Jump to content
We have a Patreon! Support this website and get exclusive content

Elder_Haman

Moderator

  • Joined

  • Last visited

View Profile Find content

Posts posted by Elder_Haman

    16 hours ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

    It's 100% due to the nature and attitude of the changes made that WoT has been so divisive. 

    It's also due to the fact that GoT is an order of magnitude easier to make a tv show out of than WoT. First, GRRM worked in screenwriting, so had a preexisting feel for the pacing. Second, the basic world building of Thrones is simple. Powerful families battling with swords and wits. Magic is secondary and mostly in the background. By contrast, WoT has a complicated world with in your face magic (that is a key plot point throughout) and its political rivalries aren't about easily understood rivalries between families, but complicated institutions with their own rules and history and lore that is important. Thrones has zombies. WoT has legions of dark creatures of various shapes and sizes and ability.

     

    Stop pretending that taking WoT and putting it on tv is the same as adapting GoT. It's just not.

    3 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

    My favourite show of all time, the US Office, was probably a 4 or 5 in the first season.

    Agreed. I was not in love with Last Kingdom after S1 - it was basically just a meh. It's now probably my favorite TV series of all time. Started another rewatch last night.

     

    On the other hand, I loved Game of Thrones for 5ish seasons. Watched it faithfully to the end. I'll probably not ever watch it again.

    Just now, Cauthonfan4 said:

    I'm sorry, I wasn't aware a a 6.5 or 7.2 was the standard when you are trying to be GoT.

    perfection? no.

    but when you try to compare it to Game of Thrones you have set a HIGH BAR. and they FAILED utterly.

    Okay. Will it make you feel better if I say that Game of Thrones S1 was better than WoT S1? Again, I'm not sure what point you are arguing with me. 

    3 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

    and while in theory i'd like to agree with you, based on what i've seen people rarely if ever give something below a 5. even critics rarely score stuff that. food for thought but shannara chronicles and chilling adventures of sabrina were rated by critics right around what WoT was, and neither made it very far. take that for what you will.

     

    When even Sanderson makes qualifying statements about his like of the show, and that is able to take criticism, maybe the showrunners shouldn't be so quick to discount what other people are saying.

    That is obviously and manifestly not true as any journey through Amazon Reviews, Yelp Reviews, Trip Advisor Reviews, or any other thing that uses a scale will demonstrate. People LOVE their 0s and 1s. If anything, people are less likely to give something a 10 than they are a 1.

     

    But nevertheless, the point is that as defined by the rating tool a score of 7.5 puts WoT pretty much on the definition line of 'above average'.

     

    As for the future of the show, only time will tell. Lots of shows get better in their second season. Many do not. I'm sure that Rafe is aware of some of the broader criticisms: pacing, inconsistent CGI, uneven dialogue. I'd guess there will be efforts made at correction there.

     

    In terms of complaints about fidelity to the books or lack thereof, there will probably not be similar efforts because they've already decided upon the story they want to tell and the major changes they intend to make.

    3 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

    where did you go to school?

    90% and above is an A

    80% to 89% is a B

    70-79% is a C

    60-69% is a D

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_grading_in_the_United_States

     

    But those percentages are tied to mastery of the concepts. The same is not the same for a 1-10 rating system. In such a system 5 is meant to represent the mid point, meaning average. Neither good nor bad. Any score above 5 is therefore 'good' by definition and every score below 5 is 'bad' by definition. The 'goodness' or 'badness' increasing as you approach the limits.

     

    A 7.5 on such a system has no relationship to a 'D' grade. Instead, it suggests that the subject of the rating is better than average, but meaningfully less than perfect. Which seems to hit it pretty well on the nose for the series, IMO. 

    2 hours ago, Humbugged2 said:

     Where is the 15th century coming from ? - RJ said late 17th without gunpowder

    And they live on trade routes and people have beeen knocking out blue dye since the Torah and the Chinese since 200 bc

     

    Two Rivers wool and tabac are known essentially continent wide. It's a remote, but it is hardly completely cut off from the rest of the world.

    5 hours ago, Raal Gurniss said:

    Fair enough then, it is the best ever made series in history with absolutely nothing wrong with it….The highest possible quality throughout, the pinnacle of thousands of years of entertainment, flawless acting, flawless scripts, flawless special effects!

     

    Is that really what you believe? Or is the series really not that good?

     

    I can’t think of a single series that ever came close to perfection myself…

     

    Are you sure your passion for the show isn’t impairing your judgement?

    Holy cow, move the goalposts much? The only choices are that you believe it is the best thing ever created or that it really isn't that good? And by saying it's good, you're also somehow claiming it's perfect? This is nonsense argument not good faith engagement.

    5 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

    the WOT series was made by and is appreciated by people who don’t really like the books.

    I really like the books. And I also appreciate the series. I'm not understanding your logic.

     

    6 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

    that something has been obliterated

    This is hyperbole. Nothing has been 'obliterated'. To me, use of that type of hyperbole signals an unwillingness to engage in a good faith discussion.

     

    8 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

    The last kingdom is a pretty good comparison.  I liked but did not love both the series and the books, and don’t care whether they are the same, because the books weren’t about something,

    What do you mean the books weren't about something? Do you mean they didn't have a plot? (They did, obviously) Or that they don't explore deeper issues? (They do)  Either way TLK is a series that is full of depth and meaning. The TV show does a good job of exploring many of the same underlying themes in slightly different ways and using different characters.

     

    12 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

    It may not be the best novel in the series but it is not the worst, and it sets up the rest of the series well.

    Agreed.

     

    12 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

    The first season of the TV show, on the other hand, undermines every major theme and plot event to come.  

    Hard disagree.

    8 minutes ago, Deviations said:

    It's not about what people want to watch, it's about the network's ability to secure actor's time and the creative team's ability to generate quality content across too many episodes.

    Not sure what you're talking about here.

    It's about maximizing profitability. One of the data points for calculating that is # of episodes. And they spend tons of time, money and effort determining the 'sweet spot' for that based on an overwhelming amount of audience data. 

     

    Now, do they often get it wrong? Sure. Because humans are predictable in their unpredictability. But there's no doubt that the decisions are driven by actual data not just 'gut feelings' about the best season length.

    2 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

    This thread is filled with defences that amount to, sure that isn’t exactly what happened, but those changes are not significant, the core of the story and characters are still there and are consistent with what happens later.

    And?

    That's exactly how The Last Kingdom is - vast differences between the books and the tv series. And yet, despite those vast differences, the books and the series manage to tell the same story.

     

    You seem to be arguing the position that the changes that have been made mean that the tv series is somehow "not the Wheel of Time". I reject that contention. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that there are significant differences between the show and the books.

    2 hours ago, Truthteller said:

    That so many of the defenders of the series are unwilling to acknowledge that significant changes have been made at all

    Who are these people that are saying there have been no significant changes? As a "defender of the series" (which is really sort of silly - as if art is something that requires "defending"), I've yet to see someone who isn't willing to acknowledge that significant changes were made. It's whether those changes "RUIN THE WHOLE SERIES!!!!" that seems to be the thing that is in question.

    On 1/7/2022 at 9:17 PM, flinn said:

    Pretty sure I read Algemar had already moved on to something else. Instead of replacing the actor, they just killed off the character and they have the next actor/character already set up.

    I think you're thinking of the actor originally cast as Ingtar.