[TV] The Wheel of Time

[Mace]

Hmmm. Anyone else noticed how the threat of the dark one seems a lot less prevalent.

Wasn’t the seals breaking like a very big thing?

Also last episode seems to have skipped a lot.

It is telling a different story.

[Biomega]

Like waking up in a weird Twilight Zone reality where everyone you know is still there but acting different.

Yep, the show is a different universe. It's like WoT, except without being fun or intelligent or engaging.

[Kharadin]

Hmmm. Anyone else noticed how the threat of the dark one seems a lot less prevalent.

Wasn’t the seals breaking like a very big thing?

Also last episode seems to have skipped a lot.

It is telling a different story.

The seals breaking doesn't turn up as a threat until (*I think*) Moiraine gets ahold of the one Rand and Mat pick up and realises it's started softening, so in terms of the overall book pacing it should have been ep 5 or could be ep 6.

That being said, the "threat of the Dark One" in the first few books is just Ishamael fucking around and everyone assuming it's the Dark One. I think so far, we're about on track in terms of that, it's mostly just him appearing in dreams although in the books we get a lot of sinister dialogue that we haven't had in the show.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, the show is a different universe. It's like WoT, except without being fun or intelligent or engaging.

If I wanted intelligence in my TV I'd watch Big Bang Theory.

[Triceron]

Triceron has been writing the same stuff for the past 20 pages, it's all just some sort of relativism thing and won't address the fact that most people here view the changes to WoT as fundamentally more story shifting than Lotr.

What is there to address?

We know it's more story shifting than LOTR.

That doesn't excuse people for somehow wanting to distinguish this as something other than an adaptation, just because it doesn't happen to be as faithful as the LOTR trilogy. It's still an adaptation. It's still based on the books, even if it chooses to take a different take on the story, characters and the world itself.

Like, what TV series adaptation is actually the same as the books? Even something like Walking Dead takes huge sweeping changes to characters and storylines, and is still an adaptation even though it chooses not to follow the same plot. Main character doesn't get their hand cut off, and that part of the story was absolutely character defining in the books. All the while they're open to having other characters with missing limbs, showing that it wasn't a case of shying away from the gore or acts of violence.

Adaptations are fundamentally different from the source. Don't know why people think that Twilight Zoning the shit out of the source was something unexpected. The show would never be the books anyways, even if they followed the plot points closer.

Disagreeing with the changes or voicing that they don't like it? I'm in full support of people sharing that opinion. But people act like the show needs to be like the book, and frankly that rule has never really applied for any TV or film adaptation. It's always a creative choice, and a complete toss up for any series.

[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.