[TV] The Wheel of Time

[Coniferous]

Hmf..
Rafe says readers already know who the Dragon is...
But that's in the book.
What better way to "subvert expectations" than by making it someone else in the show?

Or else you subvert the now subverted expectations, and end up right back where everyone expected you to be!

[Triceron]

An adaptation that loose would be a sad mockery of the story and a sorry excuse of an adaptation and would get rightly ridiculed for it.

I don't see MCU getting ridiculed for being loose adaptations of the comics, do you? I mean if it's coming from comic book purists, then what's the mockery really worth here? The majority of MCU fans don't give a shit, nor should they.

WOT isn't made only for the book fans, that's what you need to consider here. Whatever 'mockery' this series gets doesn't matter as much as whether or not the series holds up as entertaining content. Not sure about you, but when comic fans come out of the woodwork to cry out on how Thanos in the MCU isn't as epic as his comic book counterpart, it really holds little water. Mockery and ridicule from the purists is worth what, exactly?

If the series tanks, it would be on the weight of its own performance. This rings true for the best and worst MCU adaptations, the best and worst seasons of Game of Thrones, the best and worst of any adaptation whether it's loose adaptations like Blade Runner or close adaptations like Dune. Ridicule should be the least of anyone's worries.

I'm not nearly as well versed in LotR lore as I am WoT lore. So I'll concede that because I'm more connected to the WoT story I'm seeing the changes more keenly with WoT. Some changes may not affect the overall story of the books, but IMO, the changes they seem to be hinting at in WoT destroy some of the core tenets of the world lore. Again, we'll have to see just how much those changes affect the overall narrative.

You hold it sacred and have an expectation that the TV series should be beholden to the book lore. I get that. I don't diminish the sentiment, and that's not my point here. I get that people want things closer to the book. The conflict here is that these shows don't exist to provide the best quality retelling of a classic Epic; it's here to cash in on the fame and audience of the Game of Thrones casuals who are looking for another big fantasy TV series to latch on to. And that's why this whole series has a 'paint by numbers' feel to it, hitting all the checkboxes that fit the modern style of TV series. That's why the story is being changed around, that's why certain characters are propped up while others are 'diminished' (I would consider it 'humbled'), and overall the plot of the series still aims to hit the same overall notes. When you get down to it, the series is about the Dragon Reborn saving the world against the Dark One, and whether the prophecy is extended to both genders or not, the overall plot doesn't actually change. The world around it changes, but the overall plot does not. Of course, it will mean more changes down the line to accomodate the fundamental world change, and I don't think anyone is surprised here that it will happen.

It's about the same as something like adding Elves to Helms Deep, who all get slaughtered to the last man so none stay alive to move on to the next film or affect the plot. It fundamentally changes the world since the Elves in the lore are too proud and too few in number to offer aid to the 'lesser races', which they no real interest in helping directly. Depending on the perspective, you could see it as diminishing the lore of the books, or you could simply take it at face value and accept the narrative changes as something that is exclusive to the movies

The history of the Elves caring little for the lesser races is not a theme carried much in the movies, so something like Elves at Helms Deep actually works in the film medium, because it's integrated into the overall world changes. And my point here has been that the gender-agnostic Dragon Reborn is right now being written as a part of this series, and the TV world is not beholden to the lore of the book. The world of the TV series is not built on gendered souls. There has been ZERO explanation around the nuances of rebirth and reincarnation in the TV series, so it's not actually missing anything from the books, rather that it's not yet established any of the rules for this particular adaptation. That's what has to be considered here.

As I said, everyone is free to criticize and voice concerns. I'm not even particularly disagreeing, since I personally think the changes were unnecessary as well. My point is to say that within the context of the TV series so far, nothing is actually world-breaking because the rules of the world are still being established. They aren't pre-established by anything in the books. Just like if you watch an MCU movie, none of the rules from the comics need apply to the actual movies. The MCU can introduce Spiderman without Uncle Ben and the Power = Responsibility motivations. They can introduce Tony Stark who immediately outs himself as Iron Man. The MCU is it's own self contained universe. That's how I think WoT should be addressed; as its own self-contained universe rather than being some extension of the book lore in Live Action form. It's not the book series.

[Theangryone]

That throws away about half of the books.

If you cut out Shaido, Seanchan, and most of the black Ajah intrigue you have a 5 book series.

[Shadowferal]

I don't see MCU getting ridiculed for being loose adaptations of the comics, do you? .

*raises hand*
Because omg yes...

- - - Updated - - -

If you cut out Shaido, Seanchan, and most of the black Ajah intrigue you have a 5 book series.

That would certainly streamline things. Hell, wouldn't need 8 seasons to do that.

[Coniferous]

I don't see MCU getting ridiculed for being loose adaptations of the comics, do you? I mean if it's coming from comic book purists, then what's the mockery really worth here? The majority of MCU fans don't give a shit, nor should they.

WOT isn't made only for the book fans, that's what you need to consider here. Whatever 'mockery' this series gets doesn't matter as much as whether or not the series holds up as entertaining content. Not sure about you, but when comic fans come out of the woodwork to cry out on how Thanos in the MCU isn't as epic as his comic book counterpart, it really holds little water. Mockery and ridicule from the purists is worth what, exactly?

If the series tanks, it would be on the weight of its own performance. This rings true for the best and worst MCU adaptations, the best and worst seasons of Game of Thrones, the best and worst of any adaptation whether it's loose adaptations like Blade Runner or close adaptations like Dune. Ridicule should be the least of anyone's worries.



You hold it sacred and have an expectation that the TV series should be beholden to the book lore. I get that. I don't diminish the sentiment, and that's not my point here. I get that people want things closer to the book. The conflict here is that these shows don't exist to provide the best quality retelling of a classic Epic; it's here to cash in on the fame and audience of the Game of Thrones casuals who are looking for another big fantasy TV series to latch on to. And that's why this whole series has a 'paint by numbers' feel to it, hitting all the checkboxes that fit the modern style of TV series. That's why the story is being changed around, that's why certain characters are propped up while others are 'diminished' (I would consider it 'humbled'), and overall the plot of the series still aims to hit the same overall notes. When you get down to it, the series is about the Dragon Reborn saving the world against the Dark One, and whether the prophecy is extended to both genders or not, the overall plot doesn't actually change. The world around it changes, but the overall plot does not. Of course, it will mean more changes down the line to accomodate the fundamental world change, and I don't think anyone is surprised here that it will happen.

It's about the same as something like adding Elves to Helms Deep, who all get slaughtered to the last man so none stay alive to move on to the next film or affect the plot. It fundamentally changes the world since the Elves in the lore are too proud and too few in number to offer aid to the 'lesser races', which they no real interest in helping directly. Depending on the perspective, you could see it as diminishing the lore of the books, or you could simply take it at face value and accept the narrative changes as something that is exclusive to the movies

The history of the Elves caring little for the lesser races is not a theme carried much in the movies, so something like Elves at Helms Deep actually works in the film medium, because it's integrated into the overall world changes. And my point here has been that the gender-agnostic Dragon Reborn is right now being written as a part of this series, and the TV world is not beholden to the lore of the book. The world of the TV series is not built on gendered souls. There has been ZERO explanation around the nuances of rebirth and reincarnation in the TV series, so it's not actually missing anything from the books, rather that it's not yet established any of the rules for this particular adaptation. That's what has to be considered here.

As I said, everyone is free to criticize and voice concerns. I'm not even particularly disagreeing, since I personally think the changes were unnecessary as well. My point is to say that within the context of the TV series so far, nothing is actually world-breaking because the rules of the world are still being established and are not pre-established by anything in the books. Just like if you watch an MCU movie, none of the rules from the comics need apply to the actual movies. The MCU can introduce Spiderman without Uncle Ben and the Power = Resonsibility motivations without having that be a core criticism of 'changing the story'. That's how I think WoT should be addressed; as its own self-contained universe rather than being some extension of the book lore in Live Action form. It's not the book series.

Honestly, my expectations for fantasy are far higher than comic books, which are constantly reinvented with multiverses and all sorts of crap.

And yes, Lotr had some differences but the basic story beats were the same. This isn't even close. It's like if in LOTR, the first scenes in the shire were split between the perspectives of all 4 hobbits instead of told from Frodo's, then during the trip to Rivendell there's a plotline where Strider ends up hanging out with the Dunedain for a few nights and they explore that world. It's weird and choppy.

[Triceron]

And yes, Lotr had some differences but the basic story beats were the same. This isn't even close. It's like if in LOTR, the first scenes in the shire were split between the perspectives of all 4 hobbits instead of told from Frodo's, then during the trip to Rivendell there's a plotline where Strider ends up hanging out with the Dunedain for a few nights and they explore that world. It's weird and choppy.

The Hobbit.

Which are still very much watchable and entertaining movies in their own right. You simply need to detach yourself from expecting the movies to be true to the books to actually get any entertainment value out of. The expectations will get in the way of enjoying it for what it is, since you're always going to compare it to what you want to expect instead.

If there's criticisms of the Hobbit, it should be on the merit of the movies as movies. The romantic subplot felt forced, the pacing was odd, and some of the acting was not on the level as LOTR. I think these are the kind of criticisms that are fine to have, since we're talking about the series as a series, and not just nitpicking how the changes aren't like how they were in the books.

So yes, if they added scenes that made the movie felt weird and choppy, that's valid. And I haven't really dismissed any of those criticisms of WoT. I absolutely think WoT first 3 eps were very rushed and paced poorly. But the whole Gender changes? We haven't reached any level to see it actually being a problem, so it's literally a case of waiting and seeing if it will actually turn sour. If the series hasn't actually turned sour yet, I don't think we should immediately criticize it for being sour. Let's wait and see what the writers actually choose to do with it.

[Egomaniac]

To use an analogy

One book is basically telling the events of JFK's assassination
And the next book is "what were you doing when JFK was assassinated"

Yup. That's pretty much it exactly.

[rhorle]

I don't see MCU getting ridiculed for being loose adaptations of the comics, do you? I mean if it's coming from comic book purists, then what's the mockery really worth here? The majority of MCU fans don't give a shit, nor should they.

Because the comic books adapt themselves with new story lines or alternative timelines all the time. There is no single core for a lot of the stuff. They also were not direct adaptations of the storylines in a specific comic book.

[Triceron]

Because the comic books adapt themselves with new story lines or alternative timelines all the time. There is no single core for a lot of the stuff. They also were not direct adaptations of the storylines in a specific comic book.

But the adaptations were never beholden to sticking to any particular storyline, even if they did adapt a comic book directly.

Look at Watchmen or 300. They were directly based on singular stories, and they both had major changes, and yet they were still entertaining movies in their own right. We don't have to just be talking about the Spiderman movies or Hellboy which aren't based on any one comic.

[Coniferous]

The Hobbit.

Which are still very much watchable and entertaining movies in their own right. You simply need to detach yourself from expecting the movies to be true to the books to actually get any entertainment value out of. The expectations will get in the way of enjoying it for what it is, since you're always going to compare it to what you want to expect instead.

If there's criticisms of the Hobbit, it should be on the merit of the movies as movies. The romantic subplot felt forced, the pacing was odd, and some of the acting was not on the level as LOTR. I think these are the kind of criticisms that are fine to have, since we're talking about the series as a series, and not just nitpicking how the changes aren't like how they were in the books.

So yes, if they added scenes that made the movie felt weird and choppy, that's valid. And I haven't really dismissed any of those criticisms of WoT. I absolutely think WoT first 3 eps were very rushed and paced poorly. But the whole Gender changes? We haven't reached any level to see it actually being a problem, so it's literally a case of waiting and seeing if it will actually turn sour. If the series hasn't actually turned sour yet, I don't think we should immediately criticize it for being sour. Let's wait and see what the writers actually choose to do with it.

The Hobbit movies were terrible. And while, yes, it's not irredeemable, it's not a good start to this so far, and I don't see a reason to have faith that this guy can expand on a relatively coherent world that took years to write, while also making a giant TV show. It just seems like a real long shot that this level of consistent deviation can work.

[rhorle]

But the adaptations were never beholden to sticking to any particular storyline, even if they did adapt a comic book directly.

Because the Marvel movies were not adapting a specific story line but the character(s). This is a TV show adapting books with a specific story and lore. There is a difference even if you want to conflate the two. Core things should not be changed. Superman should always be an alien from Krypton that draws power from the sun if they are adapting his prime character. They shouldn't change it into a mutant exposed to green goo in the sewers of Lex Corp for the reason he has powers and still expect it to be adapting the "prime" character.

Same with books. If you are adapting a book the core stuff should remain the same and not be changed just because. Even more so when the change is superficial and does nothing for the actual plot.

[Triceron]

Because the Marvel movies were not adapting a specific story line but the character(s). This is a TV show adapting books with a specific story and lore. There is a difference even if you want to conflate the two.

Except it's not?

It's a loose adaptation that simply takes the characters and the overall plot (Dragon Reborn fights Dark One, saves the world) and is pretty much doing anything else in between. What exactly is the difference?

The universes are different, no matter how much you want to argue that they *should* be the same.

[rhorle]

It's a loose adaptation that simply takes the characters and the overall plot (Dragon Reborn fights Dark One, saves the world) and is pretty much doing anything else in between. What exactly is the difference?

It has never been said to be a loose adaptation. That is by virtue of us knowing things have changed. The difference is we are still discussing it being a poor adaptation. Why do you still not understand that is the topic of all of these conversations? People wanted it to be a good adaptation instead of what we are getting. It doesn't make for a poor show but it makes for a poor adaptation.

And if the changes turn out to be superficial and irrelevant to the plot it starts to bring down the quality of the show.

[Triceron]

And while, yes, it's not irredeemable, it's not a good start to this so far, and I don't see a reason to have faith that this guy can expand on a relatively coherent world that took years to write, while also making a giant TV show. It just seems like a real long shot that this level of consistent deviation can work.

I agree with this. I don't think this series has stepped off on the right foot, and it's not building the characters very well for us to be really care enough about the main characters. We just don't have enough time spent with them to understand and accept them as people we really care about. IMO, the support for this series will come directly from the casual non-book reader fanbase, and the show's success will bank on how much the casual audience is willing to stick with the series.

[Shadowferal]

Because the comic books adapt themselves with new story lines or alternative timelines all the time.

But they didn't always do that. Indeed the reason Marvel became such a behemoth was the consistency of a singular timeline. Hell, DC comics had so much trouble keeping track of their own multiple continuities that made "Crisis on Infinite Earths" as a way of consolidating things into a singular cohesive whole.

...and then the industry began imploding a decade later and so..no one gave a shit anymore.

[Triceron]

It has never been said to be a loose adaptation.

Yet it is no matter how you look at it.

Is it a true adaptation? No. So where the fuck is the confusion here?

And if the changes turn out to be superficial and irrelevant to the plot it starts to bring down the quality of the show.

Based on what? The quality of the show will be dependent on the quality of the writing and production value of the series, nothing more than that. It's absurd to think that the series has to stick with the book lore in order to be successful.

The way I see it, you want it to stick to the book lore so that you have a reason to enjoy it. But instead of expressing that as a personal opinion, instead you choose to regard it a poor adaptation to somehow vindicate what you expect is the right (and maybe only) way to adapt a Wheel of Time series.

And the truth is, these creators can adapt any series to however they choose to, and this particular Wheel of Time series is just simply the first time it's being adapted, and by no means the only or last. I mean, look at it this way, even if the 80's Dune movie wasn't that great, it is what it is. And we had to wait 40 years for a proper true-to-book adaptation. But by no means are the previous movies considered poor because they didn't stick to the book lore. They did poorly because they were just poorly made movies. The quality of the writing and the overall production value just wasn't there to capture the spirit of the books. It's down to the creative choices made and how they chose to execute them on screen. Just the same, we have movies that deviate greatly from the source that are highly entertaining in their own right. Look at a majority of Philip K Dick novels, like Minority Report, Total Recall or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (Blade Runner). Loose adaptations can still yield entertaining movies. They simply have to be accepted as self-contained movie universes, rather than extensions of the book.

Again, every argument you're presenting here is based on hanging onto things from the book that simply don't exist (or haven't been properly explained) in the WoT TV series.

Why do you still not understand that is the topic of all of these conversations? People wanted it to be a good adaptation instead of what we are getting.

Book readers who are not willing to distance themselves from the book lore are saying this.

The TV series isn't made for book readers who are unwilling to treat this series as an adaptation.

Again, I think you're very confused in thinking that you're the primary audience for this series. You're not. Neither are GoT book readers the main audience of the TV series. The primary audience of the GoT series are HBO subscribers. And it grew through word of mouth, expanding the interest to people who just wanted to see tits and dragons. Book readers end up being a *tiny* portion of the overall audience for this series. The book readers were simply fortunate that the show runners were big enough fans to want to keep the show fairly consistent to the book (at least for the first few seasons).

WoT is simply Amazon's answer to Game of Thrones, with all the 'par on course' made for liberal media TV changes that come with being on the Prime Video platform.

[Xath]

Honestly, the series would have been better if it were half as many books as it ended up being

Why are you so obsessed with defending a tv show loosely inspired by a series you clearly don't even like?

[rhorle]

Yet it is no matter how you look at it. Is it a true adaptation? No. So where the fuck is the confusion here?

Prior to the actual episodes airing to find out how much they differ and changed core aspects of lore. I wasn't aware that time travel was a basic function of existing so as to be automatically accounted for in discussions.

Based on what?

Changing core parts of lore just to cast doubt for the TV show and not actually changing it brings down the quality. It adds a irelevant plots to an show already busting at the seems with things to cover. Stringing along a superficial plot shows a lack of quality when they could have used done it different to both follow the books better and not waste viewers time. At least it is better then the New Spring pilot they did years ago just so the rights to TV/film rights would not be lost.

[Shadowferal]

And if the changes turn out to be superficial and irrelevant to the plot it starts to bring down the quality of the show.

"If?"

And I would also question use of the word "quality" without qualifying it as either "poor" or "good."

[rhorle]

"If?" And I would also question use of the word "quality" without qualifying it as either "poor" or "good."

Yes. If the Dragon isn't a female the entire story change of it potentially being a female was wasted in a show that has a lot of story to tell in 8 episodes. That speaks of quality issues to me. If they do change the dragon to female then it won't be a waste just a poor adaptation because of the core changes to lore.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, I think you're very confused in thinking that you're the primary audience for this series. You're not. Neither are GoT book readers the main audience of the TV series. The primary audience of the GoT series are people who wanted to see tits and dragons, and the book readers were simply fortunate that the show runners were big enough fans to want to keep the show fairly consistent to the book (at least for the first few seasons).

I think it is you who is confused on who the primary audience is. Wheel of Time was never about tits and dragons. Which again speaks of how poor of an adaptation it is to want to make it something that it is 100% not. Why not just create your own Fantasy world from scratch instead of just using the name when not even trying to draw in fans? It just further shows that the changes they are making don't make any sense at all. Lol.