Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Hakarmaskannar

Sword of Truth TV Miniseries

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I will continue to give it a chance, in hope that the flaws get worked out. New shows sometimes need to hit their stride and I am sure this is no different. The ham-fisted treatment the show gave to Richard's learning to use the Sword of Truth is especially worrisome. Didn't he only absorb the knowledge of all the previous Seekers in

Stone of Tears, shortly before he faced and killed the thirty master swordsmen of the Baka Ban Mana?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda liked the part of the first episode that I saw. Yeah, they deviated from the books in some significant ways, but I think there is a point to that. In the books there is a lot of backstory that is filled in with small flashbacks and things like that. That wouldn't be a very good idea on screen. So I think it's better that they have more of the character interactions and relationship development on screen, because it makes it clearer to people watching it why the characters interact with each other.

I really like Kahlan and Darken Rahl. I'm not totally sure about Zedd, but yeah, we'll see :)

I am kinda hopeful, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't remember Kahlan being an expert horse-back knife-thrower in the book...

But then, in the book...

Yikes! Almost went into nerd-mode, there. I gotta be careful this week.

She was raised by a general and trained to fight throughout her life, I would imagine knife throwing and good horseback riding was included in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - certainly nothing ground-breaking here. And the first 10 minutes that they showed in the previews were by far the best part. Still - I'll continue to watch the series. I don't consider the fact that the story is very different from the books a bad thing. It makes it more interesting to watch, rather than going over something I've already read. Goodkind said, that as long as the series stays true to the characters, the story differences won't matter to the fans - I have to agree with him.

I would much rather the series be picked up by HBO instead - but oh well - this is better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She was raised by a general and trained to fight throughout her life, I would imagine knife throwing and good horseback riding was included in that.

Um, Matus, I didn't really need to hear that. I'm only halfway through the first book, and don't have a lot of time for reading right now. Please spoilershield these little nuggets in the future.

Thanx ahead,

aj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but I think there is a point to that. In the books there is a lot of backstory that is filled in with small flashbacks and things like that. That wouldn't be a very good idea on screen. So I think it's better that they have more of the character interactions and relationship development on screen, because it makes it clearer to people watching it why the characters interact with each other.

...

Unlike Babylon 5, where the unresolved character and story arcs were continually interjected by flashbacks, and formed part of the character interactions and development, and were what kept people coming back to the "screen" for five years, not including spinoffs.

"If you cannot control and trust yourself, if you cannot see yourself clearly, you will never have any knowledge or trust of others, and you certainly will not be able to control them." Mitsugi Saotome

<*>aj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was it on?! I have never read any of his books or anything, but I was willing to check this out. (Nice advertising...with hype like this, it'll be lucky to get as far as Firefly did.) :P

Edited by K-Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, Matus, I didn't really need to hear that. I'm only halfway through the first book, and don't have a lot of time for reading right now. Please spoilershield these little nuggets in the future.

Thanx ahead,

aj

D'oh, my bad, sorry. I can't go back and edit it now, any admins able to?

I recommend getting the books on audio if you have don't have time to down to read them, they are a gem and usually have great readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoiler alert, episode 3.

In episode 3, Richard says to Kahlan: "It shouldn't matter that she deserves our help. It should be enough that she needs it."

I simply hope that this was unintentional and not a complete butchering of the Objectivism philosophy behind the story of the books, but it really doesn't seem to be. Other then this little line, I rather enjoyed episode 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler alert, episode 3.

In episode 3, Richard says to Kahlan: "It shouldn't matter that she deserves our help. It should be enough that she needs it."

I simply hope that this was unintentional and not a complete butchering of the Objectivism philosophy behind the story of the books, but it really doesn't seem to be. Other then this little line, I rather enjoyed episode 3.

Yup - it hurt my ears hearing Richard say that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler alert, episode 3.

In episode 3, Richard says to Kahlan: "It shouldn't matter that she deserves our help. It should be enough that she needs it."

I simply hope that this was unintentional and not a complete butchering of the Objectivism philosophy behind the story of the books, but it really doesn't seem to be. Other then this little line, I rather enjoyed episode 3.

When Kahlan's sister said that the mission for the Seeker was "bigger than her" five minutes in, I had a bad feeling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just reading Chainfire, have started reading the books in July. The books are fine, but not really great IMO. A bit heavy handed and also repetitive to an extent. I like reading them. I like that the Objectivist philosophy is shining through.

Over the years I have learned that if I like a book, I do not expect the same from the movie. Sometimes they succeed, often they do not :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Kahlan's sister said that the mission for the Seeker was "bigger than her" five minutes in, I had a bad feeling...

Well, that is not necessarily bad. There is nothing selfless about being willing to die for a cause if living without that value would be worse than not living at all. In their case, if they failed, their fate would be horrendous, so I think it is perfectly rational for her to say what she did there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that is not necessarily bad. There is nothing selfless about being willing to die for a cause if living without that value would be worse than not living at all. In their case, if they failed, their fate would be horrendous, so I think it is perfectly rational for her to say what she did there.

No, you are right, it is not. If I were the the same situation I would also feel it would be a good point to note that I am fatally wounded and that comforting me is of less value to the both of us than finding the man who will bring justice to evil and right the order of the world, avenging me and bringing happiness to those I care about in the process, as opposed to a slow death via tyranny.

Its just a big assumption that the directors had the same mindset when they shot the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When Kahlan's sister said that the mission for the Seeker was "bigger than her" five minutes in, I had a bad feeling...

I would also point out that killing and dying for freedom is a recurring theme in the Sword of Truth books.

However, the other quote people have been attributing to Richard in episode 3 is disturbing. It is true that Richard's explicit philosophy is confused at times during the first few books. Although I hope that the quote is simply a manifestation of this fact, I'm afraid it may be Raimi injecting altruism into the script. The fact that the Spiderman films (although superbly directed for the most part) are filled with some of the most awful altruism I have ever seen does not reassure me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It pains me to say this, but I found episode 3 to be very disappointing (I thought 1 and 2 were at least acceptable). The behavior of the main characters was not at all true to their portrayals in the books. Especially disturbing was the lack of the deadly seriousness which characterizes Zedd and Kahlan.

Kahlan would have taken the girl who abducted Richard with her power without hesitation or mercy. Also, Zedd and Kahlan would never have agreed to go on the quest to help the boy. Finally, Zedd is being used as a Deus Ex Machina, so that one is never afraid for the characters in the slightest. Goodkind's decision to separate Zedd from Richard and Kahlan should not have been changed.

I will keep watching the series (at least for the first season) out of respect for Goodkind, but I certainly hope that the quality of the episodes improves. I think it is definitely not too late for this to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In episode 3, Richard says to Kahlan: "It shouldn't matter that she deserves our help. It should be enough that she needs it."

This line almost made me turn the TV off and fire off a letter to Goodkind himself. However, I started thinking that out of context this is a horrible statement - but within this very specific context it is passable although dangerously borderline-altruistic. My point is that whether Zedd, Kahlan, and Richard (in the show) realize it or not, they (at least Richard) must to gain the trust and support of the people in the Midlands if they are to succeed against Darken Rahl

and, later, the Imperial Order (if the show makes it that far, which is unlikely)

. The support of the Midlanders, whether implicit or explicit, is of great value to the characters in Goodkind's stories and it is right, in my mind, that they attempt to earn this support by trading their services with people, again implicity or explicitly.

The girl Richard helped in this latest episode, for example, ended up tearing down wanted posters and attempting to convince others that Richard is on their side in exchange for his assistance. Her actions weren't explicitly part of "the deal" but I would guess that Richard (at least, Richard from the books) would understand ahead of time how this girl might be affected by his help and he would realize he has something great to gain by helping her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I havent been too happy with the series so far, I wouldn't be so quick to discount it. It seems like Goodkind's philosophy evolved during the writing of the books, so some changes would be expected.

But also, this might be a good avenue to move people from thinking the way they normally do about things

(it should be enough that she needs our help)

to a more rational non-altruistic attitude. In this case, even though

Richard acted to help this girl out of superficially altruistic motives, the result of the act was entirely mutually beneficial

. It's one thing for the character to go on a rant telling you how you ought to think, it's another to demonstrate it concretely with the mutually rewarding aspects shining through as the most important factor of the episode, and suggest reasons why he thinks that way. Rearden was quite altruistic in much of AS when it came to his family. Perhaps in a later episode, Kahlan or Richard will explicitly identify that act as not being self sacrificial but instead of their own long term rational self interest. Although right now it came out as a kind of 'pay it forward' ethic, perhaps we'll the story move toward a more critical strategic analyzation of actions and prioritization of values for things that previously might have just appeared superficially altruistic. I can easily envision a nice campfire debate about what they ought to do.

Anyone know to what extent Goodkinds has creative control over the show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone know to what extent Goodkinds has creative control over the show?

None. He sold the rights (except publishing rights) outright. Source.

~Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None. He sold the rights (except publishing rights) outright. Source.

~Q

He does say in that link

Sam Raimi and his team want to keep the TV series true to my vision, so rest assured that I am going to be intimately involved in the writing of each of the episodes

I can't help but wonder now how true that ended up being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this series will last past the 1st season. It keeps getting progressively worse. I loved the opening scenes of the premiere - the first few minutes looked great for a TV series. But now, with each episode the whole thing feels more like a Xena Warrior Princess than an original story.

I wonder if it would turn out any different if HBO was in charge of production?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this series will last past the 1st season. It keeps getting progressively worse. I loved the opening scenes of the premiere - the first few minutes looked great for a TV series. But now, with each episode the whole thing feels more like a Xena Warrior Princess than an original story.

I wonder if it would turn out any different if HBO was in charge of production?

Anyone else that watched Episode 4, "Brennidon", feel really annoyed when the townsfolk/farmers started throwing vegetables at the D'Harans instead of actually killing them? Why use our pitchforks when we can throw potatoes at them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone else that watched Episode 4, "Brennidon", feel really annoyed when the townsfolk/farmers started throwing vegetables at the D'Harans instead of actually killing them? Why use our pitchforks when we can throw potatoes at them?

Yes, but I did think that episode 4 was a small improvement over episode 3. Some positive points:

1. Zedd uses the Wizard's First Rule. I thought the Zedd in episode 4 finally began to resemble the Zedd from the books (I think the actor is great, but his dialogue has been poor until now).

2. Richard uses his mind more than in any previous episode. Also, he actually does things on his own without relying on Zedd/Kahlan to save him.

Hopefully this will be the start of a gradual improvement after episode 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but I did think that episode 4 was a small improvement over episode 3. Some positive points:

1. Zedd uses the Wizard's First Rule. I thought the Zedd in episode 4 finally began to resemble the Zedd from the books (I think the actor is great, but his dialogue has been poor until now).

2. Richard uses his mind more than in any previous episode. Also, he actually does things on his own without relying on Zedd/Kahlan to save him.

Hopefully this will be the start of a gradual improvement after episode 3.

Also, one of the Dharan guards claimed that killing all the children was 'for the greater good'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm completely disappointed with the TV episodes. I watched about 20 minutes of the first one and I just couldn't stomach any more. I'm not watching another second of any.

The episodes have no relation to Goodkind's novels except for character names, names of places and things, and things themselves. Characterization is non-existent. Plot was rewritten by someone with barely half a brain. Characters are puppets at the mercy of that guy.

I mean, come on!

One of the most crucial things of the novel was for Kahlan to keep the fact of her being a Confessor from Richard! What happens at the beginning of the first episode? They're not even friends. Heck, Kahlan doesn't even care for Richard, not even after Zedd names him Seeker. And what of Richard and Zedd? Richard doesn't even know Zedd and the very fact that they were friends in the book brings about the dilemma of who betrayed Richard near the end. And, their friendship was what prepared Richard to become Seeker in the first place. The naming of the Seeker as it was done in the episode is the same in both manner and principle, to me naming you (the one reading this) the Founder, except I haven't a fancy sword to give you. And how do I know you're the one true Founder? Because you can read this. What is the Founder? He is the hero who arises in the time of great financial crisis with the purpose to stop it. Now go about until something terrible happens and changes your mind about accepting the title. And yes, this is mockery (of the TV episodes).

The first episode managed to destroy most of the novel's most interesting plot twists in the first five minutes of its running. I don't even know why I watched the other 15 minutes. Perhaps out of sheer disbelief.

If I had stumbled upon the episodes before I got the chance to read the book, I'd never have read the book, except at the insistence of someone whose judgment I trusted.

I only hope Terry Goodkind learned something from this too. I'm only sorry he had to learn it this way.

Edit: Fixed spoiler tags.

Edited by source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...