THE WHEEL OF TIME TV Show: The braid tugs, as the writing wills [BOOK SPOILERS]

[Wouter]

Just now, red snow said:

It is. I think a few people were surprised they'd go ahead with both shows (conan was also an option earlier on but was dropped). I guess Amazon has the pockets for two fantasy shows and I'm sure there's room for both but if one fares badly compared to the other it could be bad news for the weaker show. 

Yes. LOTR has big shoes to fill though, not only are the books classics but the movie adaptation was received quite well also. Changing LOTR for a TV adaptation might be more dangerous than adapting WOT, as WOT needs plenty of changes to be succesful (yet still has the core to be a good story, if the adaptation can realise the potential). LOTR will be compared to the books and to the movies, and that's a high bar set.

[Slurktan]

1 minute ago, Wouter said:

Yes. LOTR has big shoes to fill though, not only are the books classics but the movie adaptation was received quite well also. Changing LOTR for a TV adaptation might be more dangerous than adapting WOT, as WOT needs plenty of changes to be succesful (yet still has the core to be a good story, if the adaptation can realise the potential). LOTR will be compared to the books and to the movies, and that's a high bar set.

Good thing they aren't adapting LOTR then.  Also I'm not sure how many changes are needed for WoT to be successful.  It's a very, very popular series with only Potter, LOTR, and ASOIAF (after tv show just beats it) ahead in sales.  This isn't Rothfuss or Abercrombie or somesuch.

[SpaceChampion]

I think they could do a lot with the music to distinguish between the 5 elements going into weaves.  Mixing elements then become a matter of mixing musical themes.  That way, whether or not the weaves can be seen (varying depending on the viewpoint) they can always have an audio cue to it.  ie. woodwind instruments for Air, string instruments for Water, percussion for Earth, brass for Fire, and orchestral voice for Spirit.

Actual music like in GOT, not tones and whatever they do in Shannara or CW shows.

[Wouter]

28 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

Good thing they aren't adapting LOTR then.  Also I'm not sure how many changes are needed for WoT to be successful.  It's a very, very popular series with only Potter, LOTR, and ASOIAF (after tv show just beats it) ahead in sales.  This isn't Rothfuss or Abercrombie or somesuch.

They (as in, Amazon) ARE adapting LOTR.

WOT needs changes like any other book property, to be adapted for TV or movie. It's far too massive for that (budget nor time span are endless).

A good example of what needs to be changed: the dozens of Aes Sedai who are all basically the same character with another name and a different colour => those most be condensed into speaking roles for only the most important ones (some of which may be composite characters taking roles of several smaller Aes Sedai characters from the books). Or the different channeling groups: Aes Sedai, Wise Ones (those are important), the Kin, the Sea Folk channelers, the damane,...? Does an adaptation need to keep all of them?

Another example: Perrin's chase after the Shaido. I seem to recall not many readers liking this ultra-slow plot. Probably better to finish the Shaido off during the battle for Cairhien or for Illian. And do we need Valan Luca's circus, for example? 

There are also some other RJ's pecularities, like the spanking/domination thing (maybe excluding the plot-relevant Seanchan) and the descriptions, allthough the last one at least profits from having a very visual medium.

Then there is all the discussion on this very thread: how to adapt the magic system? THis was one of the better aspects of the books, but as noted it's hard to put it on screen.

And while the Forsaken are also interesting in the books, developing 13 of them (more, if you include rebirths or newly raised ones) is quite a tall order. Maybe better to make some composite characters (Ishamael definitiely needs to be in though), and focus on those as the top dogs of their side.

[HexMachina]

18 minutes ago, Wouter said:

They (as in, Amazon) ARE adapting LOTR.

WOT needs changes like any other book property, to be adapted for TV or movie. It's far too massive for that (budget nor time span are endless).

A good example of what needs to be changed: the dozens of Aes Sedai who are all basically the same character with another name and a different colour => those most be condensed into speaking roles for only the most important ones (some of which may be composite characters taking roles of several smaller Aes Sedai characters from the books). Or the different channeling groups: Aes Sedai, Wise Ones (those are important), the Kin, the Sea Folk channelers, the damane,...? Does an adaptation need to keep all of them?

Another example: Perrin's chase after the Shaido. I seem to recall not many readers liking this ultra-slow plot. Probably better to finish the Shaido off during the battle for Cairhien or for Illian. And do we need Valan Luca's circus, for example? 

There are also some other RJ's pecularities, like the spanking/domination thing (maybe excluding the plot-relevant Seanchan) and the descriptions, allthough the last one at least profits from having a very visual medium.

Then there is all the discussion on this very thread: how to adapt the magic system? THis was one of the better aspects of the books, but as noted it's hard to put it on screen.

And while the Forsaken are also interesting in the books, developing 13 of them (more, if you include rebirths or newly raised ones) is quite a tall order. Maybe better to make some composite characters (Ishamael definitiely needs to be in though), and focus on those as the top dogs of their side.

They are not adapting LOTR. They are creating a series based on the second age

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

Thanks for the clarifications! I think they should just stick with some form of body movement for all weaving, I feel like it's a lot less clear to the audience without a visual signifier that they're doing something. 

I’m not really familiar with WoT, could this be done in a similar way to the movements in the OA?

[SpaceChampion]

2 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I’m not really familiar with WoT, could this be done in a similar way to the movements in the OA?

No, it's not that performative.  Any movements/gestures needed for the weaves have no real causation to it.  It's more like a psychological mnemonic.

I don't think these will break the CGI budget.  A weave is a weave, made once and the CGI for it can be overlain and rotated / positioned into any other scene.  I think people are worrying over this for nothing.

One thing I'm curious about is whether they'll be 2D or 3D weaves.

[Zorral]

For me as a viewer, fantasy that is filled with extended nude, explicit sex scenes, lots of swearing and graphic, bloody violence is a real big turn off.  For instance, I've NEVER watched West World.  In almost (not all) the cases of all this is explicit graphic degradation and humiliation and torture of women and all the other 'Others,' which we really don't need.  Especially we don't need as pov to such scenes.  The world of all this is all too much with us.

As previously mentioned, I've not read these books because they felt way too juvenile for my state of mind when I learned of them: is there a lot of graphic torture, sexual degradation, etc.  in the books?

[karaddin]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As previously mentioned, I've not read these books because they felt way too juvenile for my state of mind when I learned of them: is there a lot of graphic torture, sexual degradation, etc.  in the books?

Not really no. Any actual on page sex is pretty low key to the point I only really remember one and it was basically fade to black. I remember a bit more implied sex where we get post coital interactions, but he didn't use sex as titillating. Honestly the most sexual thing in the books is probably unintentional with his possible desire to engage in light spanking coming across in it being a disciplinary technique in the story that I strongly expect will be removed in adaptation.

There's also evil characters that are very sexual and sadistic in nature but again it's not something we actually see or get immersed in. One of them does have functionally nude servants (it's the result of mind control that makes them want it though so they have no choice in serving, but as it's based in magic changing their desires I feel very uncomfortable creating an analogy to real world slavery so using servants).

It also definitely doesn't do torture porn. The various evil characters clearly engage in it but again it's not on page really, and it's lacking that more modern.... wallowing in the concept. I guess that's probably one of the ways it really shows it's roots as a pre 9/11 work, that's when morally ambiguous anti heroes using torture because the ends justify the means really became a thing. You do have a supernatural entity that's more like a force of nature than a character which talks about torture with glee but we never see anyone get caught in it. 

So basically even when those 2 things come up, there's a significant tonal difference from what you're thinking of - it doesn't do it to be edgy, or as a shorthand for being "adult" fantasy.

[Krishtotter]

3 hours ago, Slurktan said:

It's a very, very popular series with only Potter, LOTR, and ASOIAF (after tv show just beats it) ahead in sales.  This isn't Rothfuss or Abercrombie or somesuch.

While the WoT is undoubtedly one of the best selling fantasy series' (weighing in at around 80 million worldwide, which is huge), it is still very much the preserve of diehard fantasy genre fans, and so doesn't have the crossover cachet of Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings which are popular culture phenomenons with mainstream brand recognition beyond the fantasy genre per se. 

Harry Potter book sales (as a series) average around the 500 million mark for the series, while Middle-earth universe sales (LotR is a single novel in three volumes and has always been published as such, so one needs to include The Hobbit, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales etc.) are nearly impossible to calculate (100,000 copies of a pirated version of LotR were sold in the United States alone in under a year, so figures for unauthorised versions in other countries are beyond guessing) but the estimate given is somewhere between 250 - 350 million, with LotR itself at 150 million (making it the biggest-selling single genre novel of all time and the third individual book period after John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Don Quixote, which are both 17th century texts (excluding the Bible and Qur'an as scriptural texts)). 

But book sales, by themselves, are not the only indicator. 

The person on the street is unlikely to have heard of Rand a'Thor or Moiraine, but you'd be hard-pressed to find many people in America or Europe who haven't at least heard of Dumbledore or Gandalf. 

JK Rowling was even featured in the 2012 London Olympic Games, because she has become synonymous globally with Britain.

LotR, for its part simply as a book without any adaptions, was already a mainstream cultural phenomenon as far back as the 1960s (to an extent that WoT isn't today) - when it became the de facto 'bible' of the hippie counter-culture (much to JRR Tolkien's bemusement) such that by 1970 the Beatles were originally going to portray the Hobbits in a movie adaption while Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Genesis all had Lord of the Rings-themed songs on the charts, as this BBC news article explains:

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20141120-the-hobbits-and-the-hippies
 

Quote

 

Hobbits and Hippies: Tolkien and the counter-culture

It was a time of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. Not to mention protest against the Vietnam War and marches for civil rights and the women’s movement. Who would think a figurehead for this social upheaval would be a tweedy Christian philologist at Oxford? But during the 1960s, a time of accelerating social change driven in part by 42 million Baby Boomers coming of age, Tolkien’s The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings became  required reading for the nascent counterculture, devoured simultaneously by students, artists, writers, rock bands and other agents of cultural change. The slogans ‘Frodo Lives’ and ‘Gandalf for President’ festooned subway stations worldwide as graffiti. 

They were popular initially but sales of The Hobbit (published in 1937) and The Lord of the Rings (beginning in 1954) exploded in the mid-1960s, driven by a young generation charmed by Tolkien’s imaginative abundance, the splendour of his tales from a pre-Christian time and his obsessive cataloguing of the history, language and geography of his invented world. But deeper than this, certain aspects of Tolkien’s worldview matched the perspective of hippies, anti-war protestors, civil rights marchers and others seeking to change the established order. In fact, the values articulated by Tolkien were ideally suited for the 1960s counterculture movements. Today we'd think of Tolkien’s work as being aligned with the geek set of Comic-Con, but it was once closer to the Woodstock crowd. 

The high fantasy of The Lord of the Rings was “hobbit-forming,” as T-shirt slogans of the ‘60s and ‘70s put it.  “A whole generation of young Americans could lose themselves and their troubles in the intricacies of this triple-decker epic,” said Professor Ralph C Wood, a Tolkien scholar. Middle Earth was a literary escape hatch for a generation haunted by the Vietnam War and the atomic bomb, a return to simple living. Many felt the experience of reading the text itself is akin to an acid trip.

Tolkien’s literary world directly inspired some of the most high profile agents of change within the counterculture. Rock bands whose anthems served as a soundtrack for the upending of the establishment clearly read Tolkien’s work. In the 1960s the Beatles envisioned a film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings – Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam, George as Gandalf and John as Gollum – that never came to fruition. Pink Floyd’s 1967 song The Gnome featured a little man named Grimble Grumble in a red tunic, and others like him in their homes, who were, like the hobbits, “Eating, sleeping, drinking their wine.”

In 1970, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Genesis all had Lord of the Rings-themed songs on the charts. In the opening verse of Led Zeppelin’s Ramble On, Robert Plant sings, “’Twas in the darkest depths of Mordor/I met a girl so fair/But Gollum and the evil one crept up…” Two 1971 Led Zeppelin songs, Misty Mountain Hop and The Battle of Evermore, in which the “ring wraiths ride in black”, also were inspired by Tolkien. Black Sabbath’s The Wizard is an anthem for Gandalf. Genesis’ Stagnation was clearly influenced by the Middle Earth ethos.  Rush recorded Rivendell, based on the Elven homeland, in 1975 and followed in 1976 with The Necromancer (Tolkien’s original name for Sauron), who keeps watch with “magic prism eyes.”

 

In Robert Hunter’s recounting of the origins of Greenpeace, “The Greenpeace to Amchitka: An Environmental Odyssey,” he recounts their inaugural environmental protest effort and the journey to Amchitka to protest the nuclear test sites there in 1971:

Quote

We are on our way to the dread dark land of Mordor, and Amchitka is Mount Doom … somehow we have to hurl the Ring of Power into the fire and bring down the whole kingdom of the Dark Lord.

The organization’s love for Tolkien’s work survives to this day, sometimes in the form of amusing advertisements.......

As late as 2000, David Bowie actually auditioned to play Elrond in Jackson's LotR trilogy (but lost out to Hugo Weaving, speaking at New York Comic-Con Philippa Boyens and Fran Walsh said that they were "quite keen" on Bowie as Elrond, but that the studio pushed back). 

Then you factor in the modern Jackson movies (Return of the King winning the biggest single sweep of Oscars in history) and film-only fans, the computer games like Shadow of Mordor - and for Harry Potter all the theme parks and merchandise........

WoT, to be fair, is not in the Harry Potter - LotR league of mainstream cultural phenomenon-status outside the fantasy genre (within which it has done phenomenally in sales but only within it). It hasn't exerted anywhere near the same degree of crossover influence in music and culture. 

The TV show might be a fantastic success (catapulting it like GoT did for ASoiAF) but at the moment it isn't near that level (Harry Potter and LotR were pop culture behemoths even without adaptions) of crossover appeal. 

Likewise, I hate Star Wars and have never sat through an entire sitting of any of the movies - and yet I know the names (and costumes) of Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Obi-Wan Kinobe, R2-D2, Chewbacca and so on (even despite my best efforts to hide under a rock!) because its almost impossible not to have heard of Star Wars and be aware of the general story arc etc. etc. It is a pop culture behemoth, and there's no getting past it. 

[red snow]

For the sake of discussion and being argumentative surely WOT is the equivalent of GOT in terms of how "well known" they were before GOT was adapted to TV? It has the benefit of being completed too.

While I still think Wheel of Time is a gamble for Amazon in what's becoming a crowded market I can see their logic of "this show could be as big as GOT based on the pre-existing fanbase". They'd probably benefit from people buying the books off them too (and there's a lot more than GOT). LOTR (which I just use because it's more recognisable as a tag not because I think it's and adaptation of those books. I think for marketing it'll probably feature LOTR:Second age or something anyhow) is "safer" in terms of people know about it from the films and the books. If you have the money going for both franchises is probably wise as long as they are willing to support both shows and not ditch one after 1-2 seasons because they can only afford one fantasy show in the long run.

If the likes of "Lost" and "heroes" are anything to go by this scramble to imitate genre successes doesn't usually work as well as people envisage. Part of the appeal of GOT was that it wasn't a children's fantasy show. Doing more of that won't really be novel and I guess the GOT spin-off will benefit the most from continuing the "the HBO style" because people will expect it to be the same. I suspect most people will be expecting LOTR to evoke the films moreso than being grim and gritty (although it sounds like the period they are adapting is ripe for that. WOT probably needs to try as hard as possible to do its own thing eg don't have all the sex and violence and swearing. Who knows, maybe viewers would like to watch something that's fun, uplifting and positive?  Something that's a bit similar to Star wars in tone but without the SF elements. 

[Krishtotter]

2 hours ago, red snow said:

surely WOT is the equivalent of GOT in terms of how "well known" they were before GOT was adapted to TV? 

I would agree with that, WoT is probably around the same level of brand visibility for the average person as ASoIAF before GoT hit the screen. 

Amazon knows that there is a built in fanbase there to harvest and one that has waited since about 2001 for a rumoured adaption. 

And as you say, the books are completed and vast in terms of source material. 

2 hours ago, red snow said:

LOTR (which I just use because it's more recognisable as a tag not because I think it's and adaptation of those books. I think for marketing it'll probably feature LOTR:Second age or something anyhow)

Based off of the marketing (#LOTRonPrime) and Tolkien expert Shippey's recent interview, it seems evident that the show will be entitled The Lord of the Rings probably with "The Second Age" appended as a subtitle just as you say.

i.e.

https://www.tolkiengesellschaft.de/30918/exklusive-interview-with-tom-shippey-concerning-lotronprime/

Quote

For us it is now very clear that the title of the series, Lord of the Rings, does not actually mean the title of the book and thus the events of the Third Age, but Sauron as a character, as the lord of the Rings of Power.

The reasoning is sound: the show will be about the rise of Sauron to become the Lord of the Rings and almost certainly depict the forging of the rings of power, as well as the first War of the Ring in the 1690s S.A. and Sauron's corruption of Númenor with the power of the One Ring ending with the Last Alliance, so I think it more than justifies the name. 

After all, that's exactly what the prologue to Jackson's trilogy was about - a brief recap of the Second Age lore.

As Tolkien himself noted:

Quote

"The three main themes (of the Second Age) are thus The Delaying Elves that lingered in Middle-earth; Sauron's growth to a new Dark Lord, master and god of Men; and Numenor-Atlantis. They are dealt with annalistically, and in two Tales or Accounts, The Rings of Power and the Downfall of Númenor. Both are the essential background to The Hobbit and its sequel The Lord of the Rings..." (Letter #131)

 

Quote

If the likes of "Lost" and "heroes" are anything to go by this scramble to imitate genre successes doesn't usually work as well as people envisage. Part of the appeal of GOT was that it wasn't a children's fantasy show. Doing more of that won't really be novel and I guess the GOT spin-off will benefit the most from continuing the "the HBO style" because people will expect it to be the same. I suspect most people will be expecting LOTR to evoke the films moreso than being grim and gritty (although it sounds like the period they are adapting is ripe for that. WOT probably needs to try as hard as possible to do its own thing eg don't have all the sex and violence and swearing. Who knows, maybe viewers would like to watch something that's fun, uplifting and positive?

I am reminded as well of Narnia and The Golden Compass coming in the wake of the original LotR trilogy and just failing to perform anywhere near as well at the box office, or capturing the zeitgeist/leaving a legacy. 

Your absolutely right that the track record for imitators is not encouraging and for that reason I agree that WoT should strive to establish itself as something fresh. Perhaps that's why it shouldn't be scared to wear its more overtly 'magical' credentials proudly on its sleeve - i.e. channelling, the 'True Power'. 

Prequels, in the same universe, as per Star Wars - can do very well, so there is form for the GoT and LotR spin-offs. The Hobbit trilogy was a financial success even though the movies were guff compared with the LotR trilogy (or a bloated mess to be more charitable that wasn't quite sure whether it wanted to be its own, more whimsical thing like the source material or an epic prequel to LotR), so even poorly done Middle-earth has proof of concept as being potentially lucrative - although not yet tested on the medium of streaming television. 

[David Selig]

2 hours ago, red snow said:

For the sake of discussion and being argumentative surely WOT is the equivalent of GOT in terms of how "well known" they were before GOT was adapted to TV? It has the benefit of being completed too.

Not really. WoT is a lot more popular than ASOIAF was before the TV series. Its total sales are 90+ mln., while ASOIAF had around 12 mln. before GOT. 

[fionwe1987]

What WoT has, that fits the zeitgeist, is an overwhelming number of major female characters who are absolutely not classifiable as the "romantic interest of the male character". To an extent that still stands out today.

 Some of the handling of those characters in the books may not be perfect, and hopefully will be reworked, but the fact remains that though the central character is male, an enormous, overwhelming amount of the plot is driven by female agency. I think, done smartly, that'll be a huge distinguishing factor for the show. LotR just won't be able to match that if they want to stay true to the books. The GoT prologue might, but WoT just has a deep bench of women who, if written well, should stand out just because of the sheer variety of ways they lead the story.

Add to it the show runners smart decision not to assume the main characters are all white, and his statement that the LGBTQ representation in the books will be modernized (and it desperately needs that), and I think WoTs standout feature can be that it's a fun fantasy story that has a cast of characters that looks closer to the real world, and focuses on the issue of gender imbalance, but from the angle of women being in power and mucking it up as badly as men do.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

What WoT has, that fits the zeitgeist, is an overwhelming number of major female characters who are absolutely not classifiable as the "romantic interest of the male character". To an extent that still stands out today.

 Some of the handling of those characters in the books may not be perfect, and hopefully will be reworked, but the fact remains that though the central character is male, an enormous, overwhelming amount of the plot is driven by female agency. I think, done smartly, that'll be a huge distinguishing factor for the show. LotR just won't be able to match that if they want to stay true to the books. The GoT prologue might, but WoT just has a deep bench of women who, if written well, should stand out just because of the sheer variety of ways they lead the story.

Add to it the show runners smart decision not to assume the main characters are all white, and his statement that the LGBTQ representation in the books will be modernized (and it desperately needs that), and I think WoTs standout feature can be that it's a fun fantasy story that has a cast of characters that looks closer to the real world, and focuses on the issue of gender imbalance, but from the angle of women being in power and mucking it up as badly as men do.

That sounds like a strong angle to pursue. It's definitely something people are looking for and it also avoids the "why did they invent/change the gender of this character from the book" if the books already have lots of female characters to play with. "Most inclusive fantasy show" is not a bad label to aim for. The fact they have Rosamund Pike on board suggests they are taking that role seriously too.

 

3 hours ago, David Selig said:

Not really. WoT is a lot more popular than ASOIAF was before the TV series. Its total sales are 90+ mln., while ASOIAF had around 12 mln. before GOT. 

So arguably a leg up on GOT. Although i still tend to agree with krishtotter in terms of general viewers being unaware of WOT vs LOTR. I'd hazard the games have made the witcher more prevalent too. So in that sense it shares "obscurity" outside of readers with GOT. To be honest all i knew about WOT was that the series was supposed to be overly long and that the author died before finishing it. And that was because my flatmates used to complain about it.

[fionwe1987]

WoT is more popular now than GoT was before the show came into the scene, but I agree that it doesn't have any wider cultural cachet. But I believe there's pretty saturated knowledge of it's existence, at least, within the fantasy community. I've met very few fans of fantasy who haven't heard of it, or tried one book and stopped, daunted by the length, or put off for one reason or other.

Most of that crowd is an addressable audience for the show. And I wouldn't even be remotely surprised if GRRM returns the favor and mentions WoT favorably when the show comes out, since he believes RJ's quote helped Game of Thrones when it came out.

What they need to do is bring in the non-fantasy crowd. And I think there's enough in WoT, and also wider understanding and acceptance of chosen one narratives since GoT, that this wouldn't be a particular challenge if the show is well produced and marketed.

[Zorral]

16 hours ago, karaddin said:

Not really no. Any actual on page sex is pretty low key to the point I only really remember one and it was basically fade to black. I remember a bit more implied sex where we get post coital interactions, but he didn't use sex as titillating. Honestly the most sexual thing in the books is probably unintentional with his possible desire to engage in light spanking coming across in it being a disciplinary technique in the story that I strongly expect will be removed in adaptation.

There's also evil characters that are very sexual and sadistic in nature but again it's not something we actually see or get immersed in. One of them does have functionally nude servants (it's the result of mind control that makes them want it though so they have no choice in serving, but as it's based in magic changing their desires I feel very uncomfortable creating an analogy to real world slavery so using servants).

It also definitely doesn't do torture porn. The various evil characters clearly engage in it but again it's not on page really, and it's lacking that more modern.... wallowing in the concept. I guess that's probably one of the ways it really shows it's roots as a pre 9/11 work, that's when morally ambiguous anti heroes using torture because the ends justify the means really became a thing. You do have a supernatural entity that's more like a force of nature than a character which talks about torture with glee but we never see anyone get caught in it. 

So basically even when those 2 things come up, there's a significant tonal difference from what you're thinking of - it doesn't do it to be edgy, or as a shorthand for being "adult" fantasy.

Thank you!  I will check out the WOT series when it arrives then, as I will The Witcher when it arrives -- though looking at the books in the library, I knew they were not for me.  I couldn't read the books from which The Magicians was adapted, but I love the television series.  Even Shannara grew upon me as a television series, though I couldn't read those books either.

[Krishtotter]

39 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Thank you!  I will check out the WOT series when it arrives then,

As someone who wasn't keen on the books and only read the first one, Eye of the World in full, I'm nonetheless looking forward to the WoT show.

The world-building is vast and while Jordan's writing style just did not suit my literary tastes (its a very subjective thing, and there's no right or wrong), the world of 'Randland' (as its fans informally call it) has long intrigued me, in and of itself. 

I like the angle fionwe1987 has suggested and which the showrunner Rafe Judkins appears to be pushing (i.e. of ramping up the ethnic diversity, gender and LGBT representation that is already there but modernized) . 

I'll never be a 'book-fan', but I'm still hyped for the show and will both watch and judge it on its own merits.

 

[fionwe1987]

1 minute ago, Krishtotter said:

As someone who wasn't keen on the books and only read the first one, Eye of the World in full, I'm looking forward to the WoT show.

The world-building is vast and while Jordan's writing style just didn't suit my literary tastes (its a very subjective thing, and there's no right or wrong), the world of 'Randland' (as its fans informally call it) has long intrigued me, in and of itself. 

I like the angle fionwe1987 has suggested. 

I'll never be a 'book-fan', but I'm still hyped for the show and will both watch and judge it on its own merits.

 

In some ways, Eye of the World is an unfortunate start to the story. It's very LotR like, though there's plenty of hints of the wider world being very different. 

I'd say you should give New Spring a try. It's a prequel, short, and has a "conclusion" of sort, and expands one of the more fascinating parts of the world of WoT quite well.

[Krishtotter]

43 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

In some ways, Eye of the World is an unfortunate start to the story. It's very LotR like, though there's plenty of hints of the wider world being very different. 

I'd say you should give New Spring a try. It's a prequel, short, and has a "conclusion" of sort, and expands one of the more fascinating parts of the world of WoT quite well.

Thanks, I will check it out sometime before the show airs (my understanding is that New Spring is about Moiraine?). 

I did wade somewhat into The Great Hunt as well but I found the writing style too plodding and flowery for my liking (with the almost OCD-level obsession for the mundane minutiae of character's clothing, hair or affectations (i.e. smoothing skirts, tugging braids) started to seriously drive me nuts!). 

Also, the gender dynamics: while I admired the fact that WoT took the novel approach of showing us a world where only women could safely use magic without going insane and in which women were in power (as in the matrilineal/matriarchal succession to the throne of Andor), and also explored some women-only sub-plots like the White Tower (which I do agree with you could, in the hands of a skilled screenwriter, make for compelling female-centric narrative-building), I found the gender dynamics very underdeveloped and naive - unrealistic. 

Yes, the LotR parallels in Eye of the World were rather "on the nose" to say the least. 

Emond's Field was very Shire-esque, we had simple country folk (i.e. like the Hobbits), albeit one Rand whom fate destined for greater things (i.e. like Frodo unwittingly landed with the One Ring), suddenly thrust out of their quiet, isolated lives by servants of the Dark Lord into an epic adventure. These were ring-wraiths (*cough* Myrddraal, I mean) hunting the Emond's Fielder gang complete with Tolkienesque dark cloaks in service of the Dark One, but luckily Moiraine of the Aes Sedai (aka hot female Gandalf) had arrived in town just in time to lead the heroes on a journey and save them from the Trollocs (Orcs)......

I just had the overwhelming feeling that I'd read this plot before many times-over.

In hindsight, I appreciate that Jordan wrote it this way because, especially back in the 1980s-90s, Tolkien-imitation was still all the razz in high fantasy and he likely determined it was his best chance of getting a quick following in the genre. 

I have heard from fans that the wider 'world' in WoT is very distinctive from its original Lotresque moorings in book 1. 

But, other than the prequel you very kindly suggested, I think I'll leave the general series to one side and just watch the show when it airs and see what interpretation Rafe comes up with. 

[Corvinus85]

6 minutes ago, Krishtotter said:

Thanks, I will check it out sometime before the show airs (my understanding is that New Spring is about Moiraine?). 

I did wade somewhat into The Great Hunt as well but I found the writing style too plodding and flowery for my liking (with the almost OCD-level obsession for the mundane minutiae of character's clothing, hair or affectations (i.e. smoothing skirts, tugging braids) started to seriously drive me nuts!). 

Also, the gender dynamics: while I admired the fact that WoT took the novel approach of showing us a world where only women could safely use magic without going insane and in which women were in power (as in the matrilineal/matriarchal succession to the throne of Andor), and also explored some women-only sub-plots like the White Tower (which I do agree with you could, in the hands of a skilled screenwriter, make for compelling female-centric narrative-building), I found the gender dynamics very underdeveloped and naive - unrealistic. 

Yes, the LotR parallels in Eye of the World were rather "on the nose" to say the least. 

Emond's Field was very Shire-esque, we had simple country folk (i.e. like the Hobbits), albeit one Rand whom fate destined for greater things (i.e. like Frodo unwittingly landed with the One Ring), suddenly thrust out of their quiet, isolated lives by servants of the Dark Lord into an epic adventure. These were ring-wraiths (*cough* Myrddraal, I mean) hunting the Emond's Fielder gang complete with Tolkienesque dark cloaks in service of the Dark One, but luckily Moiraine of the Aes Sedai (aka hot female Gandalf) had arrived in town just in time to lead the heroes on a journey and save them from the Trollocs (Orcs)......

I just had the overwhelming feeling that I'd read this plot before many times-over.

In hindsight, I appreciate that Jordan wrote it this way because, especially back in the 1980s-90s, Tolkien-imitation was still all the razz in high fantasy and he likely determined it was his best chance of getting a quick following in the genre. 

I have heard from fans that the wider 'world' in WoT is very distinctive from its original Lotresque moorings in book 1. 

But, other than the prequel you very kindly suggested, I think I'll leave the general series to one side and just watch the show when it airs and see what interpretation Rafe comes up with. 

In that case, once the show gets going, maybe just reading this companion will be sufficient for you, if you want to learn more about the world without plodding through Jordan's prose. And luckily, all that about smoothing skirts, sniffing, shrugging and so on will likely be absent and very subtle; except for braid tugging, that's a must, no way around it; no braid tugging, might as well call the show something else.