedai raising ceremony.

Recently it was discovered that use of the Oath Rod was actually reducing the Aes Sedai lifespans by half. When it was decided to use the Oath Rod for the first time, if they did so knowing that it would reduce significantly their lifespan, they had to have strong motivations.

Most probably the main motivation was the emerging for the first time since the Breaking of channelers aligned to the Shadow (the Dreadlords) and maybe the first suspicion of the presence of a Black Ajah (which eventually found a way to circumvent the oaths, replacing them with the Black Oaths).

Later women raised to the shawl were not told about the shortening of their lifespan, and so knowledge of the effect was lost.

After discussion with Siuan Sanche, Egwene al'Vere comes to agree that the Three Oaths are the heart of what it is to be Aes Sedai. She has also openly discussed the possibility of releasing Aes Sedai from the oaths upon retiring, letting them live out their full lifespans in peace and joining the Kin.

https://wot.fandom.com/wiki/Three_Oaths

[Triceron]

"Fundamentally" is negotiable. There will be differences, almost inevitably; given it's a different medium, there SHOULD be differences even.

Most people aren't complaining because they made changes. They're complaining because they made SHITTY changes.

Right, and there's no right or wrong applied to that since 'SHITTY changes' is subjective. Nothing wrong with keeping things on point.


If people personally think that the changes are shitty, I won't get in the way of that. But as long as there's some kind of statement made that these changes are universally shitty, then I don't see a problem with addressing those statements and putting them in perspective. The show wasn't ever made to appeal to just book readers, and book readers will be the ones affected most since there are so many changes made. Your mileage may vary.

[Kharadin]

snip

oh that's cool, I didn't know that the first Aes Sedai to swear knew of the downsides. I need to get my hands on that BWB.

And obviously we know from the books that Suian and Egwene between themselves decide it's worth it, but I'm just not so sure that the overarching opinion of the Aes Sedai as a whole would be positive knowing they sacked off half their life unknowingly. But it's cool to know that the Artur Hawking era Aes Sedai all knew of it and chose to go through with it, but then again I guess they were under a little duress at that point.

[Biomega]

So you agree your absolute assessment is incorrect? I'm proud of you.

I agree that I should be able to reasonably expect people to be able to properly parse a statement like "this is shitty" without thinking they would veer into an epistemological breakdown about how on earth I managed to arrive at a non-relativistic value absolute. If you genuinely thought that was what I was presenting in any way, shape, or form, we are beyond any hope of discourse.

[Kharadin]

I agree that I should be able to reasonably expect people to be able to properly parse a statement like "this is shitty" without thinking they would veer into an epistemological breakdown about how on earth I managed to arrive at a non-relativistic value absolute. If you genuinely thought that was what I was presenting in any way, shape, or form, we are beyond any hope of discourse.

Yeah, I'd usually do so unless that person points out a pedantic use of the word fundamentally and feels the need to highlight the usage being negotiable. I was just following your lead friend.

[Biomega]

Yeah, I'd usually do so unless that person points out a pedantic use of the word fundamentally and feels the need to highlight the usage being negotiable. I was just following your lead friend.

So that's a no on the "being able to properly parse", then. Fair enough.

Right, and there's no right or wrong applied to that since 'SHITTY changes' is subjective. Nothing wrong with keeping things on point.

Just stop strawmanning this into "but guys listen this is an ADAPTATION, with CHANGES!" because nobody is seriously making the argument you're objecting to. The point is that people DON'T LIKE those changes, not that there ARE changes.

If you cannot parse "shitty changes" into the subjective assessment that it is (and must be, given the epistemological constraints of the discursive framework) and realize that the underlying critique isn't so much a value judgment but a methodological distinction of analytical focus, then you're completely missing "the point" in the first place.

But as long as there's some kind of statement made that these changes are universally shitty, then I don't see a problem with addressing those statements and putting them in perspective.

Why add the word "universally" there, though? That's an extremely disingenuous misrepresentation of things. That's the whole problem you fail to grasp, because assuming that when people talk about "shitty changes" they mean that ALL changes are UNIVERSALLY shitty is exactly the strawmanning process I'm talking about, because it's effectively just a rephrasing of "you just object to changes because they're changes", which is precisely NOT what people are complaining about. They're not complaining about ALL changes. They're complaining about SHITTY changes.

[Kharadin]

Sorry, I didn't get your point initially and now I feel dumb.

Y'know, a lot of people would just get real defensive and belligerant, I'm really proud of you for owning it.

[Triceron]

They're complaining about SHITTY changes.

What would you call a shitty change then? If you're applying this word to something others are collectively agreeing to as being shitty, then you're addressing it universally. And that's exactly the context of the word as you're using it right now.

Otherwise someone could be saying Thom not looking like Patrick Stewart with Hair was a shitty change, would you say that's properly representing the meaning of 'Shitty change' as you're using it? Context matters, and I don't think you particularly would include that as a 'Shitty change' because shitty is subjective to the individual. There shouldn't be any real way to apply 'Shitty change' collectively, in the way you're choosing to apply the word; as if everyone complaining was in agreement to the same changes being shitty. It's only going to appeal to various demographics of the audience, the majority of which won't give a shit since they likely have never read the books nor cared if they stayed close to them or not.

And as I'm pointing out, even the collective change complaints (ie Gendered Dragon Reborn) are not shitty to everyone, and I'm simply offering perspective. I'm not downplaying that the changes will suck to different people, I'm just pointing out the changes aren't irrational nor are they universally 'shitty'. Even something like changes to Lan's personality and having the Warders made less-than-invincible as they seemingly were in the books is all a means to humanize them and give emotional connections for the audience to raise dramatic stakes when needed. Otherwise a close-to-book interpretation might have them acting more like emotionless robots, and that's not always the best thing to have in a drama series. Perspective. What one might consider shitty because it doesn't stick to the book might be equally shitty if it did stick to the book and completely miss the point of portraying the character through performance.

[Ragedaug]

Sure, and we can talk about that if the series takes that turn. I don't see the point in making a big deal out of potential changes that haven't actually happened yet.

I've addressed the point that I don't think the show is going to make that turn, but also noted, it still means the Aes Sedai don't understand how Saidar and Saidin work if they think the Dragon can be female. And that's odd to me. So just kinda jerks me out of the immersion when they mention it. Feels like a record scratch.

And the thing is, LOTR (and Hobbit) is still simply based on and inspired by the original work; that is literally what an adaptation means. Tauriel simply existing and having interactions with the rest of the characters is already a different story than what was in the books, you don't need her to suddenly find the ring or interact with Smaug for it to be any different than her simply existing in the story and having romantic subplot with Fili and interactions with Legolas and the Elf King. The examples you made are literally no different, and you're just describing what an adaptation already is. Even GoT already made sweeping changes, like Bran on the Iron Throne even though it makes zero sense with him already being the three eyed raven.

None of those changes or additions alter the core plots of the books, and there's nothing contradictory from books to movie about Tauriel existing.

Regarding the GoT comments, they stopped adapting the books at Jon Snow's death...'cause they ran out of books. Everything after that is original material that may or may not have anything to do with Martin's last books.

Again, we're not talking about "changes", we're talking about fundamentally changing the core plot of the story. If you can explain how the Movies/Shows fundamentally changed the core plot of LotR, Hobbit, or GoT, I'd be willing to listen. If you brought up Arwen bringing Andúril, or the Dúnedain being replaced by the Elves of Lothlórien, the Dúnedain again being replaced this time by the Army of the Dead, or to me the worst change, what they did to Faramir's character, those are decently big changes - but even those did not fundamentally change the plot, and those changes don't contradict established boundaries and rules of the lore.

[Shadowferal]

They don't have a lot of time to get Rand trained well enough to take on a master. Sadly he has Lan as a teacher...
Maybe he'll remember the Flame and the Void to keep from getting all like emotional Lan.

[Biomega]

Otherwise someone could be saying Thom not looking like Patrick Stewart with Hair was a shitty change, would you say that's properly representing the meaning of 'Shitty change' as you're using it?

I'm not sure why you're picking an example of pure affectation, that I have previously (and at great length) brought up as something that's precisely NOT relevant to the discussion.

Most people aren't complaining because they made changes. They're complaining because they made SHITTY changes.

What I'm talking about is purely the set of changes an (largely arbitrary) sample of people deems shitty, and that set is never coequal with the set of all changes made. You can switch the context based on who you're talking to, and it honestly doesn't matter much what the precise context there is because the point I'm making isn't about who thinks what changes are shitty - the point is that it's always a separate subset characterized by shittiness, and to pretend that it's coequal with the set of all changes is both disingenuous and unproductive.

[Ragedaug]

"Fundamentally" is negotiable. There will be differences, almost inevitably; given it's a different medium, there SHOULD be differences even.

Most people aren't complaining because they made changes. They're complaining because they made SHITTY changes.

Bad changes are bad, and we can whine about them whether we approve of them or not, but as many have noted, that's subjective. I try not to do that when I can, because I know they are subjective and I agree, it's rare when you can adapt from one medium to another without changes, as leaving it exact would make the story suffer in the different medium.

The dragon being female would be a fundamental change to the core of the story. And while you may say that's "negotiable" or subjective, I would argue that it's not. The entire story, from the beginning to the end, revolves around the Dragon Reborn, and what the Dragon is and does is directly tied into how the magic system works, and the magic system is somehow directly tied into XX or XY chromosomes. That's why it matters.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't have a lot of time to get Rand trained well enough to take on a master. Sadly he has Lan as a teacher...
Maybe he'll remember the Flame and the Void to keep from getting all like emotional Lan.

If I recall correctly, Rand's training doesn't start in earnest until after the events at Fal Dara.

[rhorle]

They don't have a lot of time to get Rand trained well enough to take on a master. Sadly he has Lan as a teacher...
Maybe he'll remember the Flame and the Void to keep from getting all like emotional Lan.

They will just cover it off screen like much of the travel to the tower. Or ignore it and let him learn in the next season.

[Triceron]

I've addressed the point that I don't think the show is going to make that turn, but also noted, it still means the Aes Sedai don't understand how Saidar and Saidin work if they think the Dragon can be female. And that's odd to me. So just kinda jerks me out of the immersion when they mention it. Feels like a record scratch.

That doesn't fundamentally change the plot since nothing actually changes here unless they actually make the Dragon a female character. Just thinking that it could be female doesn't alter the plot. The plot is not central to the interpretation of the prophecy or how it's carried out; the world (history) and lore is what is being changed. The plot is still centered on the Dragon existing and moving everything towards the Final Battle.

None of those changes or additions alter the core plots of the books, and there's nothing contradictory from books to movie about Tauriel existing.

And same said above about the core plots of the books not changing with the Dragon being possibly female, in the same vein that you're saying Tauriel doesn't contradict the books (even though it fundamentally does).

As we get more nuanced to discuss that the lore and history would change in WoT, then so could we apply Tauriel's existence changing the world and lore of Middle-Earth, since there has never been a precedent for Elven-Dwarven romance. It's a world change that doesn't necessarily need to affect future plots. It doesn't have to be as eggregious as her be the one who finding the ring and killing Smaug, since obviously the female characters aren't going to become the Dragon Reborn and kill the Dark One just because of a prophecy (interpretation) change.

Regarding the GoT comments, they stopped adapting the books at Jon Snow's death...'cause they ran out of books. Everything after that is original material that may or may not have anything to do with Martin's last books.

Just a week ago, we got a new source (documentary book) where one of Martin's TV associates has revealed that Martin was upset at the show creators as early as Season 5 for straying from the template he provided them. So we know that it's more than just the start of Season 6 and onwards.

Again, we're not talking about "changes", we're talking about fundamentally changing the core plot of the story. If you can explain how the Movies/Shows fundamentally changed the core plot of LotR, Hobbit, or GoT, I'd be willing to listen. If you brought up Arwen bringing Andúril, or the Dúnedain being replaced by the Elves of Lothlórien, the Dúnedain again being replaced this time by the Army of the Dead, or to me the worst change, what they did to Faramir's character, those are decently big changes - but even those did not fundamentally change the plot, and those changes don't contradict established boundaries and rules of the lore.

There's numerous articles about the changes in LOTR and how it fundamentally changes the tone of the book as compared to the movies.

Aragorn is straight up stoic in the movies, whereas he's much more aloof and hesitant on accepting his role as king in the books. Faramir's character completely changed. Eowyn didn't defeat the Witch King just because of boobs; there was an in-universe explanation involving Merry's Dagger that was completely omitted in the movies (he just uses a regular sword in the movies). There's plenty that can and has been discussed, and it just goes to point that despite all these changes and how we can actually break down the movies as not being as faithful to the source as we may think, the overall plot doesn't actually change for it since at the end of the day the ring is taken to mount doom, evil is vanquished, and the world is saved. That's the main plot. Everything else that happens in between can be changed or altered as they choose to do so and it doesn't actually change the core plot.

Same is being applied to WoT so far, although MUCH MORE creative liberty is being applied to altering the history and lore, for whatever reasons the show creators have. But the core plot? Let's discuss what in the plot is actually changing. Not just world stuff, but actual core plot that relates to the end result. Cuz even the prophecy changes hasn't actually altered the core plot.

- - - Updated - - -

Most people aren't complaining because they made changes. They're complaining because they made SHITTY changes.

What I'm talking about is purely the set of changes an (largely arbitrary) sample of people deems shitty, and that set is never coequal with the set of all changes made.

And you must have misunderstood what I meant by universally shitty, since I don't mean *all changes are Shitty* rather I am saying you're regarding something that you think *everyone considers Shitty, universally*. And that simply isn't definable since a 'Shitty change' is ultimately subjective on a personal level. Collective regards for something being shitty is still just a collective of individual opinions, like 'Sylvanas' story is shitty' has no real tangible, objective value to it. It's going to be different people disliking the story for various (different) reasons, as well as different levels of not liking the change. It's not a universal sentiment under the same assumed reasons.

You can switch the context based on who you're talking to, and it honestly doesn't matter much what the precise context there is because the point I'm making isn't about who thinks what changes are shitty - the point is that it's always a separate subset characterized by shittiness, and to pretend that it's coequal with the set of all changes is both disingenuous and unproductive.

Then it's a case by case scenario, which is how I've been replying to each person individually.

And if you read enough of my replies, you'd see that I'm usually addressing statements made beyond simply opinion, like suppositions that the Dragon Reborn will end up being female (we don't actually know yet) or that the show should not be regarded as an adaptation and as a pure work of fiction instead (twilight zone?), even though an adaptation has no bearing on how faithful it has to be to the original story. I'm not ignoring that people feel the way they do about the changes, I'm addressing most of those other points or putting certain ones in perspective.

Like if someone says 'I can't understand why they would change it', then isn't it unfair if I provide a response on reasons why the show creators may have changed it to provide perspective to the discussion? This isn't a circle jerk for shitty-changes thread, even if forums like these tend to be echo-chambers. I'm not *pretending* that people are okay with every change, I'm simply making the point that nothing is really universally considered shitty, and there are always reasons for them to happen regardless of our personal acceptance or understanding of them happening. I'm not telling anyone how they should feel about the changes, so I don't believe I'm being disingenuous at all. As for being unproductive; we're in a fucking discussion forum with people talking about shows they don't like; how productive do you actually expect discussion to be?

[Biomega]

And you must have misunderstood what I meant by universally shitty, since I don't mean *all changes are Shitty* rather I am saying you're regarding something that you think *everyone considers Shitty, universally*.

I didn't misunderstand, I simply assumed (which clearly I shouldn't have) that "in other news, opinions are subjective" was a given assumption for anything by definition and wouldn't merit discussion.

What the fuck would we be talking about if you're unable to define 'shittiness' in any cohesive way? Who is defining 'shittiness' here?

Doesn't matter for the point I'm making. You can discuss it case-by-case, as per the aforementioned "in other news, opinions are subjective". My objection is methodological.

[Triceron]

Doesn't matter for the point I'm making. You can discuss it case-by-case, as per the aforementioned "in other news, opinions are subjective". My objection is methodological.

At what point haven't I taken my responses on a case-by-case level?

Every response I have made here has been tailored to the person I'm talking to. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm open to clarifying my position if need be on 'broad' statements I may have made that seemed otherwise.

I respond to those that I think are worth responding to. I don't aim to dismiss anyone's opinion either. But hey, if someone considers something to be shitty and there's a valid argument to make that the change isn't all that shitty, then we're free to both express as a means of discussion, no?