The truth about book adaptations

[@Bookborn]

Look, I love ya'll but please stop trashing Wheel of Time in my comment section. Save that for NEXT WEEK in my WOT video 💀 I'm really hoping to keep this discussion to adaptations in general...which is what this video is about. And no, I'm not going to go easy on WOT. I still didn't like it lol

[@genghisgalahad8465]

The show, you mean, right?

[@alveolate]

i feel like fandom should be more organised about comparing changes in the adaptation from the source. these specifics should be listed out and critiqued individually. some changes may be great; others may suck - just like every distinct part of any story/media. people tend to overindex on some specific parts and lose all ability for nuance when talking about these.

[@Bookborn]

@@genghisgalahad8465 yes of course haha

[@Bookborn]

@@alveolate YES THANK YOU. This entire video is trying to steer us away from simply saying “deviate from book = always bad”. We need to be more articulate in our discussion and really pin point why WoT is failing for so many of us. Imo it’s not just that.

[@Peregrin3]

I understand your point which is why I tried to stay on topic about adaptions generally as much as possible even if I used WOT as an example, and I gave examples of good and bad adaptions, another bad adaption would be Eragon and another good one would be The WItcher.😅

[@pavelowjohn9167]

I must live under a rock, because I have yet to run across a Tolkien fan who didn't realize Peter Jackson made some fairly substantial modifications to the books and that those changes were badly needed. Very little songs or singing by the characters (compared to the book), no Tom Bombadil, no "Scouring of the Shire", etc... In fact, the "Book fans just want a 1:1 strict adaptation" charge was thrown around a lot on the various Wheel of Time sub-reddits, but I never saw anyone actually demand that; It was more of a strawman created by people defending the show as opposed to an accurate criticism of book fans.

[@Bookborn]

Well let me tell you I didn’t think they existed either until my WoT videos. People were complaining all the time that they shouldn’t have changed a single thing - and then citing LOTR as if it didn’t change anything. It was crazy.

[@quietmousse]

Yes, and LotR book fans were quite upset by all the changes, way more upset than WoT book fans are today imo. People have forgotten all that anger and everyone is fine with the LotR movies today because ... THEY'RE GOOD MOVIES. If the final product is good, even diehard fans will come around eventually

[@pavelowjohn9167]

I can think of only two instances where someone would declare that a movie must be a 1:1 adaptation of the book to be a good movie. Either A) they are trying to portray themselves as some sort of "super-fan", for whom only the purest of adaptations will do or B) They really aren't very bright and have no idea what such a movie would look like and how bad it would actually be. Sadly, the sci-fi/fantasy fanbases have more than their fair share of both cases. Meanwhile, other fan communities tend to be more realistics, I think, when it comes to this subject. When "Master and Commander" was adapted, Pat O'Brien fans were very cognizant that changes would have to be made, same with "Hunt for Red October" and "True Grit" fanbases. But sci-fi and fantasy fandoms are, how should I put this, a little more "emotional" in their approach to the works they enjoy and this makes for some really dumb remarks on social media and elsewhere....

[@IchibanOjousama]

@@pavelowjohn9167 You are wrong, it is totally possible

[@jefferickson5833]

Nobody, absolutely Nobody, expected a 1-1 adaptation of LOR. This is an odd and totally weird argument. The audio book for LOR is 54 hours long. Again, nobody expected that.

[@Bgrosz1]

I'm a fan of the Harry Potter books and loved the adaptation. I'm a fan of the Song of Ice and Fire books (GoT) loved the adaptation, until they ran out of books to adapt. I'm a fan of the Hunger Games books and loved the adaptation. I'm a fan of The Martian book and loved the adaptation. So not liking The Wheel of Time "adaptation" isn't because I'm difficult to please and the show will just never measure up to the books. It's because the "adaptation" of WoT is terrible.

[@100puremustard5]

TRUTH

[@JeffPenaify]

This is the most foul excuse in a laundry list of excuses for this show.

💯

[@johnshite4656]

The way the Amazon apologists talk you would think that there can't be any such thing as a bad adaptation, that all adaptations are perfectly fine by default and shouldn't be criticized. I say let's learn what Rafe actually IS a fan of, and assassinate it the way he assassinated WoT. See how he likes a taste of his own damn medicine. Sex and the City, we're coming for you. Get ready to get Loial'd.

[@donaldgooch7869]

What Byron said

[@sodreigor]

I'll give an example to try and illustrate something that bothers me on adaptations. In the books, Lewis Terrin going to confront the Dark One with the hundred companions was portrayed as an act of bravery and self sacrifice, but in the series it was portrayed as act of arrogance. That is the kind of "change" the bothers me most. The wheel of time series changes a lot of the "framing" of some key events. When adaptations do these kind of changes, that's when I consider them to be "bad".

[@Bookborn]

Honestly these kinds of changes are the ones I’m finding bother me the most as I give it time to rest. It’s not that I care they’ve changed things around / moved things whatever. But it’s *tonal* shifts that feel difficult to accept, like the one you’ve mentioned.

[@im1085]

The showrunners seem to think they have to give the girls more power by making the men look worse. Which is really weird since WoT has some of the best and strongest women in fantasy already

[@glenbe4026]

That is so strange. I have never really like Egwene BUT Nynaeve & Min are my two favourite characters. In fact, the only two non-darkfriend main female characters i truly disliked were Faile & Tuon (Berelain was a better character than Faile). And the books are filled with powerful confident women who do not step back for any man. But it seems the showrunners thought it was not enough. The depiction of Amalisa & AgelmarJagad in the show was just so discordant coming as a reader. I am not sure what purpose it served.

[@Gunleaver]

@@im1085 They've actually made the women generally worse. They made Egwene a lot more passive, someone whom things just happen to. Nynaeve offers her an apprenticeship & Rand says of course she'll take it, then Moiraine tells her she has to leave with the boys. Then Amalisa uses her as a battery to kill the Trollocs, and Nynaeve saves her, while Rand's confrontation with the Dark One has Egwene be a prop. The things they added to buff her were a contrived victory over the Children of the Light, that relied on her enemy being inexplicably paralyzed with terror at a strange eye color and wolves showing up without any explanation to cover her escape and gave her non-canon Healing powers. In the books, Egwene was all about seizing opportunities and pursuing her dreams and not letting anyone stop her. They turned Nynaeve's tracking ability into a joke, removed all her leadership examples, twisted her medical ethics so that instead of treating anyone regardless of her feelings towards them, and being very transparent about what medicine she uses, she now repeatedly attacks people with knives for no reason, withholds her medical expertise to get her own way and refuses to explain her methods. Where Nynaeve dominated in the books, on the show, everyone ignores her while she pleads with them to stop arguing. They repurposed her backstory anecdote that shows how she first used the Power to Heal into a tale of how Egwene willed herself through an illness as a child. They stripped her determination to protect the people of her village and replaced it with a nonsensical dogma about the importance of a woman's braid. They made Moiraine much less competent. She has a whole day's advance warning about the Trollocs, failed to warn anyone, destroyed half the village fighting the Trollocs and took a serious wound. In the books, she saved the village and the inn, with no warning and did not get wounded. On the show, she has to kiss the butts of the Whitecloaks and let them grope her and hide her identity. In the books, she sent them running with just an illusion, and later rescued Perrin & Egwene from a larger group with Nynaeve's help. Moiraine in the books lets nothing stop her from find the boys and keeping them from the Dark One. She gives them tracking devices that enables her to find each one even after they lose them, or in captivity. On the show, she has no way to find them, and gets diverted on a pointless side trip to escort a powerless false dragon, tries to impress on Nynaeve that only she can protect Nynaeve from the other Aes Sedai and find the other Two Rivers folk, only for Nynaeve to blow her off and find Rand & Mat on her own. In order to justify their plot shenanigans, they have Moiraine agree to a ludicrously stupid and inhumane plan, let Mat abandon the group, and be so incompetent at stealth that she can be easily tracked with a "tell." When confronted with an aggressively rude nobleman who publicly bashes the White Tower, she is apologetic and conciliatory, instead of putting him in his place. Her role in the final confrontation is to be a helpless victim, who can't hold a knife steady, and possibly a dupe of the Shadow, if "the Dark One's" final smirk indicated that she played into his plan when she brought Rand to the Eye. It's not that the changes they made were different from the books, it's that they absolutely SUCKED at writing them and what appeared on the screen was nonsense.

[@RokujyuuyonShou]

You don't have to "not change anything", but you have to take utmost care to honour the source material. This cannot be said of WoT at all.

[@thewhiskybowman]

Happy new year to you too. I have no issues with changes being made when they are necessary or minor. For example in WoT (spoilers ahead), Thom playing a guitar rather than a harp? Fine. Leaving out Caemlyn for budget reasons in season 1, fair enough it doesn't have a major impact to the story going forward. Leaving Mat behind in episode 7 because the actor quit? Not much else you can do there, I can live with that. However, when they change things purely for the sake of change I have much less sympathy. 5 untrained channelers defeating an entire shadowspawn army? Egwene healing Nynaeve from death? Loial surviving a stab wound from THAT dagger? Those things screw up SO much for later plotlines it makes certain things virtually impossible to do well, or even do at all. Early seasons of GoT and the Expanse are the only two I can think of recently that have struck a pretty good balance between trying to stick to the source material and making necessary changes. It's not really surprising both went on to become popular with book and non book fans alike.

[@undeadamerican1107]

Lezbi Nerdy did a great breakdown recently of changes that have significant impacts vs those that were rather inconsequential. More of the changes than I thought are relatively minor, but there are some big ones in there. There are also several that are minor now, but will likely have significant implications later in the series. I don't agree with everything on her list for placement, but it's great to see it broken down that way.

[@projectmertle9625]

As far as the changes you list go: 1: Mostly agree about Thom's guitar, however, I think they missed the point of his character, and we got basically nothing out of him in the show. With what they did with him, it would have been almost better to leave him out. Almost. Fuck, who thinks he represents ANYTHING like a Gleeman from the books? More like a grim dark Gloomman. 2: They didn't leave out Caemlyn for budget reasons. They chose to go to Tar Valon instead, which the group never sees in the first book. I'd be ok with this if we had better Aes Sedai story lines there, or even some parts that we may not get later (healing Matt from the Dagger, Scene with Gawyn and Galad and Matt). What did we get? A huge intro for a non main character, unwanted bath scene that doesn't matter, petty high school squabbling between Aes Sedai, awkward sex between Moiraine and Suian, a warder sadding to death, an awkwardly long not in the books funeral for him complete with over the top chest beating, Loial being criminally underused, when he is the ideal exposition dumper for the show, and a for no reason changed from the books waygate(for fucks sake, it was a wall with carved stone leaves, probably would have cost them less to make it practically than wasting CG budget having Moiraine open it with the power, which ALSO breaks lore). We wasted TWO full episodes on this crap. 3. Does ANYONE really think that what they did with Matt was the best way to write him out for the last two episodes? I can think of half a dozen ways that could have been fixed off the top of my head. 4. Agreed 5. Agreed 6. Agreed

[@EricBentleyEB5minus2]

Also, it was painful watching Lan, often referred to as Mr Stone Face, for whom raising an eyebrow is the equivalent of another man screaming in shock, have a highly dramatic emotional breakdown.

[@constrainedanacronysm1370]

To add something they didn't really have an excuse for what they did with Matt either. They deliberately chose to have a shocking moment where Mat is out of character and betrays the party by not following them just for effect. They easily could have reshot just the Ways scene without Mat and shown us an edited scene of Mat being sick again, had a character tell us he was sick or just too uncertain to come... or really anything else that didn't have him being a jerk and unexpectedly hurting his friends. Moiraine and the others could have just expressed that the dagger sickness had retaken to Mat, stated that he needed to remain at the tower to survive and showed earlier footage from when he was sick... this would have set Mats character up perfectly for his book plot in Tar Valon.... which the show seems to be aiming for since Mat goes back to Tar Valon according to Rafe in the still we are shown in episode 8. Instead of doing something that doesn't assassinate the character and more logically sets things up for a book plot though Rafe and crew went for the SHOCKING moment where he betrays them... which is the problem with this ahow it is not only disloyal to the source material but it is shallow.

[@jefferickson5833]

And if 5 untrained channelers can wipe out a whole shadowspawn army, then what are the future stakes? They won't be in any real danger and if they do get dead, then they can be healed. Super easy, barely an inconvenience.

[@thecontradictorian2225]

I personally don’t find it important if the showrunner/actors/producers are fans of the thing they’re adapting, because that doesn’t have any influence on the quality of the adaptation 🤷🏻‍♂️ I’d rather have them just be good at their job. If, let’s take a completely hypothetical example, someone called Jafe Rudkins were to adapt The Wheel of Time, I’d just want to know what he’s worked on before. Is he a good writer or not, what sort of experiences has he made… because fans being bad writers is worse than good writers not being fans in the end.

[@merc9nine]

Yes

[@constrainedanacronysm1370]

Given all the unnecessary changes Rafe Judkins & co made I really don't know if he was a fan... but given the choice between him and a professional I choose the professional.

[@dbeaton1111]

Writing is not rocket science. Long-time readers, especially, know what makes a compelling character, the difference between real and fake tension, when the writer is preaching, what a plot hole is, and when a writer is going down a rabbit hole with an irrelevant side story. Robert Jordan had his flaws, but the TV series .... Readers, do you believe Rafe and Co. when they claim they're big fans of the books, or do you believe your lyin' eyes?

[@Bookborn]

LOLL I wish I could imagine who Jafe Rudkins is I actually did some research on this. Doesn't seem to be any correlation to how experienced someone was in adaptations and the quality of the adaptation. It feels like it should but...sadly it doesn't. Except in some cases like the guy who did Eragon never directed before or after so like...if that doesn't tell you what a failure THAT was LOL

[@thecontradictorian2225]

@@Bookborn the Eragon movie was basically a career graveyard for almost everyone involved.

[@metintatari7148]

Wheel of Time does not feel like an adaptation anymore. Its feels like a re-imagination. Not only they changed plots they also played fast and loose with the lore. Also characters doesnt feel like their book counter parts.

[@bretts8070]

Exactly my sentiments as well.

[@Bgrosz1]

Thank you. I keep putting "adaptation" in quotes because I don't want to call it an adaptation but couldn't think of the right word. It's already way too far off of the source material. Re-imagination is the right word.

[@gilian2587]

@@Bgrosz1 Maybe 'unfunny parody' is the description you're looking for?

[@JJ-nu8qi]

I agree it's not really adaptation because they have changed to much of the base for me.

[@BUTCH0147]

I agree. Major points within the story should not be changed. Any book with an adaptation will have changes. I'm sure new fans would love it. Are adaptations just a cheap way to get a story?

[@NoirTenshin]

So I would like first to introduce a concept that I have that probably exists under a different name: Literacy debt - a concept of needing to be close to the source material of the Intellectual property. The literacy debt is created when you use an existing IP's name as people are expecting content that is tied to that IP. By using an existing IP (lets say LOTR, Wheel of Time or any other known intellectual property), there is an expected literacy debt to the IP / story / world / writer of the IP that viewers expect to be settled. That literacy debt is settled by adding details that only fans can notice, sticking as close as possible to the source material as the interpretation is using it's name or adding details that enhance the story while keeping the spirit of the source material. Literacy debt doesn't prevent new stories but it needs to be consistent with the world/universe and it's rules. Ignoring literacy debt doesn't negatively impact only the fans, it can also create misconceptions to the viewer that isn't knowledgeable about the original IP damaging both the IP and the viewer. If the literacy debt isn't settled, it's a separate, derivative work that shouldn't carry the name of the original IP. Of course, things aren't always black and white like that, as changes are mandatory due to the restrains of show, like time and budget, but imho the interpretation needs to tell the same story even if it goes through different beats and do it in good faith / spirit of the original IP. But when you start changing the story (major changes to the lead characters, story progression, changing events on a fundamental level, character growth, locations / environments, side characters behaving out of character, prevent / obstruct connecting to the characters) without need, some agenda or out of personal need to "fix" author's work that's when using the IP name starts to be insulting. There is a fine line that allows for this and that, while the literacy debt is slowly being settled, but there are shows that don't want the literacy debt to be settled and just want to use the IP name to boost the viewer count while telling a story that doesn't do the original IP justice. A wolf in sheep skin. P.S. Being a fan of the source material isn't a must for the director/producer/showrunner, but there needs to be an understanding of the spirit of it and attention to details that really bring up the passion. So if the director/producer/showrunner isn't a fan, they would probably need an assistant that is (and both prevent each other in making mistakes).

[@Bookborn]

I love the idea of literary debt. I had never heard of it before, so thanks for the great explanation. There are some weird stand outs to this idea - like Jason Bourne movies, which are widely considered great but deviant significantly from the books. Or like How to Train Your Dragon - which is also pretty wildly different from the books. Although I feel like people get away with it more with kids books

[@bruncla2303]

@@Bookborn well i think most people that saw Jason Bourne didnt even know that there is a book so they went in expecting spy thriller action movie and the movie also didnt market itself heavily as a book adaptation. I am not sure about how to train your dragon (didnt know there were books until the second movie) and i went in just expecting good animated kids movie.

[@vuivraalbastra]

@@bruncla2303 As someone who read some of the How To Train Your Dragon books before the movies came out, I can say that I was confused when I heard about the movie because I saw no way to make a movie out of it, so I watched it with just curiosity, not with expectations as well. But that's not the entire explanation. I would describe the books as fun events and wacky dragons showed off in a story with an overall point of using intelligence instead of physical strength to overcome challenges. While most of the adaptation is different from the source material in obvious ways, it still feels like a heartfelt tribute to the books, at least in my opinion, because it respects (even if not always follows) the worldbuilding and messages of the book. It feels like they took these kids books and turned them into something bigger using love and good writing. I don't know about others, but this is why I can love both the books and the movies in the HTTYD franchise.

[@ryamano]

Wheel of Time may be a mediocre adaptation (really don't see the 10 million an episode value) but it's not that much against the spirit of the books. If you want to see something that has an opposite message from the book look at Starship Troopers.

[@bruncla2303]

@@ryamano yeah but there it was intentional satire

[@Peregrin3]

There is a common misunderstanding that I see people trying to defend the WOT show or at least play devil's advocate use and to be charitable I will assume that it is not intentional. It is that fans were expecting the series to be 100 percent like the books and they just had unreasonably high expectations. I find this really odd and frankly incredibly patronizing because all the Fans I've seen including myself who had the actual intention of watching the show were under no such illusion. In fact, Lord of the Rings was often cited as an example of how to make a good adaption even if there were a lot of differences. And speaking of LOTR, as awesome as it was and still is, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read the books that it would have been far better if Peter Jackson had stuck a bit closer to the books, (for example in the book Sauron is defeated in an epic fight by Elendil and Gil-Galad not by Isildur just cutting off his finger like in the movie), but regardless it was a good adaption because Peter Jackson understood and respected the source material, and also it was just a good movie. Could you imagine if Aragorn was a drunken wimp or Sam murdered Frodo to get the ring? If you can then you have a small understanding of why the fans absolutely hate the Wheel of Time Show. Also, the idea that because it's an adaption, therefore, you can turn everything on its head is wrong, the whole point of doing an adaption is to bring something great from one medium to another but keep it as close as possible to the spirit of the original. I think the problem is people are confusing an adaption with a complete reimagining or reinterpretation which is what the show is. The Show is not based on the books, it is barely inspired by them. The changes are not necessary, they do not improve the setting, characters, or Lore in any way, they, in fact, make them much worse and I dare anyone who has actually read the books and liked them to give a good example of how they do. If you don't understand or respect the material you are adapting you should not do it period. Here is an example of another adaption that was so bad it was universally panned as absolute garbage and I'm certain the people defending this show thought so too, and that is The Last Airbender Movie. I have never seen anyone try to defend by saying it's an adaption and Fans of the original show were just expecting it to be just like the original so they are just confused. It was rightfully panned because it was a terrible movie and an even worse adaption but as bad as it was far more respectful of the source material than the Wheel of Time Show is, the big difference between them is that The Last Airbender had barely any political messaging in it but The Wheel of Time is absolutely saturated by it and I don't mean the politics that were already in the books I mean all the stuff they tagged on only in the show. One final thing about the target audience. The disregarding of an established fanbase of millions of people to target a new and unreliable one is just bad business, you need to find your buyers before you sell not after because you have no guarantee that anyone else will be interested. Why ignore a huge and loyal market that should be the foundation of their income?🤔

[@jefferickson5833]

Absolutely well done.

[@johntoskas]

As to your last question, i would say the answer is the pushing of the message. Each company that tries it, believes that through it they will have more buyers on global scale.

[@francesccampos1343]

Wrong, the problem doesn't lie in expecting a 1:1 adaptation, the problem lies in the new amateur directors/producers who think they know better than highly renowed authors that built a beloved saga, who change basic things of the story and also are fast to critisize all the critics to their work calling them toxic to say the least. WoT show deliverately ignores the CORE message of the whole series, to the point that it even seems that they disliked the original story and changed it to fit their likes and political ideas. This is specially bad when the main writer and director is a complete amateur who clearly shows how little he knows about cinematography, camera-shots and fantasy in general (i can name you many examples if you want, i don't want to make this long for now). This is a common trend in recent years: 1-Take a beloved IP or story 2-Choose a talentless amateur director who would make whatever you told him to do and also who cares deeply about inclusion, diversity and inserting political ideas in fiction 3-Twist the story as desired with more focus towards inserting their own political agenda rather than telling a good story. 4-Flop terribly and blame all the bad reviews and criticism to racists and biggots and set yourselves as victims. 5-Leave the IP destroyed and search for the new IP to corrupt Clear examples: Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbursters, Terminator, Matrix, The Witcher, TWOT and probably Rings of Power, just to name a few.

[@KarlMahudi]

It becomes problematic, when not only fans have problems with an „adaption“, but non-readers can‘t follow the story either. The WoT series as a fan was partly a hurting experience for me, but my wife not knowing the books asked so many questions not answered in the series, wondered about so many weird decisions, of which I was only able to explain some because I know the books so well. Some things were just bad. Perhaps it was just bad story telling, not finding the right middle ground between fans and others, corona restrictions, unlucky decisions. At some point, I only continued because there were some really great moments and pictures. And it helped to listen to your videos because I think you had a quite objective view compared to all other reviews of the WoT series I found. But for me - the series is no longer WoT, just an interpretation of the rough idea of the story. More a try to use the name of WoT to make money, then any real wish to adapt an existing story.

[@Drivenby]

Nah I think any reasonable book fan will know that you can't possibly do to a 1:1 adaptation. In the case of WOT SHOW the adaptation is an outright disaster. It doesn't appeal to book fans. It doesn't appeal to tv show watchers. There's sooooo many good adaptations out there, it's easy to see what a bad adaptation is. Most recently see Dune. Am I annoyed they missed a lot of elements from the books? Sure. Do I think they kept the spirit of the novel and major plot points essentially unchanged if digestable for the format. Absolutely yet. Dennis Bellevue makes amazing adaptations. The adaptation of Anhilation also took liberal changes to the book but they were all in form with the narrative and didn't drastically change the core story. End result? The movie is freaking better than the book. Same thing with manga and anime. Monster anime >>>>>>>> manga a million times. Again it doesn't have to be a literal translation of the story from one format to another but when you change things just for the sake of them, when you lose the core message of the story, when your production values are inexplicably 1999 syfy levels, I'm sorry wot show is a monstrosity.

[@carlosc6799]

Well said - As i see it - Rafe appears to be deliberately trying to add his own "recipe" / "essence" to the WOT tv series by changing the essence of the books way too much and this is resulting in backlash from the book readers.

[@CaptainMoroniP]

The Expanse is another great example of adaption from books to TV. The showrunners did not lose touch with the original story and how characters got to where they needed to be to accomplish that.

[@readbykyle3082]

I mean if you're going to talk about something this much you should probably know how to spell Denis Villeneuve's name instead of confidently misspelling it. You even called him Dennis! You know it's not Dennis, right?

[@BonaparteBardithion]

@@readbykyle3082 The first name could be a misspell, but changing Villeneuve to Bellevue looks more like an autocorrect issue.

[@joshuahorn4786]

@@readbykyle3082 wow I mean if you didn't have a valid argument why did you comment? Boohoo he misspelled a name. Oh the absolute horror. Get off your high horse.

[@Koronin]

I know the wheel of time is a very popular and beloved series of books. Adaptations change things, but the wheel of time show suffers from being a bad show, not a bad adaptation. It looked cheesy and fake, the character development was sorely lacking or others are simple mary sues. It kind of comes off as a bland fantasy series that took its magic from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Nothing seemed believable or immersive. It's said this show cost $10 million an episode to make, but it looks like it's far less. It's oft compared to Game of Thrones, but that show had strong and consistent characters, a measured and well paced plot and SO MUCH more seemed to happen 8 hours into that show.

[@davister84]

I don't know any non-book readers who've said this. The worst I've seen is my brother saying the quality goes up and down, and someone on a podcast saying the White Tower stuff was far more interesting than the EF5 plotlines and seemed like it came from a better show. The only overly negative opinions I've seen have been book readers.

[@gilian2587]

If the show ends up getting 8 full seasons; you'll be correct. If not, then not. The WoT show will live and die on it's own merits.

[@saratogalion3680]

Your premise was thought provoking. I recall watching an interview with George Lucas a few decades ago and one of the questions was about others writing stories using the universe he created and he said something like "so long as they are fans of the original story and aren't simply borrowing the popularity and then destroy my characters..." perhaps the fan CV of a showrunner is more 'street credit' for the studio than the audience. Especially with the volatility of fantasy adaptations, perhaps the studio need to believe that a showrunner has proven source material to help stabilize what they will be doing. As with WoT and others - it's too late to recognize artistic theft once it hits the edit booth. I haven't heard a single book fan complain that a strict 1:1 adaptation wasn't done, in fact many have offered very creative ways that would work better on the screen than they did in the book, but still held true to the main theme of balance, tone and story arch. Changes, edits and even characters removal from books will always be necessary AND can often produce a less confusing outcome. The Eye of the World book ending was not smooth at all and Judkins could have erased all the misgivings and outright errors the TV version presented up to the last episode. In fact, I observed many book fans almost ready to forgive all the terrible choices in this first season if he had built on the spark of momentum for episode 7, and produced the last episode even better than the books. Imagine, a scene where Loial was in the library at Fal Dara lecturing (exposition dump) extras about the Ways, Ta'veren, and the horn that legend claimed was at the eye of the world - and not been stabbed. That Lan would have actually forged a path through Trollocs displaying the great warrior he is to get Rand and Moiraine to the Eye. That Egwene begged Nyaneve and others to help fight, at the gate (not some random desert) before countless soldiers died and Nyaneve could have even said I think this is how we link because this is what it looked like in the cave with Logain. Then Rand's epic channeling of Saidin wiped out the remaining Trollocs and stunned everyone as to the terror the Dragon Reborn could be, Fain had been spying on them and slips in and steals the horn from underneath them. ....any fan of the books would have been familiar with the poor ending the books had and made it better and more straight forward and not detracted from the characters story arch's and satisfied both book fans and TV fans in the same stroke. Those few sentences took me about 3 minutes to write. Experienced screen writers - fans of the books, could do better and remain true to the source material and give ALL fans a truly captivating ending. So much was made about COVID and Barney leaving - the source material was there all along to save them, but instead they had already forged a path to make their own version of a story by precisely NOT doing what a fan would have. While I salute Judkins efforts and that there was, apparently for him and his mother, a personal connection as a book readers, his claim as a fan is disingenuous because a fan doesn't desecrate, a fan honours. Judkins hasn't honoured Jordan's work at all. I hope he is removed as show runner and the studio find someone who can salvage the disaster he has left us with. Sanderson said years ago when asked what he felt like when Harriet asked him to finish her husbands work and he said he was both excited and terrified but in the end decided something quite poignant ....he knew that he wouldn't screw it up, meaning he would pay homage to Robert Jordan, stay true to what Jordan wanted and would not be able to forgive himself if another writer who wasn't a fan made a hash of it. There are many many fans of WoT who likely have some TV screenwriting experience who would produce a much better fan adaptation that is both captivating for a new to the story TV audience and not massacre a work cherished by book fans. It is not that hard.

[@wrynnshy]

I wanted to point out Dune and Denis Villenueve's keeping the spirit of the book even though he left out some the inner monologue. Peter Jackson did the same thing and even changed where certain characters said certain lines but kept the spirit of the book true. I both of these cases there were many things that the author's left up to the imagination of the reader like things that happened off-page, descriptions of people/places and with TLofR that whole magic system. These things gave the showrunners plenty of space to adapt/create to add to the story and lore. The same could be said to the WoT. There is a lot that Robert Jordan did not state or implied that would let the showrunners expand and create something magical. To quote Bookborn the whole Eye of Sauron was an amazing adaptation that conveyed Sauron as an ever present menace watching you and the spirit world is another great adaptation while remaining true to what was in the books. The Same can be said for Dune's character building and the sparkles in the air due to the spice Melange and Paul's spice dreams. We can all point to great moments in adaptations where scenes like the above happen. They let the fans know that the showrunners care about the source material and want to add their vision/creativity to the adaptation without significantly changing the spirit. Nothing can be that scene-for-scene adaptation as any fan should know. I feel tired that showrunners and those companies that produce these adaptations are just looking to use the fans as a quick way to help sell the adaptation but then change so much that did not need to be changed just to make a few bucks or to push a certain ideology whether Christian, Atheist, misogynist or feminist. If an ideology was present in the book then by all means make sure it is in the adaptation but don't let the inclusion of an idea take away from the characters and plots already established. The best adaptations are able to streamline the written word into a visual medium that brings something new and exciting without taking away from the story.

[@Bookborn]

Yep, agreed. Things will always be left on the cutting room floor, but there's a SPIRIT there that feels like a book, and you can just recognize it. I don't think it's an easy formula of "keep this, cut that". It needs to be present in the entire thing, overall.

[@matthewjudge3763]

I don't mind feminist undertones in this case because of the nature of WoTs world. But the show is just blatant misandry.

[@erikrungemadsen2081]

"he left out some the inner monologue." Now that is an understatement. Denis Villenueve took a Katana to the book and went tazmanian devil on it. it is crazy how much he cut out, The new Dune movie is a minimalist piece of art based on the essence of the book more than an adaptation. A beautifull piece of art, but i get the fans that are screaming in rage over what he did to their "boy."

[@wrynnshy]

@@erikrungemadsen2081 Very true and I know that Dune is only the first part and I hold my final analysis until part 2 is released. But it shows how a showrunner can create something new and unique that does not take away from the book. Yes a lot was cut. Yes it ended in a weird spot. And I would have like more character building. I can also see that Denis brought the Universe of Dune to reality, the grand scope of planet sized powers each with their own agendas vying for control of Spice. I think he captured the Spirit of the political intrigue while keeping some mystery about these powers. Though incomplete I hope he does as good of a job with part 2. In reading the comments, I can't remember their name and will edit if I find, was talking about small screen adaptations and large screen adaptations. I think he may be right that it is so much more difficult to adapt SciFi/Fantasy books to the small screen due to the post production that is allowed for adaptations onto the large screen.

[@6ixpoint5ive]

Some other things to think about. I understand your frustration, unfortunately CGI and budget are only some of the reasons for why there are story changes in these adaptations. TV shows have “main cast” “supporting cast” and “guest” billings, which correlate with different actor fees and negotiations for screen time, line count, etc. The main cast MUST be present is in every episode, Supporting cast can’t exceed a specific episode count, and guest can only appear in or or two episodes. and who is cast can have a big affect on how much screen time they get and what their fee is. For example casting Rosamund Pike was a decision to get a hollywood A list actress to pull audiences and who would have the prowess to give the character the gravitas needed (in a not so dissimilar fashion to Ian Mckellen for Gandalf) Then there’s the issue of TV schedules. A two hour film gets 2-3 years to be in development from pre production to release, sometimes even longer. TV shows get 1-2 years and border closer to 1 year whilst having 4-6 times the running length of films. For Fantasy this is ridiculous. You need a highly skilled team and even the best shows don’t land those right away (Game of Thrones had to re shoot their pilot and we all know how the end of the show went.) TV is fucking HARD to get right. There’s a reason it was viewed as the lesser of the two mediums for such a long time. Its made quicker with 4-6 times the amount of story content to be filmed and produced. You’re lucky if you get 3 takes of any given shot. I am in the TV industry, ive worked on a few tv shows, and the one thing I heard a lot is “it doesn’t need to be perfect; it just needs to be good and done. We’ll get it better in the next episode/season” Due to schedule and budget issues and producers, PMs, and ADs pulling budget rank, most TV crews are satisfied if they get an episode that’s 75% solid. Anything more than that is a wonder. TV is too challenging for these books or any kinds of epic fantasy. I have no idea how GoT worked, but even HBO can’t seem to recreate its success with their other fantasy shows (Westworld or His Dark Materials for example- both of which are fine, but not nearly as close to as incredible as GoTs hay day.) My current belief is that epic fantasy should be Movies. 2.5-3hrs is long, yes, but there is more time for the film to get things right in production, where there isn’t in TV. Films still have top billed cast, but they aren’t constrained to the same mandates that top billed cast members are for TV shows. For example Thom Merilynd should have been a main cast actor, but they likely only had so much money for main cast and so much screen time to juggle that they had to make a call and push him to guest roll, with the hope of making him supporting come later seasons (and main should there ge audience excitement about it.) TV shows have to paced a specific way with an order for episode numbers and runtime per episode. so every hour is thrilling where you come back for the next but also ha room for character growth, this came make for awkward pacing issues (as we saw) or can lead to drawn out scenes that are booorrring. If you only have 8 episodes that could mean a rushed season, it could also mean a slowly paced one if or order to many episodes with not enough story (which i believe is the issue with His Dari Materials for example.) Having watched the Harry Potter movies again, 2.5 hrs is more than enough time to get a conciece story. HP7 pt1 is boring because it didn’t need to be split up into two movies, should have just even own 3 hr movie (but that gets into theatre run time politics which is a whole other thing.) A lot of show runners have discussed in interviews how making a Tv show is 90% being told “no” or “that sounds great, but here’s what we can manage… sorry… can you do it for this?” It’s rare to get what you ask for and rarer still for it to pay off well when you do. Time, Money, scheduling. and Negotiational politics just aren’t on the side of TV shows (this is why so many that succeed with long life spans are procedural “crime/monster of the week”) There are more moving parts in making film and tv than making a book. A book has to deal with many 10 people at most, usually 3-4 people involved from beginning to end of production to release. Films and Tv hve hundreds upon thousands of people involved (maybe even millions of a show runs long enough.) A lot goes wrong and there’s a lot of strings to pull and to manage that can effect the books “precious story.” sorry but there’s going to be chances and they’re going to be necessary. every time. always. My current stance is that WOT should have been a movie. and most fantasy books should be movies. Game of Thrones is an outlier and we shouldn’t use it as a the basis. The others have to make too may changes or suffer under the obsticales of Tv production Anyway, just some other things to think about beyond the usual “CGI” or “woke” arguments.

[@aliciasorenson3807]

I love this response. So necessary! Want to share it in all the fb groups for the show?😉

[@EricBentleyEB5minus2]

Very informative!

[@merc9nine]

That's all true, but also not why this particular adaptation sucks. I'd rather watch Winx Saga

[@merc9nine]

Also who says it needs to be billed like that? Is it in some union contract or something?

[@IchibanOjousama]

No one cares. A good series is a good series

[@brennanhewitt7609]

The show was excruciating to watch. I can't believe how bad everything in it was no plot points made sense, Perin is a weak useless wife killer, everything they changed was for the worst. it honestly is a giant steaming pile of absolute atrocity, I heard someone say that the only way saving season 2 could be a thing is if Rand wakes up and it was all a dream lol

[@eX13Eugene]

The problem with WoT is that when you compile down all the changes, you can't help but see that those changes are aggressive and too forced. It's like they were not interested in adopting at all. It's like they pissed in my mouth and told me it was raining To be fair, I have to admit I am not a WoT books fan. Tried to read them, gave up at book number 4. But seeing the show I felt very sorry for book fans. The changes they made, I'd think, are quite insulting to the book fans to be honest. Too many canons are broken now..... Just too many... Liked your analysis thou. Makes me rethink my feelings once again which is a good thing on it's own

[@Bookborn]

When someone who can't make it through the books feels sorry for book fans you know it's bad 💀😂

[@sanjna7570]

Great video! One thing I think is interesting is just the number of people involved in a tv show/movie versus writing a book. Even if the showrunner is a fan, there are so many producers, writers, and actors involved and they all have different goals. A book character doesn't care if they're sidelined for a book, but an actor does. Fantasy books don't require a higher budget because of magic, but fantasy tv shows have to put more budget into CGI. I've been trying to keep that in mind, especially with some of the decisions made with WoT - and that show was doubly effected by external factors because of covid.

[@Bookborn]

Such EXCELLENT points. There are so many more people to please in a visual production. Might be something interesting for me to explore further

[@nathanhickson7900]

There are two types of adaptations, faithful adaptations and faithless adaptations. The Harry Potter movies were faithful adaptations. I believe that the Lord of the Rings movies were faithful adaptations. But the Shannara Chronicles and The Wheel of Time are completely faithless adaptations.

[@ssmcquay]

What does faithful vs faithless mean though? For me WoT is nailing the vibe I got from reading, so for me I'd say it's faithful, despite the myriad changes

[@CinematicGalaxy]

Some would argue that the Harry Potter movies from 3 onwards are not faithful adaptations. Overall, I agree with you on Potter being faithful to the "feel" of the books, but a LOT of Potter book fans take issue with the changes to the later films. Movies 4-6 in particular cut/changed a LOT from the books, with Half-Blood Prince in a lot of ways having an altogether different flavor from the book, with a heavier focus on teen romance than on learning the history of Voldemort. The 8th movie fundamentally changes Harry and Voldemort's final confrontation. That said, I do feel the DNA is there throughout all the movies. I don't feel like WOT's changes are more radical than the later Potter movies.

[@Bgrosz1]

@@ssmcquay , I would say having Perrin kill his wife in the beginning, the knife not killing Loial, skipping Caemlyn and Rands first meeting with Elayne, Egwene healing Nynave from death, women potentially being the dragon reborn, Lan being extremely emotional instead of stoic. There is no need for any of those changes and what I would describe as unfaithful. If you enjoy it, that's great. But if the list I just gave doesn't qualify as unfaithful, then it's pretty close to impossible to be unfaithful.

[@joshuahorn4786]

@@ssmcquay I want to honestly know how you think it gives off the same vibes as reading it? Other than the names nothing from the show has anything to do with the books. The characters are completely different and utterly unlikable. The lore was completely destroyed, the story itself was broken.

[@Osyrous]

@@joshuahorn4786 I'll say this, the first few episodes absolutely hit the right note. Some meh stuff (Lan screaming and crying) was atleast attempted to be explained. And the nyaneve healing everyone thing is.. A bit too early but works well enough. But the list of changes in the comment ^^ are really really bad changes. It might work as time goes on and the show comes into its own, and covid had some real restrictions on the production, but they're unfaithful for sure. That would be like the dairy in Harry Potter could just be ripped up for the sake of time and plot and not have to be killed by something like a bassilisk tooth. Unfaithful. Show was fine overall though, beginning to end. Heavily "woke" but what did you expect from a show made in 2021. But to be specific I loved the way the characters interacted. The scene when they escaped shadar'logoth and rand is screaming for perrin etc and the conversation rand and Matt have that used what little plot we had at that point to justify the two of them going to tar'valon instead of back home (the sane thing to do). Moraine burning the tree with her lightning was 👌🏾. Her speech being on horseback was good cinematography. Thom's song in the inn in that mining village was better and hit harder because it was faithful to the vibe of Lews therein from the books. So there were a lot of parts that were faithful. I'll say this. Three horrible parts: Eg healing Nay. The dagger not killing loial (or if it does and they kill him in season one), and those weak channelers killing all those trollocs instead of the dragon reborn (even if they established Nay was op already)

[@rustung1638]

Very insightful video. I've been saying for a while changing a book into a show/movie is like trying to make a painting of a sculpture. Light doesn't play over a painting like it does the sculpture, and the shadows need to be painted on much like you need to force visuals in a show to reflect the information in the book. But the light in the painting/show will always be static compaired to the light that moves around a statue and the nuanced details of the book. No matter how hard you try, you can't pick up a painting and turn it around to see every angle of it, and there will be lots of information about the piece lost in the translation. Even if you do a great job making your adaptation, not everyone will agree that the painter captured the right angle of the sculpture, and not everyone will agree whether the heart of the book has been captured in the story. (Edit: On top of all this, you would still need to appeal to critics of both sculpture and painting, as you describe so well.) All this said, Rafe needs to do better. His brush strokes are sloppy.

[@Bookborn]

Love this comparison. YES! Any medium change requires new ideas but also must appeal to multiple critics - original sculpture fans but painting critics. Such a good metaphor. But also yes. I think people are wrongly thinking I’m letting Rafe off after this 🤣 hardly

[@rustung1638]

@@Bookborn I'm glad you liked the comparison. I don't think you're giving the WoT series a pass. Personally, I think I enjoyed it a bit more than you did. I'm also capable of admitting I'm enjoying it just for the sake of enjoying something that is WoT, and that there are major issues. Sorry for contributing towards pushing the comments in a specific direction for what was meant to be a more general discussion, and I look forward to the next video.

[@thorbjornjohansson1811]

If the source material is considered to be so strong that it gets adapted into a movie or series, why change major plot points and storylines? My problem with the WoT adaptation is that I don't really see why some of the changes have been made. Didn't the show runners know that a show that changes almost all storylines and threads will upset the fans more than a series that might (from their point of view) work better for a wider audience? BTW I love these discussions! You have already become one of my favorite Booktubers :)

[@mgntstr]

Why? They believe their changes makes it a better story. The Arrogance.

[@gildor8866]

One point that is often coming up with older sources like Lord of the Rings or Dune is that the times have changed. Some things that were new and exiting earlier may be worn out tropes today. Some things that were easy to accept earlier, may be harder to understand today. The relationship of Frodo and Sam in the books is in many ways reminicent of a british officer and his aide, with is unlikely today. The central premise of "Twelve angry men" is twelve male jurors deliberating over a verdict, but while an all male jury was not unusual at the time of the original movie it would very unusual today. But you can't add a woman without drastically changing the dynamics, so the remakes keep the all male jury and ask the viewer to suspend his disbelieve at that point. When the 1984 Dune movie came out producers were dismayed to discover it had unexpectedly many overlaps with Star Wars in general and especially Return of the Jedi. I don't know if we will ever hear the term "Game of Houses" in WoT, because today it is too similar with "Game of Thrones". While "Game of Houses" is actually older and "Game of Thrones" was originally only the title of the first book, for many viewers the show "Game of Thrones" came first and will be seen as an original that is being copied.

[@mcallahan9060]

Book fans will always find things about the books that they liked better that the screen adaptation. Thus, has it ever been. However, the fact remains that you can do a fantastic book adaptation such as Amazon Primes "The Expanse" which book readers and show watchers generally give high marks to, or you can do an absolutely horrible adaptation such as Amazon Prime's "Wheel of Time" disaster that draws scorn from Book readers and show watchers alike.

[@Bookborn]

Yes, even adaptations I love I tend to always prefer the book, which I think is ok. I’m a reader and so generally will prefer that storytelling medium. But yeah, as I go through my final thoughts on the first season, I don’t think it was a super successful adaptation

[@chieforce1]

I like both series. The books and the shows. That being said The Expanse is adopting a book per season, with 10 episodes in each and only 9 books in the series. WoT books have 14 books that are twice as thick in only 8 seasons and 8 episodes to do it in. That’s a lot harder to pull off. If you compare their first seasons rating on IMDb they are pretty similar. As a fan of both I’m just hoping they both do well enough to finish their adaptations.

[@matthewjudge3763]

Amazons Expanse adaptation is what made me excited for WOT... That optimism evaporated during Moraines opening monolgue. One understands the spirit of the source material, the other just used it as a vessel for "The Message". So much misandry.

[@JeffPenaify]

@@chieforce1 while we all knew coming in that there would need to be big compressions, I think most of us were optimistic cause there is plenty of sub plots and minor characters, the infamous slog, etc. I think most fans who dislike the show understood there would be changes. The problem is the changes involved whole main characters, the lore, the plot etc.

[@bruncla2303]

@@chieforce1 Well than why spend your precious time on exploring warder bond with non book character and ignoring your main characters. The plot with Stepin was very well done but by taking up the preocious time it detracted from the series.

[@PonderingsOfPete]

Random thing: You mention that the eye illustration on the cover of the newest LotR edition is inspired by the Eye of Sauron in the movies. It isn't. That illustration actually was on the HC of the first edition of the books ever published. The illustration definitely predates the movies. I have some third editions that have it on their covers as well. edit: movies, not books

[@grahamlaurie5607]

Tolkien drew it himself, no less

[@yissnakklives8866]

I have that copy. They were done in metallic foil on a flat black fabric background.

[@JesusIzAPunkRocker]

"Fire glowed amid the smoke. Mount Doom was burning and a great reek rising. Then at last [Frodo's] gaze was held: Wall upon wall, battlement upon battlement, black, immeasurably strong, mountain of iron, gate of steel, tower of adamant, he saw it: Barad-dur, Fortress of Sauron. All hope left him. And Suddenly, he felt the Eye. There was an eye in the Dark Tower that did not sleep. He knew that it had become aware of his gaze. A fierce eager will was there. It leaped towards him; almost like a finger he felt it, searching for him. Very soon it would nail him down, know exactly where he was." - FoTR, The Breaking of the Fellowship "The Eye" is indeed in the book, and as you say, on many a cover preceding the movies. Orcs of Mordor have 'the red eye of Sauron' emblazoned on their armor and banners. However, bookborn is correct in the sense that it is not an actual visible eye sat atop Barad-Dur for all to see, but rather a vision or sensation Frodo experiences when he can feel Sauron searching for him.

[@PonderingsOfPete]

@@JesusIzAPunkRocker precisely. I thought this imagery was in the book, but I couldn’t remember the passage. Sauron technically had a body the entire time if I remember correctly, it was just super weak without the presence of the ring, so he never ventured forth with his armies

[@Bookborn]

I already messaged you on insta but that's cool! I didn't know that the eye was drawn by Tolkien. That being said, even with the passage quoted, there was not an eye on a tower or Sauron not having a body in the books...so I still claim that it's a pretty big change to make for a movie. Although, obviously, kept a lot with the spirit.

[@JoelAdamson]

I did believe the pictures of Rafe's worn copy of The Eye of the World, and the Instagram posts with Rosamund Pike reading it. After seeing the show I'm more inclined to believe her posts than his. I agree with everything you've said in the first part, but have a few comments. 1. It's quite a different thing to acknowledge you can't please all fans than for the showrunner to come right out and say "Hey book fans, we didn't make this show for you," which is basically what he did on Dragonmount. That's insulting. If he hadn't said it, no one would have thought about it in those terms. 2. All your propositions are correct in principle, but all are being used as excuses for a just plain bad TV show. When I tell people that teenagers having sex within earshot of the girl's parents (with or without the father coming downstairs and beheading the boy) is ridiculous, people say "well, it was never going to be word-for-word!" Characters behaving sensibly and believably has NOTHING TO DO WITH being faithful to the book. 3. Consider if Peter Jackson had made Elrond the main character of Fellowship of the Ring. Not Gandalf, but Elrond. (That's what's happened here, and the showrunners are surprised that people don't like it? Or do they even care?) Peter Jackson made some huge changes, you're right, but the story is still about Frodo and The Ring. That's what people were responding to; and yes, I still hear people complaining about the Scouring of the Shire, but the film served its purpose, and it looks like the best marriage of Tolkien and Peter Jackson. What they've done with the Wheel of Time show is just bad storytelling. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if they had tried to do it word-for-word it would have saved them a lot of trouble. They had a great storyteller on their side, and they threw his contribution in the garbage.

[@neemarafi]

You are comparing Moiraine to Elrond? Why?

[@hellgast0]

I've read my copy ones and it looked worn... it's not great quality.

[@JoelAdamson]

@@neemarafi Not exactly, but the focus on Moiraine and the other Aes Sedai and their warders means it's not Rand's story. It really should be. It's Rand's identity crisis that fuels the story. They didn't replace Rand's identity crisis with anything comparable, so it's even less interesting than a LOTR focusing on Elrond and Glorfindel would have been.

[@gildor8866]

@@JoelAdamson Well, I wouldn't limit WoT to be simply "Rands story" - after all there is an entire book where he is practically absent and quite a few where he doesn't do that much. Actually every major character has at least one book in which he or she is mostly missing. In the Great Hunt Moiraine (and with her Lan) disappear after the first chapters. Don't think they will (or should) do that in the show.

[@snarkywriter1317]

As a psychologist, I'll point out that another fascinating thing about marketing/development teams playing up production team members' fan status is that it can be effectively used to purposefully trigger at least some fans' sense of tribalism in defense of the adaptation/property. Specifically, it's easier to convince people to actively defend the property on your behalf if they consider you an upstanding member of their tribe, and it makes them more amenable to differences as they'll assume you have good intentions (a variation on the No True Scotsman fallacy).

[@Bookborn]

Oh, excellent addition to the conversation! What a fascinating concept. "You're one of us, so of course we will defend you". Doesn't seem to be working with WOT currently 🤣 (Fans are coming for blood in my comment section anyway)

[@snarkywriter1317]

@@Bookborn Heh, true. I think a bit of that is sample bias though. Only a portion of the fanbase for a given work feels enough emotional motivation to engage on social media, and that portion may or may not be representative of the larger population of fandom members. Additionally (and I’m figuring ya’ll already know most of this), adaptations themselves often serve to segment fandoms and create sub-tribes, and the highly engaged members of those sub-tribes may be differentially motivated by a given piece of fan content depending on what defines their sub-tribal membership (i.e. I dislike the adaptation, and this content creator appears to share my views, so I feel safe to share my feelings with what I believe to be a fellow sub-tribe member). When there is only an original work, the fanbase tends to be more unified, with the minimal markers for tribal identification based on a mostly dichotomous distinction (we are aware of the work and liked it), with social status within the tribe based on other markers on top of that. That’s why you see fans sharing their “bona fides”, as a form of social comparison to establish social hierarchy and status. When an adaptation exists, there are now multiple criteria that can be used as minimal markers for tribal identification, so it becomes harder to identify a tribe member and the tribe fragments. Using Wheel of Time Fans as an example, you can see both fan-controlled and influenced communities (which in this case serve as venues for social comparison and tribal identification) like Reddit, KZbin video comments, etc and corporate-controlled communities like Twitter, IMDB reviews, Amazon reviews, etc having different flavors and different sub-cultural rules about what makes for acceptable discourse and what views are considered minimal markers for tribal membership (even within the fan-controlled side, I might note), some of which are being purposefully influenced by money-making interests (sponsored astroturfing and sealioning, for example), and some by unsponsored trolls who just like getting a rise out of people or who have ulterior motives for participating in the fandom unrelated to liking the work. It’s all a very fascinating and complex subject. :)

[@gilian2587]

@@snarkywriter1317 Are you an academic psychologist; or more of a practicing psychologist in the private sector?

[@snarkywriter1317]

@@gilian2587 Practicing, but for the government as opposed to private sector. Several of my colleagues from grad school went into private sector marketing, though, and group psychology has always been one of my areas of interest (though currently I focus mostly on quantitative data analytics and predictive modeling).

[@gilian2587]

@@snarkywriter1317 When you say quantitative data analytics and predictive modeling; does this mean that you can program? If so, which languages do use? R? Python?

[@yissnakklives8866]

I do not know that anyone really thinks that nothing was changed in LOTR but the story itself was not changed drastically. Jackson stayed faithful to the story, and not just the broader strokes. The exclusion of Tom Bombadil did not hinder the story in any real way. That whole segment was a side quest that had no bearing on the plot or key characters. No one from that segment touched the story after that chapter closed. It was really an excuse to arm the hobbits with Barrow Wight loot. Harry Potter started filming while the books were being written and they went to great length to adhere as much as possible to the story, but there were plenty of changes there too. It's when the changes alter fundamental aspects of the story, that things often go awry even when they aren't pushing some alternate agenda.

[@Bookborn]

Eh, I disagree on LOTR. I mean changing the timeline in the beginning is pretty big, as well as completely removing the end of the book - the Scouring of the Shire. But this isn't BAD. It worked super well with the movies and like you said, those movies kept the spirit of the book to a T. I'm just arguing that all change isn't bad. We need to be more nuanced in our discussion than - WOT changed things, so it's BAD! Let's discuss WHY it's bad beyond that.

[@Jason.family]

I've always thought that the "convincing fans that actors/showrunners are fans" has been a thing. It's always seemed too convenient that each actor in book adaptations get the book free, and somehow there are always shots of them reading in-between filming (Thinking of you Harry Potter/ LOTR) . That's not to say it's a bad thing, I think it's good. If you want to change one art to another art you need to have an understanding of what makes that art special. For instance, the worst film adaptation I can think of is the Count of Monte Cristo and it's movie. The book was this in-depth tale of complicated intrinsic plots all culminating in a fantastic revenge and how the main character felt afterward. The movie was a tale of a man wronged , the female he left in a crappy situation and him making them "right". The book and the movie were different from each other BECAUSE the act of righting a wrong implies morals, and the book had the main character throw his morals out.

[@Rekkart82]

Lol, that movie is pure trash. The miniseries with Gerard Depardieu is pretty good imho (and much more faithful to the book)

[@Bookborn]

lol I like that movie but only as a COMPLETELY SEPARATE ENTITY. Like...it's not really count of monte cristo. The revenge is so much more satisfying in the book because it plays out long but then...it's also insane because at the end you find it's just not worth it. That theme is NOT in the movie whatsoever. Although...I was very depressed by the real ending for Mercedes so I'll always keep her movie ending in my heart...or at least a slightly happier one 🤣

[@alveolate]

i mean, it's pretty obvious that NOT being a fan would count as negative publicity... so at the very least, they would not trash the source material. on the flip side, if they had something interesting to say about the source material from their own personal experience, it's clearly a plus for marketing. it doesn't have to be some sort of disingenuous fakery... it's just what you do as part of the team that created a product for mass consumption. you wouldn't work at youtube and then go around trashing it... at some point people will just ask why don't you quit, including your bosses at youtube! that said, it's not super easy to detect "real" fans, i.e. someone who actually loved the source material wayyyy before signing on to work on the adaptation. unless that person actively posted about being a fan from before... or is part of an actual fan community... the rest of it can be knowledge obtained after signing on. and that's still not too bad! if someone was completely ignorant of the source before, but was motivated to read up about it to the point they could _pass off_ as a fan, that's a plus for the adaptation!

[@lolroflundxd]

Luckily, most of the time you can tell whether or not they really are a fan, or if they are just a fan of adapting a well known franchise. Mostly, if they have ever said anything about the property before landing the gig.

[@Jtretta]

I feel that while Jackson and crew made many changes to LoTR during filming the changes were vastly outweighed by the effort to stick to the books. As an example, the scene of Elrond talking to Arwen of Aragorn's mortality has a tapestry in the background of notable importance. It has the Trees of Valinor as well as Eärendil the Mariner's ship and the Silmaril he carried. Only those in the know would give it more than a passing glance, yet it takes up half the screen as the camera rests on Elrond.

[@Bookborn]

Yes. They changed things with utmost respect to the source material and it shows for sure

[@DoctorFatality]

I'm completely new to the Wheel of Time (never read the books before watching the show) and your videos have been super helpful seeing where others are coming from, since I loved most of what I watched. I really love this video and your perspective on adaptation too!

[@Bookborn]

I’m so happy that non book people are loving the show! That’s helping me understand changes that really worked and has helped me divorce a bit from the book lol

[@merc9nine]

Did you really love it or have you standards been lowered that much? I mean I read the books, but the show was just bad. I mean which parts were good? I seriously can't think of a single moment I enjoyed that wasn't immediately destroyed moments later.

[@gilian2587]

She'll discuss it in another couple of days. Some bad actors have been squeaking indignantly on both sides of the fan divide. She probably needs to distance herself to get away from the noise and think.

[@mrk5834]

I feel like all adaptations really need a ”veto” person in the writers room, preferably someone who respects the source material. Someone that has the mandate to state: No, we can’t do that, that would break the lore, character or plot going forward.

[@Bookborn]

I volunteer as tribute!

[@briand3200]

@@Bookborn you’d think the author would be the most ideal candidate but I no longer think so. I hate to say it but this new wokeness has led to even author sullying their own work when it goes to screen. BTW, your channel is great. I’ve enjoyed reading your reviews.

[@SirPheobis]

@@briand3200 I think Stephen King is a good example. He is know for being excited for poor adaptations. Lol.

[@Bookborn]

@@briand3200 I mean also Jordan and Tolkien were dead so that makes it hard too on some of the fantasy side. I don't always think an author would be good at adaptation either - Gaiman as famously said that sometimes he needs to step away and let filmmakers do their stuff. Depends on the author I think.

[@step4018]

That was Christopher Tolkien for a long while and unfortunately we will likely see a very different approach from Amazon now. It's clear that Brandon Sanderson did not have as much power when it came to WoT, or Harriet, though that could be by choice. It is something we always like to think, others respecting the legacy / story we leave behind but often there is not that emotional connection or desire by those who follow. Book fans may well love the WoT more than Harriet. This is not an attack on Harriet, I know full well if I was to inherit an heirloom that was treasured by a family member but I could sell it for $1,000,000 then sorry I'm cashing in too!

[@johnmasteller140]

Sometimes recently it feels just the opposite; that they go out of their way to stress that they are going to piss off the fans and subvert the lore on purpose.

[@Bookborn]

I mean Rafe has certainly got to that point with me 🙃

[@huskerfan-el4jx]

There was stuff in the WOT that needed changing but it was a massive world that was full of great characters. Season 1 didnt show that. I appreciate your insights. It never occured to me that producers being fans was a marketing tool. I just wouldnt care about any of this if they would just produce a good show.

[@Bookborn]

That's for sure me. LIke I don't really care if you are a fan or not just give me something I like LOL

[@Bgrosz1]

Excellent point that I made while I was still watching the show (through 5 episodes) but forgot about. The world seems tiny. Right way we are in Tar Valon like it's a hop, skip and a jump from The Two Rivers. You don't need way gates or traveling when everything is a couple hour walk away from everything else.

[@JJ-nu8qi]

@@Bgrosz1 I thought that but I think they said it took them months to get there they and kind of glazed over the time it took.

[@Bgrosz1]

@@JJ-nu8qi , Yes, I'm not saying the show is actually having it take a couple hours to get anywhere, but that they are giving that feeling by having the characters cover great distances in very little show time. They are making the world feel very tiny. Game of Thrones producers made the world feel very large... until they ran out of books to follow and George RR Martin stopped advising them. All of a sudden the world shrank where characters would be one place in one episode and then have traveled very far in the next episode and again in the next episode. If your characters are traveling large distances, there needs to be a series of scenes that make it clear they are doing that much traveling.

[@JJ-nu8qi]

@@Bgrosz1 I agree with you that it should have made it more clear how far they traveled to get there. If I remember correctly there was a lot of growing up and maturing for the two rivers 5 in the book during this part. They basically just tossed all that stuff out, and here we are let's fight the dark one. On a side note it bothered me so much in got how fast they traveled across the sea to kings landing to winterfell. Like what the fuck just happened?

[@danielcoleman2378]

I think you are kinda making an assumption that the general non book reading population would not enjoy the book as written. That assumption is where I think they are still as you said shunning the fans. while you talked about the history of how fans where treated as a negative that is similar to what they are doing when they change major plot points in an adaptation. if we are talking about WoT I think we have to look at the changes, and why they were made. There is a belief in Hollywood today that everything has to check specific boxes, the original content of the Wheel does not fit into those prescriptions so the show runner changes them. This I think it's where I disagree with them, the books in this case have a very loyal and pretty large fan base, who I believe would drive a huge payoff if they followed the books more closely. What we got from WoT is a director using the names and locations with very little ties back to the point of the story. To me I would call it plagiarism more than adaptation.

[@merc9nine]

As a mega WoT book fan that absolutely hated this show, I've seen watch episode at least 6 times. I tried to show it to my wife and she said us cheesy, my 10 and 12 year old girls think it's cringe. I as a WoT book fan can take the burden of at least 5 non book readers in terms of amount of streams and views. If I enjoyed it, I would be telling everyone I know. It would be all I recommended to people at work or with friends. I'd have had people over to have watch parties. As it is now, I'm embarrassed to tell people about it. They totally do not understand that the fans will bring in new people, especially when there's hundreds if millions of fans spreading the word.

[@Bookborn]

Nah, I dislike the show, and I'm a huge fan of the books. So the impression you get that I don't think people would like the books isn't correct - I think they would and I've had people read them. THe only thing I think some people couldn't handle is the length - but that's not WOT specific, but high-fantasy specific in general.

[@danielcoleman2378]

@@Bookborn point of clarification I don't think you are assuming I think the show runners are assuming more than that I think the show runner doesn't like the story ... I wish they would leave the books as books if they are just going to destroy the content. From your content I can tell you love the story as it was in the books and are as disappointed as the rest of us.

[@Briansgate]

One of my favorite adaptations was Catch-22, the movie version from 1970. I swear the movie catches the feel of the book perfectly.

[@QuestLegacy]

Agree so hard. This is a much more eloquent discussion than my rant attempt about the subject haha

[@Bookborn]

I have a feeling your discussion will add something I didn't think of tho lol

[@autobrecciation2018]

I remember having a back of the brain itch about the people who adapt a work, being marketed as fans of adapted works, way back with Brandon when he got announced to be finishing the WoT books. I was super skeptical at the time, had to read Elantris then Mistborn before I could trust he was going to do them justice. Online forums at the time were very split on the Sanderson books but I loved them. I feel someone like Rosamund Pike, who I am absolutely certain had never heard of, let alone read, the WoT books, is a good example of how I feel someone involved should become. I don't think it's really possible to act authentically if you haven't become a fan. I don't care if you are a fan before getting hired to do a job. There is something condescending or patronizing about someone taking a job for something they don't respect. I dunno those are just my thoughts. My suspension of disbelief extends to fictional places too so I don't usually have issues with adaptations if they are internally consistent.

[@DeclanOReilly]

Given Pike's age, I cannot believe that she did not read the series as it was published. Other than that, she does narrate the audio books.

[@dbeaton1111]

The vast majority understand that there has to be some adaptation from book to screen. That's not the issue. A successful screen adaptation must at the very least, capture the essence of the story. Not only is this a poor adaptation, it's not even a good story. My wife, who has not read the books, says that it's almost impossible to follow, and because she can't relate to any of the main characters, it's boring. Book fans really wanted the series to succeed, and they gave it a good chance, but Rafe clearly decided that strong male heroes were passé and rewrote the three male protagonists to be 21st century beta males with issues -- people similar to himself, I imagine. The female protagonists, he decided, needed to have Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman powers, strength, and unassailable wisdom to avoid any hint of sexist microaggression. The reviews are telling. Book fans are almost universally disgusted, while the majority of those 5 star reviews are defensive, either stating that everything is wonderful, or they sneer at the "haters" and "racists" who leave bad reviews because, after all, what else could they be? It's as if the world is divided into two groups: those that want a good story with real tension, heroism and sacrifice, and those who would rather bask in self-righteous diversity and radical feminism.

[@nineradvocate]

I liked this discussion, especially the marketing of the production team, even the actors, as "fans" of the source material. This is something that gets discussed frequently in my experiences dating back to LOTR, and definitely with GoT and WoT. It's also the source of a great deal of frustration with Rafe Judkins as he has gone out of his way to sell his fandom of WoT, but he consistently gutted the source material and replaced it with badly written, lore breaking fanfiction. Good video though. Nice perspective.

[@Bookborn]

And you know what? He may be a super fan still. But perhaps he's just bad at adapting series. He's never adapted anything before, and while other showrunners have been that way and succeeded, maybe we are finding out it's not his forte.

[@bidossessi]

@@Bookborn Quite possible.

[@gilian2587]

@@Bookborn lol, so we need to throw more franchises his way to butcher so he can figure out how to not do that...

[@TheLouis1973]

As long as the adaptation keeps the structure of the story and overall tone of the book, im ok with it. It’s understandable that maybe a character will be omitted and scenes need to be condensed to make the story more seamless and easier to understand for non book readers. But i do not like screenwriters doing a complete re-write. Especially if it makes the story MORE confusing and choppy. Regarding the wheel of time, all those things happened. Including the complete character assassination of all the men in story. And propping up all the female characters. Especially turning Egwene into a Mary Sue. That goes beyond storytelling. That’s agenda.

[@constrainedanacronysm1370]

They have no excuses for what they did to Mat after the actor left, there were a dozen better ways to write him out with the resources at their disposal without further assassinating his character. They deliberately chose to have a shocking moment where Mat is out of character and betrays the party by not following them just for effect. They easily could have reshot just the Ways entrance scene without Mat and shown us an edited scene of Mat being sick again and or had a character tell us he was sick or just too uncertain to come... or really anything else that didn't have him being a jerk and unexpectedly hurting his friends. Moiraine and the others could have just expressed that the dagger sickness had retaken to Mat, stated that he needed to remain at the tower to survive and showed earlier footage from when he was sick... this would have set Mats character up perfectly for his book plot in Tar Valon.... which the show seems to be aiming for since Mat goes back to Tar Valon according to Rafe in the still we are shown in episode 8. BUT Instead of doing something that doesn't assassinate the character and more logically sets things up for a book plot though Rafe and crew went for the SHOCKING moment where he betrays them... which is the problem with this ahow it is not only disloyal to the source material but it is shallow.

[@Bookborn]

I mean this comment has nothing to do with this video 🤣 it’s about adaptations in general, not wheel of time…

[@constrainedanacronysm1370]

@@Bookborn Apologies for the post being a little off-topic. I keep seeing that excuse discussed as a point in comments and even here and thought it was important to state. Also Barney Harris' exit in WoT is still a good example of what do in an adaptation with casting concerns. Rafe Judkins has on multiple occasions stated that he believes most long-running side characters are unworkable in series TV due to contracting without investing alot more money into it... and thus he plans to just kill off or not show alot of them. Whether there is an easy general adaptation fix for series with a large side character cast beyond just not doing the adaptation is up in the air though. However if an adaptation has a situation where they lose a main cast actor in general the option which is shallow, overly dramatic and which assassinated the character is the worst choice... and thought should be given as to how best set up that character once they are recast rather than grasping for shocking moments.

[@paulm.8660]

I agree that they could have handled it better but they could not have "easily" done much to fix these problems. Postponing is expensive and risks losing additional actors, reshooting is expensive and might require further postponement, I agree they dropped the ball, but it wasn't entirely due to self-inflicted wounds. But they could easily have written a better script starting with episode 5, which is a prime example of "filmmaker has a story to tell but, whoops, has to tell it as if were Wheel of Time." They could easily have written (re-written) a better script for the finale, and if they had done, we probably wouldn't be here picking apart their excuses for why the other things went wrong.

[@constrainedanacronysm1370]

@@paulm.8660 I mean they were already having to postpone at that point due to Covid. They also added in and shot many scenes of characters disparaging or trying to excuse Mat's actions in the Ways which didn't need to exist if they had reshot one scene at the gate entrance without Mat being there. They then could reduce the minutes long controversy about Mat betraying them to a simple acknowledgment of him needing to be absent... and reused footage of him being sick to explain his absence. Heck they reused footage in episode 8 to explain where his character was going, from the look of it in episode 6-7 reused footage of the actor standing around passively. But given their budget, the covid postponement and how poor of a solution they chose I can't help but to see it as self inflicted. And I would have taken a more logical Mat exit over twenty fewer CGI trollocs, or them cutting the love triangle scenes. The terrible script writing at the end of the day is the problem but the choices they made even in the context of the constraints they had were just bad. Like for example not giving the famously fast Brandon Sanderson the episode 6-8 scripts for comment after the covid concerns started.

[@rustung1638]

@@constrainedanacronysm1370 I agree with you on a lot of this, but I don't think this is an assassination of Mat's character. I think it's clear the dagger is still in control and Mat will be back eventually. There are still 2 more books where he's a jerk, and even in the context of the show Moiraine is clearly capable of being wrong. Sloppy writing is definitely an issue, but unless they never give him a story again, or change things down the road, I feel like he's still on the same track he was in the books. Trying to nor be spoilery, just in case.

[@MohseenLala]

Idk if a show runner necessarily needs to be a fan, but they at least need to "get it", understand the intention and spirit of the show.

[@Bookborn]

They need to have consumed the entire material for sure. Like you can’t make an EoTW adaptation only reading book one and two. You need the entire thing. Even if you aren’t a rabid fan, you need to understand the material. For sure agree

[@jefferickson5833]

@@Bookborn I really can't see a studio putting their trust and money behind a Showrunner who isn't a fan of the project they are put in charge of. That makes no damn sense.

[@MohseenLala]

@@Bookborn But also they need to get what makes the show "tick" so to speak. Both LOTR and Game of Thrones adaptations got it, WoT didn't.

[@NafanuaisMYnick]

Comparing the average audiobook and screen time available: Fellowship of the ring - 7.33 hours per hour on screen. (estimated 3 hours movie) Eye of the world - 3.75 per hour on screen. (Estimated 1h x 8 episodes) There is a significant difference in time available for adapting works into movies versus adapting works to tv series. Just wanted to point that out. - And so one might expect an adaptation that is closer to the original work when adapting a tv series, then when adapting a movie.

[@DocHogan]

Fantastic analysis. Where does “adaptation” become “rewriting” or “fanfic”, though? Still think Rafe is a dark friend.

[@Bookborn]

Absolutely your right to think so 🤣 as long as we don’t go whitecloak on him

[@johnshite4656]

I just can't understand how there are people who legit like the show. Even as a show, books aside, it's so terrible. Hollywood tripe. Rafe might be a darkfriend, but he's definitely a terrible writer. If it wasn't for the Wheel of Time name I could have never waded through the show, I would have stopped during the first episode. Books = readable, enjoyable Show = not even watchable That's what irritates me most. They didn't just _change_ the story, they cruelly mutilated it and hung it in the village square, leaving it to decompose on the end of a rope. How is that an "adaptation"? Sounds more like an assassination.

[@RussiasSufferingInUkraine]

The creator's initials is RJ. Does RJ stand for Robert Jordan or Rafe Judkins? Break the work of the creator, appropriate it, and remake it in ones own image? The parallels with Shai'tan and the Garden of Eden (character changes) are uncanny. It's still only a show but I don't have to like the injustice of it to a man who spent his dying weeks leaving as much of his legacy behind so his life's work could be completed.

[@mip5041991]

@@johnshite4656 because you don’t enjoy something you expect others not to enjoy it?

[@johnshite4656]

@@mip5041991 You're right. Some people legit enjoy self-mutilation with scissors and such. Who am I to judge.

[@liberTvalance]

I was happy with 90% of mcu adaptations. I was happy with Lord of The Rings and even the Hobbit. I actually enjoyed Eragon and Legend of the Seeker though they weren't perfect. WOT blaming book fans for their piss poor writing is laffable. Most of the backlash didn't get loud until that trash ep 8. That was when people realized that all the changes weren't leading somewhere better. They just wanted to change stuff to fit a narrative they liked better without any consideration for how it will affect THE story.... They want to tell A story.

[@Andre-xl2oe]

Ok, one of the most changed adaptation I can think of is Starship Troopers. The director changed the whole theme of the book. The film still told a complete story. And after the initial hate, it still went on to become a succes.

[@AnonEyeMouse]

I write. Pretty much every medium. What I have found when covering the same world in different media is to treat the lore as real world history. Covering WWII can be done in many ways and there are many stories to be told, but we don't get to rewrite the order of events or the cast of characters. We could tell a story about the life and motivations of Hitler, but we don't get to make him secretly gay, pretend he was Russian or that he was married. Winston Churchill doesn't get to be a Black guy in his 20s with a six pack. It's fair enough to leave elements out in your story. You can tell a WWII story and never mention the Nazi leadership At all. The Wheel of Time has vast territory for a show to tell stories. That's no excuse for changing the fundamentals of the World. Never mention Elayne Trakand if it doesn't affect your story, but don't pretend Egwene is boning Rand in her place.

[@hellgast0]

Yes! And I find it so absurd that Daniel Greene, who basically introduced me to WOT, is so on board with the characters boning.

[@Bookborn]

Technically, that's not true - we have an entire musical that proves changing the race of characters doesn't seem to matter much (Hamiliton!). Ironically, Hamiliton is freaking DEAD ON historically otherwise - I'd know, I read the 1200 page biography it was based on.

[@Dave3Dman]

@@hellgast0 Well he likes trolloc ass so what do you expect

[@gilian2587]

Counterpoint: All is acceptable in Parody. Case in point -- "Inglorious Basterds", what was Hitler's fate in that one?

[@Kat-go9ye]

You always make such good points in your videos! I love watching you and learning. Also I love your bookshelves 📚😊

[@PantheraOnca60]

One Internet phenomenon that left me dumbfounded was the childish, ridiculous online petition to try to force the producers of Game of Thrones to go back and change the way it ended. It got millions of signatures, from millions of babies. 🙄

[@Bookborn]

I always hope it’s just kids too young to be on the internet and that’s who is making these dumb choices 😅 I know it can’t be with millions of signatures but it’s just sooo dumb

[@ianvera4299]

I swear fans will never be happy. You cant please everyone.

[@TheLibraryofAllenxandria]

The idea of convincing us that the show runner is a fan never occurred to me but fills me with rage. I do know that Cavill IS a fan as I had seen him talk about video games and Witcher things prior to the show ever being announced so I thinkt hats a fair assumption.

[@Bookborn]

Yeah he absolutely is a fan and I tried to make it clear I am not dragging him lol he’s been so open about being a nerd in every part of his life. But I do question some other people LOL

[@gilian2587]

Convincing me that Rosamund Pike is a fan of the Wheel of Time is going to be a harder sell. I know she doesn't like to read fantasy. I also know that she's dedicated to her craft as an actress; and she'll put in the sweat equity needed to perfect her craft. She read the script for Moiraine Sedai, found her to be an intriguing character and moved on from there. Playing Moiraine seems to be something of a vanity project for her. Unfortunately, the competence of the show writers is making her look a bit like a goat in a dress, at the moment. I feel bad for her; I really do.

[@TheLibraryofAllenxandria]

@@gilian2587 I haven't see the show but that makes me sad for her!

[@gilian2587]

@@TheLibraryofAllenxandria Me too. She's genuinely an outstanding actress; despite what Rafe and the yahoos in the writer's room would lead you to believe.

[@ezak415]

I really enjoyed the format of this video and appreciate all the research and effort you put into it.

[@thalesbittencourt8806]

Thank you for reading the thesis and sharing with us! It was very insightful!

[@dartagnan553]

Cutting things isn't the issue, the issue is we expected things to be cut because of time restraints and it was cut but instead of congruent, wise alterations, there was show-only additions that made no sense. And only cost precious time that could have been spent recreating these original scenes in the first place.

[@msj7872]

I think the most important characteristic for a director, adaption or otherwise, is the ability to make an amazing movie (or series). Being a 'huge' fan is a bonus.

[@Bookborn]

Agreed! Skill is skill.

[@Raylen_Fa-ield]

I feel like you're going to be easy on the show after watching this. I watched all 8 ep of wot and sat in horror and disbelief at what had been done. Even knowing what you said in this video I think lines were crossed

[@Bookborn]

Lollll no. My review that I’m writing is not going easy. But it’s helping me frame my disappointment in a more articulate way, I think, without just resulting to “not book = bad”.

[@Raylen_Fa-ield]

@@Bookborn That's a relief to read, and also very mature on your part. I'm now eagerly awaiting the review, thank you

[@gilian2587]

She tried to be neutral and academic about it. She probably appreciates more the issues that Rafe faces. This doesn't mean she's going to automatically give him a 'Get out of jail free' card. She may also be sharpening her intellectual dagger so that she can more effectively drill a bore into the Wheel of Time show.

[@jaredouimette1]

I'm not sure how to respond to this video because I saw the pinned comment. However, I will say that there are ways to adapt books and stay respectful to the source material and then there is the behavior that the showrunner engaged in. As a writer, I read the preliminary script, which gave me an idea of what he was going for. Again, I don't know how to not trash this show but it was clear he wanted to project himself and his beliefs and simply needed a vehicle to do that. He brushed past actual events in the story to tell stories he wanted to tell-all while claiming "there simply isn't enough time to be faithful to the source material. I recall at least two episodes filled with things that never happened. I'm not asking for a 1:1 adaptation. However, I believe the politics of Hollywood prevent Robert Jordan's gender-focused series from being realized, as the essential portion of the series (the magic system) has been removed for being problematic. Now, it is plot convenience and nothing more. I will not be continuing this series.

[@thebigivalbowlski]

I think when it comes to good adaptation is more to do with respecting the source material. The Witcher series is a good example of this. I never read the books or played the video games but after watching the series on Netflix I started to read more of the the background and lore of the Witcher. I think they did a good job adapting the source material. The series creators for the WOT basically screwed the pooch by not respecting the source material.

[@bruncla2303]

thats the difference of opinion i am a pretty big fan of witcher and i think the series has nothing to do with the books(exageration) same as wot. It suffers the same mistakes, changing characters, changing how the world works, inventing strorylines instead of adapting those from books, using moments from books but twisting them and changing their meaning etc.

[@thebigivalbowlski]

@@bruncla2303 i dont disagree that there was a big difference between books/video games vs the Netflix series. I went thru the cliffnotes, there was a lot details missing from the Netflix series. But I didnt think the changes hurt the quality or story. If i had to make any complaints it would be the cultural misappropration which i find offensive but wasnt bothersome where it hurt the story. But with WOT what hurt the most they focus more on SJW identity politics then good story telling. I had a hard time connecting to the characters to root for them. Personally i wish they all died so the series is over.

[@ryanbonde3082]

I give you major props for this stance. Its hard to correlate the disparate sides of being a fan and just enjoying an adaptation. Sometimes I think that we hold things we love to a much higher standard than what most people would consider "accurate"

[@Bookborn]

And I'm not even sure I feel this way, totally, you know? I'm trying to get myself to a place where I am a little bit more objective about it though. There's obviously still adaptations that suck, but I think understanding WHY they are bad is just as important as knowing they are bad.

[@Momodomes]

I definitely agree with the broad strokes of the difficulty of scene by scene adaptations but the early seasons of game of thrones were quite faithful and largely matched the book content. I think it matters what book you are adapting as well.

[@dmandrewsauthor]

Most people get that adaptations cannot faithfully follow the books, but calling the Wheel of Time an adaptation is a stretch into fantasy itself. The only resemblance it has to the books are the names...

[@gilian2587]

Ladies and gentlemen, the story you are about to hear is true. The names herein have remained the same to protect the guilty.

[@Goldfella-X]

It seems like there is this new belief which I think was born out of the star wars sequel trilogy that all fan criticisms of an adaptation are immediately toxic and "a true fan would like it even if it's different." Which feels like a pendulum swing from the people who would never like it. While I think there are toxic people who are just looking to complain, I've also seen people come at me pretty strongly when I say I don't like certain stories or movies like the Disney star wars trilogy, because the immediate assumption is I must be a toxic troll, regardless of my actual criticisms. I also got that a lot from my criticisms of the WoT adaptation. I criticized Parren's new wife and the love triangle, and the response I got claimed I was just mad they had a diverse cast. My criticism has nothing to do with that (and I liked the casting anyway), but the instant assumption was I must have some toxic criticism easy to debunk.

[@SWBStX]

Man, this is really interesting stuff. And as you mentioned, I find myself looking back on all my recent adaptation views with skepticism and mistrust. Great video, very thought provoking.

[@Bellannie15]

What you said about showrunners & actors needing to appear as fans is SO true! Another example is House of the Dragon's writer & producer Ryan Condal, I always hear fans saying it makes them hopeful about the show.

[@Bookborn]

And you know it could be true! But I’m just so much more skeptical about it now. And being a fan doesn’t necessarily mean you’re good at writing an adaptation, you know?

[@Dank_Engine]

It’s not whether you change something, it’s what you change. Perrin’s married? He just killed his wife? I barely got to know her. Well, alright, let’s see how this plays out. Maybe they’ll devote an entire episode to him processing his grief with his friends and he’ll grow as a character and we’ll learn more about him. What? They’re devoting an entire episode to processing a character’s grief. Hang on, what’s his name? Stephen? Oh, right. Stepan. Hang on, who is he again? Why is he important? Oh well, since they’re giving him a whole episode to process his grief while they just hope we forget all about Perrin, I’m guessing Steve-o will have a huge role to play down the line. What’s that? He’s dead. Suicide you say? Alright fuck this show. Honestly.

[@gavinrbeckett]

I love this video - really thoughtful and helpful reflections that go beyond a lot of the other responses to book-show adaptations that are currently being discussed 😁 adds some real depth to the topic. It’s also notable that a large proportion of the folks commenting on your vid are overlooking your point that not all fans share the same point of view! There are a LOT of comments that say “X is clearly a bad show, all fans think so” or “Y is clearly a terrible show runner, nobody could possibly think they are credible or competent” - but it only takes a bit of searching and watching on KZbin and Twitter to see that there are many different fan reactions, from hate to love and all stops in between. Personally I’ve enjoyed and even loved many book-show/movie adaptations whilst retaining a sense of critical recognition that some changes could have been better. Keep doing your thing - it’s really appreciated 😊 and I’m looking forward to a thoughtful series review of WoT!

[@Bookborn]

Thank you! And I agree... some fans live in a bubble and don't realize that super fans can feel wildly differently about the same adaptation, and that doesn't make them a lesser fan...

[@UtubeMyAccountName]

"If you build it (well) they will come". A faithful adaptation does not, and has never meant a scene by scene translation. If an adaptation is compelling, engaging, coherent, entertaining in it's own right people will grudgingly, sometimes even ecstatically accept changes. If not, the changes standout out starkly, and gives people a point of reference to air their dissatisfaction, but it is not the reason for it.

[@Bookborn]

Hard agree. Even tho people complained about LOTR at the time people got on board because it was clearly a good piece of art.

[@rhodsym643]

Something I assume you haven't seen due to not being big in to the show is how much the Showrunner of Witcher has been in contact directly with fans over twitter and actually directly answering fan criticism. Really shows your point about the difference the internet has made to adaptations. For instance the armour of the nilfgardians was changed from season 1 to 2 due to fan backlash

[@Bookborn]

It’s so interesting because in some ways that feels great and in others it doesn’t. Like should people listen to me? Probably not. I’ve never written anything in my life. I’ve never produced a show. I couldn’t tell you the first thing about making film. So why listen to someone who knows nothing? On the other hand, something feels OFF about WoT and most people are feeling that. So who better to listen to than the fans? Idk I hope that makes sense 🤣

[@rhodsym643]

@@Bookborn Haha that definitely makes sense, as fans we might have a great knowledge of the material but it doesn't mean we know how to make a good show/film. I guess that's where a great showrunner comes in, they hopefully have the expertise to decide when to listen to the fans and when not to.

[@steveparker8065]

Essentially I prefer a strict representation of the books, I understand that some things may be omitted due to screentime, such as Tom Bombadil from LOTR. Wheel of time has been changed so much I no longer want to watch it, in the same way, though inverted, the TV series Game of Thrones stopped me from wanting to read the long-overdue book continuations. Storyline changes due to screen adaptation are not necessary, especially with today's special effects and computer-generated content. If you don't keep to the original storyline and intent of the author then you are simply exploiting the popularity of the original for profitability. It all comes back to profit in many aspects of our lives, we're losing the love of the craft and enjoyment of the simple things in life.

[@OrangeHand]

"Storyline changes due to screen adaptation are not necessary, especially with today's special effects and computer-generated content." There's other things to take into consideration, such as budget or how many episodes the network gives them. The people making adaptations don't have unlimited resources to do everything fans might want them to.

[@danielcoleman2378]

I agree GoT finally season complexly ruined it for me. I cannot bring myself to even watch the show again. that the worst part is that is not even based on a book. once they moved past the written story they had free reign to do whatever and no one would have complained .. and this is how they ended it .. nope Im out

[@steveparker8065]

@@OrangeHand Yes, as I already pointed out "It all comes back to profit"...

[@Behindthejab]

Then don’t watch it. Amazon doesn’t owe you anything. If they made it something you like someone else wouldn’t like it. Just watch shows you likr

[@steveparker8065]

@@Behindthejab I like the book series so wanted to watch it, your comment is redundant. As mentioned, "I no longer want to watch it"...

[@LEOrgill]

I find that the adaptations I like the most are the ones I watched before I read the source material. This is very true for me of classics. The classics I have read on my own (not for school) are usually because I loved the adaptation. On the other hand, if the book is an absolute favorite, I have a hard time enjoying the movie. I remember having difficulty with the movie adaptation of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban because it wasn’t how I envisioned it in my head. I think one of the difficulties with adaptations is everyone has a different way they envisioned a novel and the adaptation will never match our imaginations.

[@merc9nine]

Prisoners of Azkaban is considered one of the best HP movies but I think its the worst of all. These show runners treat us like we are stupid. Ham fisted forced exposition. They would take 5 minutes to say in a TV show what Denis Villeneuve shows me in a half second shot without using any words. These people claiming that they needed to adapt the show are not getting it. We know that it needs to be changed, but you are not good enough to do that. Your claim to fame is as a contestant on a reality game show. Why is Rafe Judkins working on this show? What are his qualifications?

[@LEOrgill]

@@merc9nine I can’t for the quality of The Wheel of Time adaptation since I haven’t watched it or read the books.

[@tbakke125125]

@@merc9nine You realize Rafe is the one who pitched the whole thing to Amazon? without Rafe there would be no adaptation- his credentials are that he sold it to them, persuaded them.

[@justinalbin7272]

@Tim Bakke Elizabeth Holmes pitched investors on Theranos. Did that make her qualified to run a business?

[@andrewadams8601]

Really great breakdown. I actually came back to reference this because of Rings of Power. While it's not directly adapting a book, I still feel like they are running into a similar issue where they are changing timelines and lore from the books. I remembered watching this video after the WoT series and how good of a job you did in framing the struggles for fans and showrunners in adapting pre-existing/written works.

[@Bookborn]

Thanks for revisiting 🙏 How are you enjoying RoP?

[@andrewadams8601]

@@Bookborn ummm...I'm not loving it. There are some things lore-wise that have me raise my eyebrows, but I'm not honestly as heavily invested in LotR lore as I am in WoT or SW, so I'm not as bothered with changes as I was with either of those IPs. I think that RoP is a little better overall than WoT, but it's only because WoT frustrated me where RoP mostly bores me. I actively dislike Galadriel, though, and not just because she's not Galadriel from LotR. I just think the way she's been written is very unlikable. The latest episode finally has some progress in the story, but I laughed out loud at much of the first half that was supposed to be serious - like Galadriel telling Isildur that it's best to be humble...one of those do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do moments, I guess. I really wanted to like it more, but to me the writing of the story just doesn't feel like Tolkien.

[@Bimwakian]

Wow. This prompted a lot of internal analysis. Thanks for including a link to the thesis as well, I'm looking forward to reading it. My immediate thoughts are it's always better if the team adapting one property from one medium to another, either film or tv, if they are if not fans, like the source material. I think about Singer who refused to read the comic books he was turning into movies and how hollow they felt. I find that I don't mind if they promote themselves as a fan, because either they are and that's great, or they become fans. It's also fair for them to treat it as the job that it is to them. Because we love a thing, we want people to love it like we do, and it hurts when they don't. I think having some distance from the source material helps adapting things, because they are less concerned about getting it 'right' and more focused on telling a good story in the medium they excel at.

[@Bookborn]

Such great points. Not at least reading the source material also hurts future arcs and foreshadowing, something I think is particularly important in long series like WOT. You can start setup earlier now that you know everything.

[@ssmcquay]

I'd love to see a follow-up on this video focused on a few franchises. E.g., Harry Potter, LOTR, Hobbit, Dune, Percy Jackson, etc

[@Bookborn]

Def planning on it. Lots of intersting comments about that sort of stuff here and I think I could expand. Discovering WHY adaptations fail and why some are considered successful is such a hard thing to measure.

[@youtube-ventura]

Making changes are fine, as long as there are real reasons behind it (budget, timing, pace, etc.). But when you make changes to fit an agenda or for personal reasons, this is where I begin to object.

[@youtube-ventura]

A good example here is in the first book, Thom is described as having blue eyes, however in the adaptation, he's doesn't. It seems like they deliberately removed as much "white" as possible for no other reason than to fit an agenda. Another example is the description and depiction of Rand's sword: it was too "white" so they turned it into a samurai sword instead. There are dozens and dozens of examples like these. I don't mind differences in an adaptation, but there needs to be some sense behind it instead of just trying to fit a "woke" or "anti-white" narrative.

[@debrabroido997]

I read the first 11 books many years ago. I loved them but didn’t remember many of the details. I also remember some of the books seemed to drag into unnecessary detail, so shorter can be better. I’m enjoying the series. It isn’t ruined by knowing where the story is headed. I am really enjoying all the discussions and revisiting the lore in the book.

[@Bookborn]

I'm so glad you are enjoying it!

[@drewcipher]

A good example of conceptual flapping from WoT for me was when Tam Al'Thor uses a match to light a lantern in episode 1. It's a tiny seemingly inconsequential bit and I can see why they did it. Having matches from the start is going to make so many things easier especially when we get dark hazy rooms full of pipe smoking generals or common rooms or what have you. However as a fan knowing who Aludra is and her impact on the story I wonder did she just get cut out of the adaptation with that match being lit? Are her dragons not going to be there later on? She's a side character at best but not one without impact so I can see her being cut to save time/money, but in doing so they'd lose that impact and pay off. Or they could just have matches already common but if that's the case what else is common that her and her people would normally provide throughout the story? A lot of questions swim in my head and it all started with a character lighting a match at the start of the show when matches shouldn't exist for another 3 or 4 seasons if they were following the lore of that world.

[@teamMrShawn]

Good spot on this!

[@lokdog257]

Peter Jackson caught alot of grief when the LOTR movies came out, however, he kept to the original feel and impression of the books, so over time his changes have been accepted as necessary and good. I don't think a director or show runner has to be a fan, if they are competent story tellers then they will be able to see and understand the intended story, and they will be able to tell that story through a different medium. Minor changes are necessary, as the medium and audience is different, but to omit large parts of the original story, and to include many new scenes, to apparently express a certain political view... no good.

[@MrMalchore]

The 1984 movie adaptation of the book Dune has a lot of scenes where the character we're watching on screen is doing voice overs. The implication is we (the audience) are supposed to be hearing the inner thoughts of the person we're watching at that moment. It didn't work .. at all. That's an example of trying to take a book and LITTERLLY adapt book to screen. Books contains a lot of third-person omniscient information... which is hard to show (word-for-word) on-screen.

[@Bookborn]

Ok I was actually thinking of Dune when I said it doesn’t work 😂😂

[@derrisreaditbefore]

Hi Hillary, I haven't read WoT, and have no plans to either - but I am a fan of multiple other fantasy series. I used to think I wanted an exact text to screen adaptation of the things I loved, until an epiphany occurred. Most fantasy books, when you discard the *visual* story telling elements (creatures, costumes, castles), take place in people's heads. The internal dialogue of characters is what informs us of the story events, and their behaviours are explained to us as *internal* emotional reactions to those events - and last time I checked - internal dialogue is not an effective way to make a movie or tv show. What that means for an adaptation - is that sometimes there's a need to find a different way to express why a character arc changes direction, or why a different plot line comes to the forefront of the story-telling. For me, it comes down to the adaptation having the right 'spirit' - and as you said, that's impossible to quantify. We know it when we see it. Happy New Year Hillary.

[@Bookborn]

Agree, agree. So much about film is performance. Perhaps a page of complicated emotion is given in a look or movement instead - which is why casting I think is the biggest hurdle often in adaptations

[@js2727]

Ok on the WOT. Everyone knew that characters and places would be cut out. That being said it seems obvious there is a large book fan base that feel they have not kept to the heart of the books or characters. I am fine with an actor taking a role that was not a fan of the material as long as they do their research on it. Matt smith was not a doctor who fan when he got the role and he went a watched the show to learn of the Doctor to bring the doctor to screen and did a great job Henry Cavill has been a well know fan of the Witcher game and lore

[@nathanhickson7900]

The Wheel of Time is a faithless adaptation of the Book.

[@aubrey7129]

Wow this is so interesting! It's so wild that some special knowledge is what qualifies a 'true' fan rather than just love and enjoyment of the book or movie!

[@joshuabean846]

I always look at the book and the film as being two entirely different projects. I always look at the book as being the "true" version of a story. The book is the ultimate product, it is the only product. So when something like a film comes along I see it as sort of a parallel version of the book. The film does not change the book in any way. Ultimately a film is just a filmmakers take on the book.

[@joshuabean846]

Also I think it's noteworthy to mention that a book is purely a virtual experience. It's 1st the author's imagination and then our imagination then those 2 imaginations working together as the story pops into our heads. With a movie you lose the freedom of the imagination to roam free as the movie has physical limitations.

[@egadzitsme]

Thought provoking discussion. Interpreting marketing through the lens of establishing cred with book fandoms is a big frame shift. I think it's a nuanced thing that is likely not always an indicator of show quality though. One would expect a competent production that is adapting a book to screen to have competence in the source material at multiple levels, so pictures of actors/crew/etc with books shouldn't necessarily be a red flag that fans are being duped by marketing. However, when there is not much else being relayed, and a lot of effort is being spent to prove such cred like with what WoTshow did, flying those red flags should be considered appropriate. To contrast LotR and WoTshow, the LotR bonus materials demonstrate so much pride and care by the cast and crew for the source material, the entire production exuded a careful reverence and love for the books and what they were doing. In the end this translated to a product that in today's world is regarded as one of the best adaptations of all time. Deviations from the source are fair game for fans to lament, different fans can dislike and love different things ofc, but the movies stood tall on the book bedrock that everyone involved was aware they were standing on and respected, respect itself was a passion, and their adaptation will stand the test of time for it. It proves genuine. WoTshow spent effort from the beginning to tell fans that the cast and crew love the books. Photos of books, book pages juxtaposed to scenery. Branding one writer as a book expert and the show runner as a book lover, both contentions proving false later down the road through tremendous and numerous lore logic inconsistencies and donning "change" as being necessary in a pandering fashion. Hype itself was marketed, "the next GoT", and the show proved to be such an enormous departure from the books that it's clear they used the source material only as a means to an end. In terms of adaptation, unlike LotR, WoTshow stands on a disingenuous bedrock. The difference is stark.

[@Bookborn]

Great, rational discussion. You're right that it's not black and white - I don't think I could ever make a list of "this makes a good adaptation, this makes a bad one". There is so much that goes into it.

[@Nemo37K]

Excellent analysis of a topic that has only grown more fractious over the years. You've brought tup a lot of good points. Some additional thoughts to consider: Did the higher-ups tell the production to emphasize they were fans? 100% yes. If you're making a hundred million dollar investment you are going to do everything in your power to ensure a high ROI. You can also bet that some of the adaptational changes were totally out of the hands of the show itself because any final scripts have to pass through the hands of the Executive Producer, who will send notes on whatever you've written and you will have to change the script to suit their whims. No script leaves a writer's hands untouched by the entire production from top to bottom. What I'm equally interested in terms of adaptations is how much of fan backlash is a product of being able to watch the sausage getting made just enough to instil a dunning-kruger effect. I.e.: "I could write this better than these hacks who are paid tons of money because I've read several books on screenwriting, and watch a lot of movies". I've found a lot of film criticism these days is inspired by this strain of thought: there are tons of materials - shooting scripts, how tos, movies about movies, documentaries about movie productions, subreddits devoted to storytelling, and the business of becoming a storyteller has become as profitable as being a storyteller. I feel like fans - who are one of the target markets for these materials - have ingested enough to believe they have a firm grasp on the inner workings of the industry than perhaps they actually do, leading to greater backlash. So, in addition to all your points, I wonder if a lot of this frustration is also a product of knowing just enough about the process to believe that the writer has absolute control over their writing, but not enough to realize that writer's are only a fraction of the equation in producing a film. So the criticism is easy to make absent the behind the scenes fracas that accompany every film. I also feel like there is a feeling of loss when something becomes popular enough that there is no bar to entering a fandom. Being an outcast who ties their identity to one IP they love can make one feel special, and significant, and when everyone becomes privy to it, you just become another person who likes a popular franchise. I feel like there is a significant difference between those two states and one that is very alienating and upsetting to lose that thing that made you "special." As someone working my way into the industry, I tend to be very forgiving of adaptations, even when I'm a huge fanboy, because I know it takes a veritable city to make even one. I also try to have empathy for the writers and see if it works. Most of the time, it does. All the best

[@Bookborn]

Wow. I’m super impressed by the thoughtful points you’ve brought up. I 100% agree about the internet and almost too much access making people think they’d do a better job. And the way it’s advertised that “Rafe owns this” (or whoever) when really he is pleasing tons of people. As one commenter put it “a book character doesn’t care about being sidelined but an actor may”

[@readbykyle3082]

How dare you approach things rationally and with nuance?! What is this, 2004?

[@elainemalit5521]

For the discussion on fidelity, I think we also have to consider that even fans differ from their interpretation of the original written work, not only from each other, but also often times from the intention of the author. Scenes and little details may be important or not important depending on what message the reader is receiving from the book, and that may not be the same message for everybody. I see often nowadays the concept of death of the author, and separating the art from the artist. If that's the case, then I don't think we can define what really is the "true" spirit of the work, when even the original creator of the work gets sidelined by fans.

[@Bookborn]

YES ABSOLUTELY. you could take three super fans and we might all focus on something else. I tend to care about romantic stuff less so I’d probably play down romances - and that might upset fans!

[@zzubra]

Speaking of things that a movie or other content-producer “needs” to do for marketing purposes (like a show runner needing to project an image of being a fan), I’m reminded that for KZbin content producers there seems to be a “need” to be perceived as being interested in what the audience thinks about the subject matter presented in the content. I’m not saying that this is insincere, in the case of Bookborn. But, it’s such a common trope in KZbin content (being interested in viewers’ opinions), that I can’t help but think that there must be a lot of social/marketing pressure to express this sort of interest. So, that’s alive for me whenever I hear such expressions of interest.

[@tgif1345]

THANK YOU! You have no idea how often I've had these exact arguments with friends of mine over adaptations. Not just books, but comic book adaptations as well. The thing is both Fantasy and Sci-Fi are extremely difficult to sell to the mass audience because of how outside of the norm these stories can be. So even adaptations that are the most accessible to a general audience can be hard for people who aren't used to the genre to get into. And you're right there aren't enough fans of certain books to make adaptations profitable for a studio. I've actually seen this in TV to movie adaptations, like the 2017 Power Rangers movie. That movie bombed because there aren't enough fans of Power Rangers to make the movie that profitable. One book to show adaptation I hear people complain about alot is Animorphs. I don't know if you've ever read the series, but a TV show adaptation from 1998, that aired on Nickelodeon, is considered bad by the fans because it wasn't given the budget necessary to make that Sci-Fi series of young readers books into a decent TV show. The thing they tend to forget is that it was made in 1998 when there weren't alot of book adaptations on TV that weren't anthology series like Goosebumps, the book series was only two years old at the time, and wouldn't even be finished for another three years, and geek media was largely ignored on TV. Plus they had to adapt the first person narrative structure of the books into 24 minute episodes, and lost much of the nuance that the books had. I think that for the time, the Animorphs TV show was the best it could be under the circumstances it was made under.

[@cmike123]

The biggest issue is the changes need to make sense. If you dont establish strong rules, then the audience has to fall back on the rules established by the books. In this case, a certain bad adaptation did not explain ground rules, then completely abandoned rules set by the books. This ends up with characters doing things that would be "impossible" in the story world. Or in this case, removes a core component (such as Weaving during channeling to create effects). Game of Thrones made this mistake in its early seasons by ignoring magic for a prolonged amount of time.

[@Bookborn]

That’s actually my number one complaint too, when all is said and done. The tv show at the very least needs to play by it’s own rules and justify the changes by showing they work. Neither, in my opinion, were done in a certain adaptation we aren’t talking about 😉

[@johnqpublic6019]

As a fan of many books, I totally expect changes to be made for film adaptations. I expect most of the complexity that finds its home in books will be completely absent. I totally understand that a one to one adaptation will likely flop. So I see the challenge presented to a show runner as how can the source material be modified without killing it. If the writing is good, the show can get away with all kinds of changes. If the writing is poor, fans get pissed and the general audience usually isn't lat into it. I'm glad it isn't my job!

[@ReadByAndy]

Okay so let me just start by reiterating that you are the most intelligent person I know and I am your biggest fangirl ❤ ok now that that's out of the way: I think this video put a lot of this into context for me (also I LOL'd at the fact that there aren't enough readers in the world to justify adaptations making money, cause that is both so sad and so true). While understanding the necessity of changes in adaptations, I am definitely guilty of getting dramatic when I see them lol. I think what I have a hard time with is a change of "general tone". I can't really speak of plot-changes for WoT as I've only read Book 1, but I couldn't help but feel disheartened at the "horror-like" tone of the first episodes, which provided for a completely different watching experience (i.e. suspensful scary-ish music, gory scenes) than what I remember feeling when reading the book. To be honest, I kinda liked the mundane tone of the book - but at the same time, I can understand that it can be boring to watch. Another adaptation I had a similar issue with lately is Anxious People - while I remember the book being heart-warming and focusing mainly on the character dynamics of the hostages, I found that the show was more focused on being a "thrilling mystery" whose main focus seemed to be figuring who the robber was and what was their motivations.

[@Bookborn]

no, I’M YOUR BIGGEST FAN!! Also obviously I hard agree with you about WoT. The tone shift was hard for me and I complain about so many adaptations lol. But I’m ttrying to grow and we will see if it sticks 💀💀 I need to finally watch AP. I’m nervous since I love the book so much and you and Kyle haven’t been too keen on it!

[@mip5041991]

I love any tv/film adaptation that I can get ! Some or better than others but overall I’m just thankful that my favorite books are getting the chance to be a live action

[@mattkean1128]

It's so interesting how protective fans can be when somebody adapts, or even from the original creator. I can't say I don't understand it.

[@Bookborn]

We all do it. I KNOW I do it. I'm just trying to make myself more logical slowly LOL. It won't stop me from hating chagnes in the future, but maybe I can understand them more

[@tokenghost7777]

I may be really cynical, but I have always been skeptical of the “I’m a huge fan” because most of the time it is used in marketing interviews and not actually something someone is known for before hand, but rather comes out after the movie or tv show is announced. I would prefer to have a director or writer come out and say, “nope, never read it” because then they might be more likely to hire experts to advise them and, most importantly, to actually listen to those experts. To me, anyone saying “I’m a huge fan” is basically telling me that they most likely haven’t read the material, didn’t really like it, or are just in it for a paycheck. If they say something particular, for example, “I’ve always wanted to see the Tree of Life... or Dumai’s Wells is going to be crazy!” Then I would believe that they were actually a fan... maybe.

[@jscast39]

A very thoughtful video! Storytelling is a really fascinating human phenomenon. No stories are the same with each retelling -- they either lose some or gain some in the process. The same thing happens in adaptations. Personally, I think adaptations shouldn't be bogged down/pressured by fan and corporate expectations. Just let the filmmakers/showrunners do their own thing. Reading is largely subjective: we all take something personal/different from our reading experiences. Who are we to tell/dictate someone how they should feel/think about a book? At the end of the day, 'the most personal is the most creative' (Martin Scorsese), and I agree. Some of the most publicly and critically well-received adaptations weren't bogged down by fan assumptions/opinions (e.g. Studio Ghibli's catalog)

[@Bookborn]

Yes and this is where the internet and consensus can’t hurt us. Of course some people in obscurity would also make bad adaptations - it happens, but I do think when there are so many expectations and opinions it can muddy the waters

[@jscast39]

@@Bookborn Yep! As the saying goes it can be problematic when there's 'too many cooks in the kitchen' 😬

[@TheKanlei]

I do like you bringing this to the forefront for thoughts, as there are certainly a lot of criticisms with the Wheel of Time Adaptation. I am a huge fan of the Wheel of Time series as that was my escape during deployment, when I was in the US Navy. However, I do get that there needs to be changes in an adaptation, certainly small details or changes like in the LOTR series is what I would have expected. I actually read the LOTR books after the movies but to me, the movies did it justice. I watched the movies when they came out with a friend who was a huge fan of the books and he mentioned there were changes but he liked the movies. Anyone who expects a Page for Page Adaptation is not someone who lives in reality and is just being a troll IMO. Now it is interesting about convincing fans that actors/showrunners are fans of the Books... makes me consider definitely about if said showrunner is an actual fan. But it does raise questions to your point about how Rafe has been overly stated that he is a HUGE fan of the series. Which makes me question that based on the changes made that don't seem to make any sense. I am a reasonable person and I get that changes have to be made to take words from a book, where the book doesn't have a time limit that a movie or tv show has. (not to mention that books allow us to dream up the world in our own way with our own visuals, that will be different to anyone else's vision, and the fact that technology doesn't always allow us to portray exactly how it is in the books). With that being said, I honestly believe Rafe is giving us his "re-imagining " of the books. LOTR total was 8.5 hours between 3 books, 1100 pages. ETOW is about 800 pages and he had 8 hours. He changed the ETOW Point of view from mostly Rand to Morriane, and therefore we got several scenes not from the book at all. From a book lover prospective I get the hate I really do. But I'm still interested to see season 2, only to see where he is taking this, as this is a completely different telling of the Wheel of time/different vision and not what any of us read for sure.

[@Bookborn]

I lot of what you brought up is what I’ll be talking about in my video next week on my overall thoughts on season 1. Time was not used well in the show. I still think despite all this research, adaptations can be failures for sure. I wouldn’t say wot is a failure in every front but it made a lot of baffling decisions.

[@allenbird]

In the age of online content creators, I think it is also a valid point to say the hype train is real. Positive hype that gets people excited and understanding and negative hype where people go to drown their sorrows. Freedom of speech in this way is a lovely gift.

[@Bookborn]

Yeah it's a two-edged sword. Sometimes being in online fandoms can be exhausting. I've had to step away from my comment section because the intense negativity - without much discourse. But at hte same time, nothing is better than hyping things up with other fans.

[@allenbird]

@@Bookborn I believe one thing gets glossed over more than anything: It works for the algorithm in both ways. In the world of marketing, if anyone buys your product and complains that it isn't a good product and other people go out and buy that same product and makes the same assumption, to the manufacturer it doesn't really matter in the long run if people are still buying the product. Same is true for "views" of a show or a video. WOT for example is the second highest viewed product from Amazon on its streaming service. No matter what your opinion is about it, if it sells, it's going to continue to be sold.

[@thecontradictorian2225]

Regarding your first point, I totally agree. Way too many people take a very radical approach - that any changes from the original, however necessary, are inherently bad already. It freaks me out. Some things just work better on screen than in a novel and vice versa. Also, I’m hurrying through Eye of the World right now so that I can finally get to those videos 😅

[@Bookborn]

It’s honeslty just silly. The absolute inability to admit visual and written mediums are vastly different makes fandoms look bad

[@cypsrp7924]

This is excellent content. Thank you so much for exploring this!!!

[@justthinkingoutloud2538]

This definitely gave me food for thought, and I’ll have to make a shout out in my WoT review video. I love your format and approach here, you’ve earned a subscriber and given me some things to consider as a I start and build my own channel!

[@jbjefe]

I've given a considerable amount of thought to this topic. I agree 100% with your myths. My brother insists the Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings were both slated and made for the fans, and I couldn't convince him that adaptations are only ever made to gather the largest audience possible for largest revenues possible. Another thing he said about a certain adaptation was, "I'm convinced this was made for people aren't familiar with the books." And I was like, well... about half of them that I can see like it pretty well." So yeah, another common myth. Now to the question of what "should" an adaptation be? Should it be faithful to the source material? And what does faithful even mean? I agree with your assessment that it should convey the same emotions as the source, and how to do that will vary with each story, and available resources. Of course there is also the point of view from the studio that what an adaptation 'should' do is accumulate views, the viewers don't even have to like it, so long as they view it, which is why marketing is relied upon so heavily. Of course this kind of viewpoint is what I would call a bad faith position. But that's the reality, and the showrunner plays mediator between the studio, the source, and the fans/viewers. One thing we shouldn't forget about is the difference between adaptations from sources that already have a big fan pool, and those that don't. I think there is a reason that most film adaptions come from books that aren't best sellers (or at least not hugely popular), even though many of the books are award winners. As a fan and consumer of adaptations, my default is to want a high degree of fidelity. But if I can't have a high degree of fidelity then I at least want a story that works well, and stands on its own. Just because I love the book, doesn't mean I can't also love the adaptation that doesn't play out just like the books. Then we come to, why pick a book to make a movie from? Sometimes it's because the story in the book is good, is easy to translate to the screen, and contains elements of popular movies. Sometimes it's because the books have already sold to many millions of people, which leaves you with strong starting point. Hunger Games was a wildly popular book trilogy. So, naturally the first book did really, really well. So then the franchise had two paths to success for the remainder of the trilogy. 1) focus on pleasing the new audience 2) focus on pleasing the fan audience. In order to pick, just gauge how pleased each crowd was with the first movie? In the case of the Hunger games, they gave a high level of fidelity to the book, and so didn't have to choose, because both audiences loved it. In the case of the Wheel of Time, it seems clear to me that moving forward, they are better positioned to focus on the new audience rather than the fan audience. As much as it pains me to admit it. Lastly, I wanted try and answer the question about whether the showrunner should be a fan. Well, the nice thing about hiring a fan to do the adaptation is that they get to start with existing knowledge, concept, and vision, which can cut down on preproduction time, and costs. On the other hand either a fan or non-fan can have their own vision which is not really compatible with the source material, so I would say that the hiring producer should know the source material, and then discover the best showrunner for the job rather than finding a showrunner who is already a fan.

[@jaginaiaelectrizs6341]

10:09 - in short .. just remember that "fan" was originally just a shortened form of "fanatic" complete with aallll of those negative connotations that particular calls to mind, at least until it became gradually more of a reclaimed term. 😁 (🤣🤣) Thank you for making this video, btw!!!💜💜 I'm so glad I'm not the only one who thinks about these things too ^-^

[@Bookborn]

OH YEAH such a good point! Fanatic doesn't exactly have the best connotations 😬