Wheel of Time TV series officially in development


Television

401 to 450 of 759 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

thejeff,

How tiny.

Wolf,

Yeah, I mean like I said, cutting out stuff is fine but I just wonder where the cuts will come from...

Like will they cut out all about Aiel society? Or just parts of it? Will they discuss sword moves? Or even Warders?

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

thejeff wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:


I feel like both. I mean if we can get things like the Boys, Preacher, and some other shows done without much hassle, why can't we do this?
Because those are tiny by comparison.

And also they're both set in the modern day, which is WAY cheaper to film, even with superheroes, magic, and high special effects than a period piece which also is high special effects.


Period piece?? I mean sure it's medieval/Renaissance type thing...but I wouldn't compare it to Modern day in terms of actual history stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

thejeff,

How tiny.

3 seasons with low ratings before it was cancelled for Preacher and two seasons with a third on the way for The Boys.

How is that in any way proof of the viability of 15 years of Wheel of Time?


I personally think the run time will be drastically cut down when they don't have to devote a paragraph every other page for characters nervous twitches and instead will just show them while they are talking.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:


Like will they cut out all about Aiel society? Or just parts of it? Will they discuss sword moves? Or even Warders?

Just halve the skirt tugging braid pulling and eyebrow raising from book 7 onward and you'll save yourself 3 seasons...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Period piece?? I mean sure it's medieval/Renaissance type thing...but I wouldn't compare it to Modern day in terms of actual history stuff.

They meant in terms of location, set design, costuming. It costs money to digitally remove airplanes/other modern ephemera out of a shot. It costs money to digitally animate fictional cities of antiquated design, costumes need fo be fully manufactured rather than bought of the rack - and that goes for extras as well as principal cast.


I'm not sure it costs THAT much to film in Ireland and some parts of Wales since that's where I always imagined the Two Rivers being...

Also, I agree with Vid and Wolf, cutting down the braid pulling, eye brow raising and nervous twitches might help.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yes Ireland provides a lot of tax incentives for production, but no one actually brought up location costs, taxes, local crew costs or anything related to the region the production is shot in.


I'm pretty sure the costs are lower than if they shot it in the US...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yes it is cheaper, no one is debating that now. No one was debating that before. The only one who brought up the cost of shooting in one country vs shooting in the other was you.

The difference in cost between shooting in Ireland vs Los Angeles isn’t the difference between one season or two seasons. It’s just more money in the production coffers for the one season, maybe you can cast a roll up with that money. Maybe you can shoot a set piece that would have been slightly over budget.

The fixed costs and the inflating costs that make season 4 more expensive than season 1 don’t disappear because they took the production overseas.


Mmm fair point Dirtypool.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
Generally, shooting a next season before the first one airs means about 12 months between releases, give or take a month or two in either direction (and with high amounts of post production effects) it's more likely to be 13-14 months, though it sometimes is also influenced by finding a spot on the release schedule which is a good fit (i.e. they wouldn't want to release seasons 2 of WoT and LOTR in the same month most likely)

Season 1 of WHEEL OF TIME airs in November 2021, Season 1 of LOTR starts airing (probably with 3 episodes) on 2 September 2022 and will probably run through 7 October, allowing Season 2 of WHEEL OF TIME to debut in November or December 2022.

Quote:
These are big dense books. I doubt they'll even be able to manage one per season, at least until/unless they start cutting drastically early on. It's going to be years, probably at least a decade, before they get to those books.

The show is planned to run for 8 seasons, probably of 8 episodes apiece. There will be significant cuts to the books' storylines to fit it in.

Quote:
I fully expect this to run well past 8 seasons. Maybe 12 if we're condensing stuff.

Having spoken to the showrunner, nope. This is not remotely seen as realistic, not by the writing team and certainly not by Amazon. Their current plan is 8 seasons of 8 episodes. If the show goes nuclear and becomes a massive mega-hit, sure, they can revisit the plan, but there are significant problems there anyway, such as cast costs exploding after Season 7 for any American-originated project.

Quote:
I'm not sure it costs THAT much to film in Ireland and some parts of Wales since that's where I always imagined the Two Rivers being...

Production is based in Prague. They've done some filming in other places (like a castle in Spain and a gorge in Slovenia) but most of the locations are in the Czech Republic.


8 seasons of 8 (assuming roughly 1 hour?) episodes seems like a reasonable plan from a studio standpoint. It's going to require massive cuts to the story though.


thejeff wrote:
8 seasons of 8 (assuming roughly 1 hour?) episodes seems like a reasonable plan from a studio standpoint. It's going to require massive cuts to the story though.

I believe the current cuts of the first season have the longest episode at over 65 minutes and the shortest at around 45, so they have some flexibility.


8 seasons??!! For 15 books??! Insanity....

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
8 seasons??!! For 15 books??! Insanity....

15 books for 8 seasons worth of content?! Madness! :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
8 seasons??!! For 15 books??! Insanity....

The more you make the 15 season argument, the less sense it makes to me. Why does it need to take 120 hours to tell 15 books worth of story? Lord of the Rings told 3 books worth of story effectively in just 11 hours.

The adaptation doesn’t have to be one season per book to be effective, or even the most effective adaptation.

Spreading it out over 15 seasons might just as likely make it slow and boring


Sad its only 8 episodes a season but that's the Amazon way.


Dirtypool,

I guess the fact there's more there than in Lord of the Rings (though not as much as say, Lost Tales and the Simillarion), isn't compareable in my book. I mean if they went 10-12 I could ALMOST justify that. But only 8 is just...not feasible and/or good. It's why I stopped watching GoT.

I will agree one book per season isn't necessary for at least...3 of them. I just don't agree with 8. It's not workable.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Dirtypool,

I guess the fact there's more there than in Lord of the Rings (though not as much as say, Lost Tales and the Simillarion), isn't compareable in my book. I mean if they went 10-12 I could ALMOST justify that. But only 8 is just...not feasible and/or good. It's why I stopped watching GoT.

I will agree one book per season isn't necessary for at least...3 of them. I just don't agree with 8. It's not workable.

Do you say that as someone who has adapted a novel series to a teleplay format or just as a fan with expectations? Because if it’s the latter, you might want to consider looking at the best way to tell the story through the lens of how a non fan would experience it. Does an episode of television covering one chapter of a book create the kind of storytelling momentum that keep a new viewer coming back week after week? Look at some of your favorite chapters - how much of the length of that chapter is action or dialogue, and how much of it is visual description that would not add to the length of the story because the thing being described is visually represented.

8 seasons is as workable as the writers, directors and editors allow it to be.

You dismissed my Lord of the Rings point out of hand due to the length of the WoT series. My point was about the length. If a three book series can effectively deliver its narrative in about 12 hours - why does a story that is 12 books longer need 10 times the length? As a non fan, I frankly cannot see a justification for that kind of length.


I guess while I AM a fan...I feel that if comic books can get good to better treatment than badly adapted movies (looking at you Avatar the Last Airbender!!), I don't see why I can get just as much adaptation as the rest.

I do understand your point about some chapters being less important than others. I get that. But in the overall weaving of the story, you need some of that to keep the narrative direction going. Otherwise you're having leaps and bounds and people will NOT be able to follow.

Example, Shadar Haran. The Super Fade. Is he 100% important to the overall tone? No but suddenly having one of the Forsaken NOT be controlled by him makes it less sensible about the CHARACTER of that Forsaken. I know that's a minor point but it is an important one that might be lost on non-fans.

I can understand you not following the justification. I get that, dirtypool. What I'm saying is if we go along with these edits for the sake of "Well we can't go over budget" or "This series will be too long and no one will follow it." seems more simplistic of the fact that others see this as a means to cut out what I think might be VITAL for the overall theme and story arcs.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Thomas Seitz wrote:


Example, Shadar Haran. The Super Fade. Is he 100% important to the overall tone? No

I'm a complete non-fan, so help me out here. Are you saying there's a character in the book referred to as "The Super Fade"? That sounds like an 8 year old playing a superhero RPG for the first time and struggling for the name of their new character. I've lost a lot of respect for the series just for that name/title.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I guess while I AM a fan...I feel that if comic books can get good to better treatment than badly adapted movies (looking at you Avatar the Last Airbender!!), I don't see why I can get just as much adaptation as the rest.

That is an equivalency that doesn't make sense in the least: We're getting good adaptations of comic properties that remix decades of story into the best possible version of concept without presenting it exactly as presented so we should get 15 years of a 1:1 adaptation of a book series?

Thomas Seitz wrote:
I can understand you not following the justification. I get that, dirtypool. What I'm saying is if we go along with these edits for the sake of "Well we can't go over budget" or "This series will be too long and no one will follow it." seems more simplistic of the fact that others see this as a means to cut out what I think might be VITAL for the overall theme and story arcs.

"If we go along with these edits?" We have literally no buy in or say so as to what things get edited out of these stories. What you think it VITAL to the story doesn't matter to anyone but you.


Joel,

It's more of a FAN name for specific character. Fades are a name of Shadowspawn race like Trollocs, IE Myrddraal. Shadar Haran was called Super fade by some in the community. (edit = here's a link about him for you)

Dirtypool,

I'm more inclined to answer your second question than first, in terms of I think, as a long time fan of the series, in much the same way many people are fans of various other things, having some say should matter IF they want success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Dirtypool,

I'm more inclined to answer your second question than first, in terms of I think, as a long time fan of the series, in much the same way many people are fans of various other things, having some say should matter IF they want success.

Marvel fans don't get a say in the Marvel movies, comics or cartoons, and they are successful. DC fans don't get a say in the DCEU, CWTV series, DCAU or comics, and they are successful. Star Wars fans don't get a say in the Star Wars films and they are successful. James Bond fans don't get a say in the James Bond films and they are successful. Halloween fans don't get a say in the Halloween films and they are successful. Nightmare on Elm Street fans don't get a say in the Nightmare on Elm Street series and they were successful. Lord of the Rings didn't get a say in either LOTR or The Hobbit and they were successful. Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Scream, Jaws, I could go on and on stating all the franchises where fans don't have a say in what happens.

Your fandom doesn't make you more equipped to run the show than a showrunner, and the say you get is with how you spend your money. Giving you any more say than that doesn't ensure success, restricting your say doesn't ensure failure.

Let them do what they do.


I'm not sure I agree with that, but I will concede, Dirtypool, I'm not the one in charge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's worth remembering the De Havilland Law. This was passed in Hollywood in the 1960s to stop studios signing up actors to TV shows for insane amounts of time on their initial, low-paid contracts, no matter how big the show got.

The rule as it fanned out was that actors can only be signed to a show for 6 seasons with a +1 year renewal clause built in with a pre-agreed percentage pay increase. Or to put it another way, the maximum length of time you can sign an actor to your show is 7 years from the off. This is why so many fairly-successful-but-not-phenomenon shows end with their 7th season (BUFFY, most of the STAR TREKs, PARKS & RECREATION etc).

If you want to go to an 8th season, your need to give all of those actors a substantial pay rise. And, this is the fun part, you can't tie them to another contract. For every additional year, you need to renegotiate every single contract. The actors' agents will, of course, play hardball because to even get to 8 seasons, the show has to be one of the most successful on television.

This gives TV shows an in-built self-destruct countdown because even the most absurdly successful shows will struggle with each actor getting massive pay hikes every year. When FRIENDS ended, the pay bumps from Seasons 8-10 ended with each actor getting $1 million per episode (so that's $6 million per episode for a multi-camera sitcom, plus the ~$500K production costs for each episode). GAME OF THRONES ended with five or six castmembers on $1 million each, plus the production cost of each episode was around $10 million, for $16 million per episode in its eighth season. Those were only remotely sustainable because GAME OF THRONES and FRIENDS were the two biggest TV shows on the planet when they ended.

Or you can fire the entire main cast after Season 7 or 8 (THE X-FILES approach) or just the most expensive castmember (THE OFFICE). This is usually not successful.

Some shows have gone longer, but in those cases the actors are often the executive producers and are deeply involved in the behind-the-scenes finances, so they can see when the studio is playing hardball and when they genuinely can't afford to give them ludicrous pay rises but could afford to carry on at a lower rate. SUPERNATURAL is a great example of that (by rights SUPERNATURAL should have been cancelled at least in its eighth or ninth season, but it made enough moderate profit and had low production costs - as long as the main actors didn't demand massive hikes - and was a favourite of the CW chairman, so it stayed).

IT'S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA is the ultimate example of that. It's dirt cheap (Season 1 was something like $50K an episode, and that's $50K, not $500K) and the actors are also the writer-producers who make quite a lot of money for not massive amounts of time investment and have time to do other, more lucrative things like movies and guest shots on other shows, so they know they're on a good thing with it.

tl;dr - the writers, producers and Jeff Bezos sitting on his Aes Sedai-symbol-emblazoned golden throne might all agree that the show would be better served by 15 seasons, but it's a legal improbability it will go beyond 8. If they get to 5 or 6 seasons and it's the biggest thing on television making Amazon eleventy billion dollars of profit a nanosecond or something, they may reconsider.


Anyway, more promo images!


Elventy billion?? Dude I'm a Wot fan through and through and even I don't see that happening.

Oh well. I mean if Jeff Bezos decides to not go to space maybe then I'll get my wish of at least 12 seasons. (15 seems unlikely now...)

Liberty's Edge

Many of you seem to be impressively optimistic about how long this series will run. I don't expect the scope of this to run for more than perhaps the most easily adapted sections of the first four or five novels, anything past that feels like an exercise in pointless hype. This is a film production, entire chapters of content can and I guaranteed WILL be summarized in a single uncut shot that lasts no longer than a minute of run-time, that's just the nature of the media.

I don't really take bets as a personal choice but if I did I'd be wagering this lasts no more than four or five "Seasons" or "Series" maximum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
I don't really take bets as a personal choice but if I did I'd be wagering this lasts no more than four or five "Seasons" or "Series" maximum.

It's been stated that the series'll be eight seasons of eight episodes each.

Of course, if the series bombs relatively quickly in the earlier seasons, this may change... But I'm hopeful it'll make maximum use of & get all eight seasons they're planning for! : )

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Seventh Seal wrote:
Themetricsystem wrote:
I don't really take bets as a personal choice but if I did I'd be wagering this lasts no more than four or five "Seasons" or "Series" maximum.

It's been stated that the series'll be eight seasons of eight episodes each.

Of course, if the series bombs relatively quickly in the earlier seasons, this may change... But I'm hopeful it'll make maximum use of & get all eight seasons they're planning for! : )

It likely will have a minimum of 2 seasons, since shows this expensive tend to get renewed before a season premiers, so they can get a head start on the long time needed to fully produce the next season.

After season 1 numbers are in, that is what will impact if it gets a season 3 pickup (and this will repeat every year). It won't need to bomb to not make it the full 8 seasons they're planning, it simply will need to not make the numbers which makes the cost to create economically reasonable. And for a big tentpole show like this, it will have equally big target numbers.


Umm... I think that's what they meant by "bomb" (i.e. not doing as fantastically well as expected after the numbers were in from the first couple of seasons)...

<shrug>

Carry on,

--C.

<edit> @JoelF847: I asked, & what you explained in your post is what they meant in theirs! (^_')=b


Still think 8 seasons isn't enough. And I think theme farmer is wrong about how much is going to be edited. But I hope to GOD we get at least 10...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The more hours I’m told I’ll have to invest in this, the less interested I am in giving it a shot


I think you mean more seasons...but I understand your point, dirtypool.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No, I meant hours. Hours of my life that I have to dedicate to this show.

Each season represents multiple hours of commitment on the part of the viewer, not just the hours of screen time made up of the collected episodes but also the time spread out across the interim between seasons where one has to try to hold the narrative in their head or be forced to rewatch to keep up.

If this has to be done in a deep dive way that appeals primarily to the sensibilities of an existing fan, it’s going to have a very hard time picking up fans who aren’t already entrenched. And a show made only for the fans that already exists has no hope of lasting if it can’t draw in new eyes.

I’ve not touched a one of these books, and the more often it gets repeated exactly what level of fidelity to the books a television show must engage in simpl to do it justice - the less inclined I am to watch the show or to read the books.


I'm not sure you need to keep up the hours if you know the narrative well enough. Plus that's what show recaps are for. But I get why you feel not willing to invest given that you seem...reticent to do a dive on this.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Reticent? I’ve been quite forthcoming with my thoughts on this one.

The sell that “if you learn it well you won’t need to invest much time” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. It also changes nothing about the fact that you are claiming the show won’t make sense unless it is at least 80 hours long.

80 hours is an investment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
It likely will have a minimum of 2 seasons, since shows this expensive tend to get renewed before a season premiers, so they can get a head start on the long time needed to fully produce the next season.

It will definitely have two seasons, as they're two months into shooting Season 2 right now :)


I take shows one season at a time. I used to hang on to long in tooth series because I wanted to complete the experience, but I've broken that habit.


Dirtypool,

I don't quite know where you got the 80 hours from, but yes I really stand by having deep cuts HURTS the story and makes it that less interesting. As for me calling you reticent, I'm more commenting on your perceptions/beliefs than what you've said.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Where am I getting 80 from? From your statement that you tell the story properly it needs to be at least 10 seasons long.

Current plan is for episodes to be an hour in length and for there to be eight of them in a season for a total of eight hours per season. You claim there should be ten seasons at least though you would prefer fifteen.

8x10=80
8x15=120

I’ve openly revealed my thoughts, perceptions and beliefs. I have in no way been reticent about anything. I don’t know where you’re getting the impression that I’m holding something back.


I guess I'm getting the reticence part from the fact you seem to be hostile to the idea of having more than 8 seasons to properly tell the entire story. I mean if I just gave you twenty pages of Shakespeare,, would that be enough for any one? Because that's how I see it.

And yes I still claim fifteen is optimal but 10 is probably enough.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So you're using reticent because it technically works as synonym for reluctant in an effort to sound better and not its primary definition where it is about a reluctance to share ones thoughts. Cool...

I'm not "hostile" to the idea of more than 8 seasons. I'm trying to get you to see that what you, the entrenched fan, thinks the show "needs" might not in any way be what the show actually needs. You have a set of expectations derived from having already enjoyed the 15 books. The series has to translate those books in such a way as to make them appealing to the people who have never and in some cases will never engage with those books.

The books are one version and the show another, you have to divorce yourself from the idea of 1:1 translation because frankly such a thing has never happened before. Even the best adapted works have made changes, interpretations, and edits.

Digging in your heels and going on and on about how anything less than 10 seasons will fail to serve the narrative doesn't help sell me, a non fan, on the narrative at all.

They've aired no teaser trailer, released few pictures, and already I'm less enthused about it because you've told me that the overall narrative is so complex that it needs 10 years of my life - at minimum.

No thanks.


Dirtypool,

I just didn't think about reluctance as a way to phrase it since it tends to be...less forceful I guess?

If you feel I've turned you off to it, I am sorry about that. But I do stand by my position. Regardless, while we probably won't agree on this, I can say I'm glad we didn't devolve this into name calling. At least I hope not...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I just didn't think about reluctance as a way to phrase it since it tends to be...less forceful I guess?

Well that just compounds my earlier confusion. What do you think reticence means? Because if you don't mean the vague synonym with reluctance then I simply have no idea what you're trying to say.

Definition wrote:
Reticent: 1 : inclined to be silent or uncommunicative in speech : reserved. 2 : restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance

I haven't been silent, uncommunicative or reserved in this exchange. I've not been restrained in my expression


I thought reticence meant hatred honestly...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well it doesn’t and I’m not sure, beyond perhaps a belief that any disagreement must derive from hatred or ignorance, where you’re getting “hatred” from the idea that fifteen or ten seasons of television is excessively long for an adaptation.

401 to 450 of 759 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Television / Wheel of Time TV series officially in development All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.