You're not telling me anything about why these shows are good or bad beyond mere plot adaptation comparisons. Are these what you mean entirely by "core concepts"? I admit to some disappointment if that's the case.
I already said in my post that I couldn't give less of a **** what the actual plotlines of these shows are - the original stories still exist and I'm not one who wants an adaptation to slavishly imitate them without regard for medium. The reason why I brought up the comparison with Peter Jackson's films was precisely because he took significant liberties with his source material. Tolkein is perhaps an unparalleled author but a below-average writer, and I don't think many fans would disagree with me on that point, so liberties needed to be taken in order to make a successful film.
I could go on and on about the individual plot points that were changed, added or rearranged in the Peter Jackson films but it's an exercise in futility because I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. The essence of the story isn't in the mundane happenings of plot point to plot point but rather in the sum of all its parts. The universality of the actual core themes of the Lord of the Rings are what makes it a story which still inspires people and invites discussion and scholarly attention.
So, to basically reiterate what I've been saying, the changes to the Wheel of Time aren't inherently bad - I actually kind of liked Mat's added backstory because it makes him seem like less of an unrepentant ******* in the first few books and potentially gives him a reason why he would initially fall from grace. Rand not being the Dragon would have essentially been the writing team shooting themselves in the foot, but it turned out that digression went nowhere - it's not bad because it happened, it's bad because of why it happened, for a cheap mystery thrill. These changes are bad because of their implementation and because of the general quality of the writing, not because they exist in the first place. I would argue that such cosmetic changes designed to provoke a response from plot purists and sectors of the fandom are in fact a calculated choice in these shows, but that's speculative at best.
You conclude that it's a good show with many core concepts intact, that it treats the source material respectfully, etc., but you haven't responded to any of the serious concerns I've raised regarding the quality of the writing, the overall lack of character and the failure to create any meaningful, lasting narrative from such a rich resource. Did you just not read them? Are my concerns invalid? You say I should watch the rest of the show - I told you I fell asleep during two of the four episodes I watched. Does it turn around so drastically from a boring slog that it's worth another four hours of my life? CG Orcs being killed and a volcanic eruption won't save that terrible narrative.
Why is it worth my time, or anyone's? I asked you to try and describe the show's story without specific reference to the plot or characters - this is my litmus test for if something is a good story or not, and it was very easy for me to do this with the Lord of the Rings in my previous post. I can't really do it with the show without it sounding vague, pointless or vapid, which coincides exactly with why I hate it. The show has a purely superficial understanding of what it is to be a Tolkein Legendarium story that is, in turn, informed by better adaptations - it has Hobbits running around in New Zealand, it has long shots of people traversing landscapes, it has larger-than-life architecture and it has swordfighting and gleaming armour and ultimately no soul whatsoever. It looks and acts like a story with depth but it takes the tiniest tug on a loose thread for the whole thing to unravel into absolute nothingness, and it took all of one whole episode for that to become readily apparent.
It's an empty vessel of pure superficial spectacle designed to lure in rubes fooled by the use of a beloved intellectual property, solely to keep people subscribed to a package delivery service. The fact that after everything I already wrote, that you think I would remotely change my opinion on watching remaining episodes that I already said I read effective summaries of leads me to believe that we have different standards for what is to be considered worth our respective time in terms of media. If you enjoy this vapid and pointless show for what it is, more power to you. Just don't try and tell me it's worth watching, and stop shilling for it like it is.
I did. I like it in the way that it respects as much as feasible possible for a show towards the books. I like it for the acting, for the additional content that doesn't really break lore (such as Galadriel's brother side story, Durrin and Elrond being friends etc), the characters still feel like their characters, the choreography is really good (the fight scene in Númenor was awesome) etc etc. I even really, really love the Jackson-like vibes we get in some of the cinematic shots and the set designs, like the Orcs resembling his a lot. But I guess I could have gone with a bit more detail before, I'm sorry. I'm not all that great with getting my thoughts down, and with COVID, thinking is difficult right now. lol
I disagree with your critics of the show. It has its moments, which I've admitted to before such as pacing and some of the new characters story arcs don't seem to be connecting anywhere, but overall I disagree. Especially with writing. The writing is very good. Again, it has its moments where it's hilarious bad (such as the rock paper thingy in the start of the show), but overall I find it to be very well written. I don't know how else to address them other than that.
And how can you make any of those conclusions unbiasedly when you didn't watch all of Ring of Powers, or even much of Wheel of Time? If you did, and if you read the books, I think you'd understand it a lot more. The best, and most glaring examples, I present above. That's where the difference is—that WoT is not only terribly written, it respects little to nothing about the book series. But Rings of Power does. And I think it's unfair to say it's bad because they added content you disagree with, and it's especially unfair to make such concrete conclusions when you have not watched all of the shows in question.
Hard disagree from me, I don't see how ROP's characters are any less different to their book counterparts than WOT either.
I had this discussion with someone recently. They challenged me to prove ROP Galadriel is similar to her book counter part. Once I showed how accurate she is, they changed their opinions. I even heard the "hobbits/halfings can't be dark skinned", but hobbits are described as dark of skin, so most complainers for the show don't even know the source they are complaining about.