[TV] The Wheel of Time

[rhorle]

Really? You're going to play the pedantic and nitpick argue about the terms I used?

The meaning of words matters when talking about objective things. Why are you getting so triggered over your changing in how you rated the show? Ready to sling insults and show how it is pure projection at the slightest pushback on something you've said.

Except that it can, because you know where they started from, so when you catch something they didn't manage to effectively explain, you at least have the original as a frame of reference.

You can't because of those MASSIVE (your emphasis) changes. If the core elements and metaphysics of the world are changed then you can't use the source material as reference to explain anything. As you don't know what is changed and if that explanation actually fits the world built by the show. You aren't filling in the blanks of what the show doesn't explain but just pointing out differences between the source and the show as your own explanation indicates.

Completely unsurprising that you missed my point completely.

I didn't miss your point at all. We can say that people find a show good if a lot of people like it. Most people consume entertainment if they like it. They don't hate watch things like a lot of the people on this site apparently do. They simply no longer consume the stuff they don't like and move on to something else that will entertain them.

[Surfd]

The meaning of words matters when talking about objective things. Why are you getting so triggered over your changing in how you rated the show? Ready to sling insults and show how it is pure projection at the slightest pushback on something you've said.

Wheel of Time is an objectively poor faithful adaptation but it isn't an objectively bad story.

Do you remember this comment?

I'm sure you do, since you posted it only a few hours ago.

So, can you clarify: If the story isn't objectively bad, what is it then? If it's not bad, then it must be good then, I assume? How good?

I have not changed my position on the series by the way: I still think it's an objectively bad adaptation. Even if you look at it on just it's own merits, if you ignore that it's supposed to be a WoT adaptation and just consider it from the standpoint of a generic fantasy show, it's mediocre at best. However, I have never judged it as a separate entity from it's origins as an adaptation, and I will not.

While it may not be objectively truly awful, it sure as shit is so damn near straddling the line between bad and mediocre that it's probably got a permanent wedgie by now.

This is not me "changing how I rated the show". Saying I don't find it truly awful is simply an indicator that it could always have been worse, not that I have changed my opinion of it: I still think the show is bad. Saying it's straddling the line between bad and mediocre is not an indication that I have changed my opinion either. I still think the show is bad.

Again, you can objectively classify things on a gradient. This isn't a binary equation.

I didn't miss your point at all. We can say that people find a show good if a lot of people like it. Most people consume entertainment if they like it. They don't hate watch things like a lot of the people on this site apparently do. They simply no longer consume the stuff they don't like and move on to something else that will entertain them.

Nope, you still missed the point. "people enjoy something, therefore that thing must be good" is not a logical argument.

[Nymrohd]

Then they're conflating being a bad show with being a bad adaptation. Those aren't the same thing, however you can dislike a show for being a bad adaptation. That doesn't affect other's like or dislike of it though. And clearly doesn't change how successful it can be.

I found it hard to be objective about the show and enjoy it because of how far from the source material they went and how much of a fan I am for the books. The fact the director went on record to say what a huge fan he was and wanted to do it justice to then go out of his way to reject advice and feedback from Brandon Sanderson and other series lore nerds and butcher the source material like this really didn't score any points with me.

Honestly as a massive fan of the books, my disappointment is just that it makes it extremely unlikely that the books will ever be adapted in the future. I haven't seen the series and I don't plan to; I don't have that streaming service and I don't watch that many series to begin with (unless I get COVID AGAIN . . .) Reading about the plot of the series here I am not sure I'd even call it an adaptation; this is not just about making changes to better fit the novels to the constraints of a TV show. I very much doubt a faithful adaptation was ever possible anyway; the books are just too long, too detailed, with too many characters; some liberties would have to be taken regardless. They have a different vision and are just sharing a new story with similar characters in a similar world. But I am unhappy that chances are I'll never get to see the books I know as a series at a time when so many fantasy series get chosen for adaptation.

Just hope no one tries to do Malazan Books of the Fallen . . .

[Surfd]

Just hope no one tries to do Malazan Books of the Fallen . . .

Supposedly, the first novel was originally conceived as a movie screenplay before the author decided to make it a book instead, and at one point he may even have had a TV series concept either in the works or being shopped around, but it unfortunately never went anywhere.

So it's entirely possible it may happen at some point, as the author definitely doesn't seem to be unopposed to the idea.

I could see Malazan working if they gave it a treatment somewhat similar to the Sandman adaptation.

[Rennadrel]

I think the "adult" aspects of Martin's work is how it doesn't always work out the way you expect fantasy to - like Eddard getting his head chopped off and basically the Hound's entire character. That's what makes the series exciting.

While Jordan has a ton of characters, I don't get the sense that he has a ton of depth - like a lot of the Forsaken and the Kingdoms are pretty similar except for some superficial things like how they wear their hair. Not much to distinguish Sammael and Rahvin, for example.

I disagree. The Forsaken in particular all have their own end goals, they clearly don't like to work with one another because they all wanted to be favoured by their master above all others. I think because Sammael really didn't get much coverage outside of a couple of interactions he has with his compatriots and Shai'tan, made him mysterious. I would assume that he was intended to be brought forth in the story late, but RJ never got around to writing out his story and so Sanderson had to kind of place him into the story so that he had some sort of finality. They are all plotters and schemers though, that is where their similarities end. The funny thing is that had they actually worked together rather than be a bunch of egotists who want to rise above one another, they probably wouldn't have got the results that they did, primarily getting balefired out of existence.

[Nymrohd]

I disagree. The Forsaken in particular all have their own end goals, they clearly don't like to work with one another because they all wanted to be favoured by their master above all others. I think because Sammael really didn't get much coverage outside of a couple of interactions he has with his compatriots and Shai'tan, made him mysterious. I would assume that he was intended to be brought forth in the story late, but RJ never got around to writing out his story and so Sanderson had to kind of place him into the story so that he had some sort of finality. They are all plotters and schemers though, that is where their similarities end. The funny thing is that had they actually worked together rather than be a bunch of egotists who want to rise above one another, they probably wouldn't have got the results that they did, primarily getting balefired out of existence.

To be fair, that's part and parcel with the type of people the Dark One attracted. Honestly there were only two exceptions. Elan joined him because he philosophically agreed with him; every cycle will have to go through the same shit for infinity so the best way to minimize human suffering is to end it now. Graendal joined him because she just decided humanity was not worth it (I mean she was a psychiatrist, so it makes sense for her) so she was better of just having fun for however long it lasted. The rest were just petty or evil people who just wanted power or the freedom to do whatever they wanted.

[Nymrohd]

But again, compare those characters to the complexity of Sandor Clegane, who commits a list of horrible crimes but is somehow on a path of redemption and on his way to being quote unquote “good” - the guy who refuses to become a knight and ridicules Sansa but in the end rescues her, who has a deathly fear of fire due to childhood trauma, etc. there’s nothing that complex in wheel of time - the characters are mostly pretty one dimensional.

Absolutely. The Wheel of Time places the world on the forefront. With the exception of maybe Rand and Nynaeve, whose character development is very important to the story so their past, upbringing and trauma are explored, most everyone else is an actor in a play; they are there to help the story be told, not to tell their story (and maybe Moirane if you count the prequel). They are still internally consistent; I don't think I ever felt that a character acted in a way that made no sense. But they are not the focus because that is not the kind of story Jordan wanted to tell nor is it needed.

That doesn't really mean the characters are not compelling. When you finish watching or reading through Medea or Antigone, you know shit about them. They are still compelling characters though. It is just more about their story and their actions rather than their motives. Pathos and catharsis can be achieved without motives, if anything simpler characters, outlines and archetypes are much easier to empathise and project on.

[Shadowferal]

There's nothing remotely compelling or even interesting about this shit show.

[Katchii]

Not that I want to derail with somewhat more philosophical stuff, but this is pretty close to a "pearls before swine" argument.

Yes, we understand that a lot of people out there may have enjoyed the adaptation, but can you honestly say that they enjoyed it because it was "good" (at least to them) or is it more that they enjoyed it because they don't actually know what it could have been? That's the problem we have, as fans of the books. We KNOW what it could have been, and what we got is just horribly disappointing.

It's like being told by someone who is used to eating gruel that McDonalds is the best thing to ever happen to food, meanwhile you know that McDonalds barely qualifies as acceptable when it comes to restaurant fare. I mean, should I be happy for them that they absolutely loved their Mickey Ds "for what it was" when I know that they could have had something so much better?

How many amazon viewers are watching the show, not because it's quality theatre, but because fantasy anything is better than fantasy nothing and we haven't really had much in the way of fantasy (good or bad) for ages? How many of them would recognize good fantasy if they saw it? How many of them care?

We can't really say "ohh, this show is good because a lot of people like it", when we have plenty of evidence that people will watch absolute garbage as long as it keeps them mildly entertained.

People like what they like. Who are you/we to tell them that they're wrong? It's all subjective anyway.

This is entertainment, not high class art or food or anything of that nature where the pearls before swine argument makes any kind of sense. Bringing it up in this context makes you sound like an entitled elitist prick TBH.

The show is what it is at this point.

[Arikara]

I think the "adult" aspects of Martin's work is how it doesn't always work out the way you expect fantasy to - like Eddard getting his head chopped off and basically the Hound's entire character. That's what makes the series exciting.

While Jordan has a ton of characters, I don't get the sense that he has a ton of depth - like a lot of the Forsaken and the Kingdoms are pretty similar except for some superficial things like how they wear their hair. Not much to distinguish Sammael and Rahvin, for example.

You can't honestly stand here and hold that cheap hack Martin up as an exemplar of "depth" while handwaving the most detailed fantasy world ever written? Tell me you're joking.

[Gumble]

They took his world, broke it like a ceramic plate, and then tried to jam the pieces back in ways that almost, but just don't quite, fit back together: They are trying to tell his story AND their story at the same time and doing BOTH badly.

Not the same series, but it is what popped into my head immediately:

"Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made."

Sorta the running plot for alot of these shows.

- - - Updated - - -

But again, compare those characters to the complexity of Sandor Clegane, who commits a list of horrible crimes but is somehow on a path of redemption and on his way to being quote unquote “good” - the guy who refuses to become a knight and ridicules Sansa but in the end rescues her, who has a deathly fear of fire due to childhood trauma, etc. there’s nothing that complex in wheel of time - the characters are mostly pretty one dimensional.

I would argue that alot of Martin's "depth" is making things happen that have no reason to just to be contrary. Sandor Clegane rescuing and protecting Sansa makes absolutely no sense for the character he wrote. He basically became a different person instantly with no build up. That happens alot in Martin's books. He likes to write in a way where the reader expects X to happen because the narrative looks to be heading that way and then suddenly Y happens instead and throws it into chaos. Sometimes it works and makes for fun stories, and sometimes he just alters characters in ways that fans of his have to try to justify.

Ironically, the switch into mad murderous dictator that the showrunners did to Dani actually fits in Martin's world. "You thought the hero who cares about people and her kingdom so greatly is going to protect people? NAHHHHH she's going to murder them with fire!"

Sadly, it's totally a Martin thing to do. It sucks, and it's forced, but it fits with him completely.




As for depth to characters, I always liked Lanfear. Someone who goes to the dark for power is common, but she basically went because of curiousity and jealously. Even to the very end she was scheming to possess Lews Therin, be the one who saved the Dark One, and did it by spinning a ton of threads to bring her plan to bear. To be beaten out of sheer hubris that she thought she had everything under control, when so very little of the story actually was in her control, is quite interesting.

Many of the forsaken didn't get enough time to be fleshed out, but some did, and had quite a bit of depth.

[rhorle]

However, I have never judged it as a separate entity from it's origins as an adaptation, and I will not.

So you don't think it is a truly awful adaptation? Given all the changes you actually rate it better then truly awful and only bad? Core changes and metaphysical changes are bad but not awful? You don't think it is objectively bad because you keep using subjective reasoning for those things. Hence why you have to include "if you ignore" which would already be a thing if we are judging the show objectively.

Nope, you still missed the point. "people enjoy something, therefore that thing must be good" is not a logical argument.

Sure it is. Most people consume things that they find to be good. America's Got Talent had had several seasons because it was found to be good by enough people. NCIS has 20 seasons because enough people find it to be good and keep watching it. It is amusing though that you call it illogical just because it doesn't support your point.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly as a massive fan of the books, my disappointment is just that it makes it extremely unlikely that the books will ever be adapted in the future.

That isn't even close to true. Lord of the Rings was just a few video games until the estate sold rights to Amazon. It has Rings of Power, War of the Rhorrim, and "multiple films" from Warner Brothers that haven't been given a name. Could these have happened without renewed interest? Sure but it is all happening at once. All it takes is for one studio to get rights and feel they can do it better.

Amazon didn't acquire the rights the same way they did with Tolkien's work. It was Sony Pictures (and Red Eagle) that got Amazon to sign on. All it takes is Amazon no longer producing the show and a new network wanting to develop the rights. Since the show has 3 seasons it is clearly hitting some metric for success which means others might see possibility to.

- - - Updated - - -

There's nothing remotely compelling or even interesting about this shit show.

It keeps you talking about it so that isn't true at all.

[Yakut]

Then they're conflating being a bad show with being a bad adaptation. Those aren't the same thing, however you can dislike a show for being a bad adaptation. That doesn't affect other's like or dislike of it though. And clearly doesn't change how successful it can be.

I didn't have the experience of reading the book prior to the series. Even still, I enjoyed the first season. I'm not saying it was an amazing series by any means. I just enjoyed it. 6/10 stars. (3/5 if you prefer 5 star logic)

I've seen enough series and read enough series to know that the source material rarely, if ever, gets translated as well on the screen as it does in the books (Dune comes to mind in literally every adaptation). I had a thought as to the cause and perhaps even the cause of the collective angst when it doesn't work for some.

Everything in our reality is about our perception of said reality. Our experiences and thought processes affect our perceptions (sometimes in both positive and negative feedback loops). As such, the interpretation of the series runner may be wildly different than that of the original author and even the audience. Everyone has expectations that are different. And, of course, those expectations can never be met for all audience members. It's not a crime to fail to meet expectations as I'm sure you know.

I dunno, I guess I don't see this as a problem so much as a necessarily evil with it being a part of life. We're not supposed to have all of our expectations met.

[Orby]

I gave the first season a 4/10 I am really not sure whether to watch season 2. I enjoyed the first two episodes of Season 1, but it went downhill after that and it seems the writers wanted to use the world to build their own story insisted of trying to adapt the books.

What's up with the failure of fantasy adaptions lately. Rings of Power, Witcher, and Wheel of time. I put Rings of Power above Wheel of Time because at least Rings of Power had things I enjoyed throughout. And Witcher Season 1 was the most enjoyable of them all. But wheel of Time was the biggest hit to the gut and the worst of them all.

I do give them some credit, since Wheel of Time season 1 I have returned to reading fantasy again and been enjoying everything I have read, I hope they just don't make an adaption of any of it lol

I worry about the upcoming First Law adaptation :S

[rhorle]

What's up with the failure of fantasy adaptions lately.

Don't a lot of fantasy adaptations "fail" though? I don't mean unsuccessful but just not living up to the standards of source-fans. It is an outlier that they do live up to those standards since fantasy tends to have things that don't easily translate well from book to screen in the limited length.

[Orby]

Don't a lot of fantasy adaptations "fail" though? I don't mean unsuccessful but just not living up to the standards of source-fans. It is an outlier that they do live up to those standards since fantasy tends to have things that don't easily translate well from book to screen in the limited length.

Well 'fail' being my own personal subjective opinion.

Also I have totally no probably with change to source material. That's going to happen. Narratively books are a different form of media than cinema, you are never going to get the same thing translated, especially as books have way too much exposition as it has to describe scenes where as on screen you can skip all that for just seeing it play out, but you can at least get plenty from them enough to make them feel like what they are supposed to be.

For example Wheel of Times' first two episodes felt like Wheel of Time now I have some problems with the first two episodes, they were not perfect but they did feel like the books. For the most part because you know those scenes. My issues with the 'adapting' of the show was made most in the middle and later ends of the season just being its own thing and have nothing to do with the books, it felt like fan fiction there. By the time we got back to the books aagin it was just more riushing to get as much squeezed in to the remaining few episodes left.

Also

Changes I hated

They over complicated the characters when they didn't need to, like have the children be grown ups.
Perrin being married
Mat having a dark past
Rand not being the main PoV at the start of the show
Killing Master Hightower
The constant cock teasing of who the dragon reborn is
The plot cuts a lot of character development, to rushing very fast from one place to another.
Thom Merrilin, oh Thom, what did they do to you? Man was done dirty :*(
Caemlyn. No fucking Caemlyn. I am fine with cutting some stuff but Caemlyn in the books had some of my favourite moments. Most of which was cut to quick exposition on the road in the show lol.

EDIT: was going to add Matt being left out but that's unavoidable given the actor pulled out and the show had to make do.


Changes I liked

Fleshing out the Whitecloaks as more than bumbling zealots, they had actual threating presence to them
Cutting down Rand and Matts town to town travels (I forget the name of the three towns they travel to) as in the books its the same scene repeated three times. So good change there.
Cutting Elyas, I mean I didn't mind that much
Not meeting Mordeth in Shadar Logoth (Shadar Logoth was fucking amazing in the show, I was just happy we got such a well designed set for that)
Logain given more spot light.
Lews Therin and Ishamael scnee from the start of the book being cut. I was fine with.

I stand by the fact this show should have been double its episodes. Especially considering they tried doing their own self inserted story in the middle of the show that completely felt pointless and only further hindered the already tightly squeezed show,

I do think to do a good faithful show, 8 episodes would have covered half the Eye of the World. You could not manage a whole book in 8 episode, it was impossible. Shouldn't have even been attempted.

[Gumble]

it felt like fan fiction

My biggest problem with it.


I could have dealt with actors that didn't match the descriptions in the books if they were the best for the job. They weren't good actors or the best for the job. Rafe admitted he picked them for diversity, not for talent.

I could have dealt with cutting out sections of the story to make it fit for TV, but they should have given it at least 10-12 episodes. 10 could have worked, but 12 would have been better. They had the money and people would happily have watched 12. As much as I would have loved to see Rand's adventures in Caemlyn, I get why that could be cut out, but given they added Tar Valon in, Logain nonsense, and a story about a warder that only made Lan less impressive, I'm not sure what that bought them.

The thing I could not deal with was them rewriting the story to suit their own ideas. They didn't simply condence the story, they made their own fan fiction of what they thought should have happened with characters that do not match up to the ones in the books. Because of this, the deviation from the books will only get wider and the story will become totally whatever Rafe makes up, just with names you recognize from the books.

None of the story from this point makes any sense, and will keep making less and less sense, because they didn't take the subject matter seriously. They used a great story to try to make themselves look good, and it failed.

[rhorle]

Rafe admitted he picked them for diversity, not for talent.

Do you have a source to that?

[Xath]

You don’t need to stick to physical characteristics to show a defined culture.

The show makes it pretty obvious with clothing if nothing else.

Lol I forgot how bad the larper outfits were. Also you think the whitecloaks are a culture rather than a quasi religious organization made up of people from across the nations. The White Cloaks, Seanchan, and the Aes Sedai are basically the only groups who it makes sense to have intermingled rather than homogenized.

[Snowfunk]

They are actually making a second season?

Wow.