expat

I don't remember what scene you are referring to here so I have no idea, but why are you fixated on single scenes? The adaptation requires major changes for reasons I've given in this thread. That particular change might have been bad/unnecessary or it might be part of a larger mosaic which was put in for specific reasons like trying to infuse the necessary elements of cut material back into the story, presenting the characters in a visual setting instead of a POV setting or any number of other adaptation reasons. Again, the only argument I'm trying to make is that not liking it because it isn't the books is self-defeating because it never was and never could be the books. I've never argued that the writers didn't make mistakes in their adaptation decisions or their implementations. This change might well have been a mistake.

I never disparaged anyone for not liking specific changes. I don't think that all the changes worked, but I can understand why they made the change in most cases which is good enough to let me enjoy the series for what it is instead of reflexively hating it because "it's not the books". My argument has always been that the books COULD NOT BE FILMED as written, so major changes were unavoidable in any adaptation. Like any other human endeavor, those changes could be good or bad, necessary of unnecessary, well written or poorly written. Any argument that begins and ends with make it closer to the books, all new material is bad, are irrelevant. So hate (and discuss) on what you think are bad changes but understand that these changes were a necessary part of the adaptation process.

Anyone who says that 14 books and 12000 pages is perfect and has no problems which an adaptation should address is not arguing in good faith. Deciding beforehand that the books should be filmed as written and refusing to think about the "why" for specific changes doesn't promote useful discussion. Liking the specific changes that try to address potential problems (book issues, POV characterization, dialogue/scenes that don't work on screen, structural filming issues) isn't necessary to understand why the writer's made changes and didn't just film the book.

One of the most interesting things coming out of the series is that it has given me a greater insight into the books. The changes from the books caused me to think about why the writers made the change and if they were good or bad. I realized that there were a lot of things in the books that I just read causally and never really thought about. I found instances where there were things that made me like the book better, but I also found instances where the books were weak that I had just brushed off earlier by ignoring them. Thinking through the issues made me feel I had a better understanding of the books.

Or just indicates prejudice. People look down on the folks on the other side of the tracks all the time. Any reasonable sized group of people will have both good folks and bad folks. I found the black or white vision that all the EF5 and their folks were good and all Congars and Coplins were bad was a major indication of the bad writing of EF in the book. This was why I liked the mixing of good and bad characteristics for the EF5 side of town (e.g., Mat's dysfunctional family) was a vast improvement from the book. It was much more realistic. It also justified why Mat was the one and only jerk (e.g., trickster, gambler, drinker, womanizer, reluctant hero) from the EF side of town, which improve his characterization.

This argument is used all the time and doesn't really pass any serious thought. Let's take it in order: 1. Do you agree that to fit the material in the time frame of the series, they have to cut and combine things from the books? 2. Do you agree that there is material from the cut/combined portions that are still necessary to introduce into the series? 3. Do you agree that there are important elements of the books that don't work well on screen? 4. Do you agree that most of the lore development in the books were verbal instead of visual? 5. Do you agree that there are elements of the books which are not perfect and can be improved? In my case examples include thinking the ending of book 1 and the characterization of EF were both poor in the books. While the series didn't improve on the ending of book 1, they did improve the characterization of EF (as discussed above). 6. Do you agree that much of the characterization of the main characters was POV and could not be shown directly on screen? So if you agree with me on some or all of the above points, please tell me how they can fix them without introducing new material not in the books? 1/2. Cut or combined material is in not in the books, so they require new material to introduce. 3. Since they are trying to produce and interesting TV series, important book material that doesn't work on screen needs to rewritten so that it makes interesting TV while keeping the story moving forward. 4. World development is important. Doing it with dialogue makes a very clunky TV series. Creating visual scenes to introduce world development is a better option. 5. New scenes are needed to fix book problems. Whether they are done well or badly is an individual decision, but just putting bad book stuff on screen is not the right answer. 6. POV can't be put on screen. New material is required. Since most characterization is done via POV in the books, this step can't be skipped. The characterization is critical to the story and absolutely requires new material. Like or dislike some (or all) of the new material, but to make blanket statements about the need to stay with the original story is just silly. If you think it can, you also need to address the structural issues (like the ones above, but also includes technical issues like availability of actors/sets etc.) that mitigate against just putting book material on screen.

I think the actual opening scene was a good choice. It introduced the fundamental tension of the series, male channelers go mad and the world is deathly afraid of them. Will Rand go mad before he saves the world?

Extreme disagreement with this take. A long time between series is a major negative and impacts the show writing. VERY few people will rewatch several years of shows to refresh themselves on nuances and subtle plot points before watching a new season. I like the series and am rereading the books for the second time, which makes me a fairly hardcore fan, and I have no desire to rewatch the series prior to season 3 to refresh myself on the series nuances. Since you don't like the series and only watched a few episodes in season 1, I'm not sure you have your finger on the pulse of series viewers. The implication is that the writers have to introduce broad strokes that people can remember and stay away from too many subtle points, outside of easter eggs and some surprises for the hardcore fans. A good example might be the Steppin storyline which many people disliked. Instead of a short bit of dialogue to establish important issues with the bond, they introduced a set of scenes to dramatize the issue. Would they have made the same choice if the seasons were closer together and the writers thought that the viewers would remember and understand it presented as dialogue? Don't know, but possible.