What would you want to tell Rafe Judkins about making the show?

[mistborn82]

Sean Bean needs to be Narg though.

[Effete]

7 hours ago, Elendir said:

 

Read my contribution first please, and do not put there words, which are not there.

 

That's so condescending.

You said (emphasis mine):

I think, first book can be Morain centred very well. We can get introduced of Emonds 5 as she do.

Then she will vanish completely at second book, and Rand will take most of time.

Third book will be again connected with “disappearing” of MC from book before and Perin or super girl can follow in same pattern.

 

Where exactly am I putting in words? You clearly said to remove Moiraine from the second book and remove Mat from the third. I disagreed, and gave extensive reasons for why I disagreed. So again, where exactly am I misrepresenting your words?

[Elendir]

Mat

16 hours ago, Effete said:

 

That's so condescending.

You said (emphasis mine):

 

 

 

Where exactly am I putting in words? You clearly said to remove Moiraine from the second book and remove Mat from the third. I disagreed, and gave extensive reasons for why I disagreed. So again, where exactly am I misrepresenting your words?

 

What Mat where? Mat is "zombie" during second book. He is hardly MC="Main Character" of the second book. When I wrote about second book, I wrote about Rand.

 

Morain is then another case. Her disappearance from the pages in the book can be a nice help in shifting emphasis on Rand in the serie, of course, after the events in Fal Dara. They can easily base the story of the first book on an acclaimed actress and give space to other actors to profile themselves. We all know however that the book is not about Morain, which, after some time, leaves the story for a long time.

[imlad]

4 hours ago, Elendir said:

Mat

 

What Mat where? Mat is "zombie" during second book. He is hardly MC="Main Character" of the second book. When I wrote about second book, I wrote about Rand.

 

 

 

Morain is then another case. Her disappearance from the pages in the book can be a nice help in shifting emphasis on Rand in the serie, of course, after the events in Fal Dara. They can easily base the story of the first book on an acclaimed actress and give space to other actors to profile themselves. We all know however that the book is not about Morain, which, after some time, leaves the story for a long time.

 

 

When I read "MC" I read it as Mat Cauthon as well, just as Effete did. Typically, initials are for people's names. If you want to say "main character" (which is not capitalised) then say main character, or at the least don't capitalise the letters as one would for a person's initials. I've got to say the cause for this miscommunication was yours.

 

Oh, and that Aes Sedai... her name is "Moiraine," not "Morain." I mean, how many times did you read that name with just one read through of the series? You can't lay the blame for that on any potential language barrier. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by imlad

[Effete]

9 hours ago, Elendir said:

Mat

 

What Mat where? Mat is "zombie" during second book. He is hardly MC="Main Character" of the second book. When I wrote about second book, I wrote about Rand.

 

 

So "MC" meant "main character," not "Mat Cauthon." Well, that explains why you thought I was putting words in your mouth, but the confusion was entirely your fault. When you're talking about removing characters from a story arc and you use an abbreviation, the natural tendency is for the reader to assume you're referring to a character. When I first mentioned Mat, it was incumbent upon you to find the source of that confusion and correct it, not accuse me of acting in bad faith.

 

Regardless, I stand by my opinion.

I'd rather have the series show Moiraine researching Balefire, instead of her expositing that information later. This has nothing to do with who is the lead character, it has to do with good story-telling, and what works on the page doesn't always work on the screen.

 

P.S. - And I was talking about Mat's role in the third book, not the second book. Who's putting words in whose mouth now? ?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Effete

[Elendir]

On 4/6/2020 at 10:15 PM, imlad said:

 

When I read "MC" I read it as Mat Cauthon as well, just as Effete did. Typically, initials are for people's names. If you want to say "main character" (which is not capitalised) then say main character, or at the least don't capitalise the letters as one would for a person's initials. I've got to say the cause for this miscommunication was yours.

 

On 4/7/2020 at 3:13 AM, Effete said:

So "MC" meant "main character," not "Mat Cauthon." Well, that explains why you thought I was putting words in your mouth, but the confusion was entirely your fault. When you're talking about removing characters from a story arc and you use an abbreviation, the natural tendency is for the reader to assume you're referring to a character. When I first mentioned Mat, it was incumbent upon you to find the source of that confusion and correct it, not accuse me of acting in bad faith.

 

I did not see anybody use acronyms in such way here, as you two expected from me.

You need to read think in context and do not see Mat everywhere.

I do not know what the meaning of MC = Mat would make in this sentence:

 

 

I think, first book can be Morain centred very well. We can get introduced of Emonds 5 as she do.
Then she will vanish completely at second book, and Rand will take most of time.
Third book will be again connected with “disappearing” of MC from book before and Perin or super girl can follow in same pattern.

 

 

However that still doesn't prevent you from quickly pointing out who's to blame.

 

 

On 4/7/2020 at 3:13 AM, Effete said:

P.S. - And I was talking about Mat's role in the third book, not the second book. Who's putting words in whose mouth now? ?

The main character of the book before the third book is the main character of the second book (or or the first book, but I thought the second). If for you the MC from the book before the third book was Mat. So you wrote about Mat from the second book. “context”

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Elendir

[imlad]

You know, I think you're doing this on purpose. Initials for people's names are common across multiple languages. In fact, I have yet to hear of a language that uses the Latin alphabet that doesn't initialise people's names as in the example given (Mat Cauthon = MC, or Moiraine Damodred = MD, or Perrin Aybara = PA). Why the frak would "main character" be capitalised, it is not a proper noun? You say you never saw anyone do names like MC for Mat Cauthon, well had you seen anyone do MC for main character? I didn't think so.

 

And again, how many frakking thousands of times did you see the name Moiraine in the books when you read them? I know it wasn't spelled Morain in the copies you read, unless you got some incredibly black market hand written copies in a back alley somewhere. It is Moiraine Moiraine Moiraine Moiraine Moiraine MOIRAINE MOIRAINE M-O-I-R-A-I-N-E. Do you get it yet "Eldir"? Huh Endir? Can you see yet how it is spelled Elnir? Say it with me... em oh eye ar ay eye en ee. If you want to be taken seriously and not as some crackpot who can't read or has no reading comprehension, spell the name correctly. 

 

And why are you talking about characters missing from upcoming books? The books are done and over with. Do you mean the television show? Television shows have seasons or series. Books are written word. Video, you know, moving images, are on the screen, and are different from books. Nobody else around here is talking about stuff in upcoming books, we are all talking about the first season/series and beyond. Why can't you? Okay, sure there could be a language difference, but follow the lead of others, the example others are setting throughout the forums here when talking about the show. That should be an excellent guide to teach you the appropriate words to use. You don't just get to make up your own terminology (or spelling of a character's name, or initialision of a term, "main character") as you wish.

 

tl;dr -- MC is an initialisation of a name which would be a Mat Cauthon (in the context of the show). Moiraine Damodred is how her name is spelled. A television show is broken up into seasons or series (depending on which country you live in), not books. You have had it explained to you. This is how it works in English. If this isn't your native tongue, now you know. If it is your native tongue, what the frak is wrong with you. Use it correctly from now on please, or just keep it to yourself instead of making youself look silly. Twice now you've had this all explained to you. At least.  

Edited April 10, 2020 by imlad

[Elendir]

On 4/6/2020 at 10:15 PM, imlad said:

And again, how many frakking thousands of times did you see the name Moiraine in the books when you read them? I know it wasn't spelled Morain in the copies you read, unless you got some incredibly black market hand written copies in a back alley somewhere. It is Moiraine Moiraine Moiraine Moiraine Moiraine MOIRAINE MOIRAINE M-O-I-R-A-I-N-E. Do you get it yet "Eldir"? Huh Endir? Can you see yet how it is spelled Elnir? Say it with me... em oh eye ar ay eye en ee. If you want to be taken seriously and not as some crackpot who can't read or has no reading comprehension, spell the name correctly. 

Okay, since you're asking the question repeatedly, I'll tell you about it, even if it's off topic. I read the series 4 - 6 (first 6 last 4). I do not know how many times I came across the name Moiraine and how many other names. Nothing less, I always have to copy the name from somewhere to make it right, except a few short name. The correct order of letters has never been so important to me when reading.

I refer to the books because I do not know for sure what the series will contain.

Are you satisfied?

 

And now more on the subject. The reasons why the visit to Adeleas and Vandene should not be explicitly depicted in the series.

NOT REASON
0. Although it may seem from my previous references. I do not consider as reason that Moiraine should free up space in the second book for others (after her lead in the first book). She should be part of second book, but the storyline of the book allows us to reduce her occurrence.

REASONS

1. Obligatory, the story must be reduced and the least substantial parts need to be cut.

2. The location appears little and contains characters that appear again a few books further.

3. A superficial depiction of how Moiraine reads would not be very entertaining, and a detailed depiction would then spoiler the rest of her actions in the books.

 

The visit of Moiraine to Adeleas and Vandene is essential part of her arc. She started her changing there. However Robert Jordan had reason to do not spoil it to as then.

[2RiversFan]

Wow, it seems to me that some people need to take a step back, take a chill pill or something similarly relaxing, and then realize that not everyone on this board is writing in their native language.

 

Sometimes, people take offense when someone else hasn't communicated concisely enough for the hearer's/reader's liking.  This often occurs when someone is trying to communicate in a language that isn't their first and possibly not even their second language.

 

[Effete]

On 4/10/2020 at 9:26 AM, Elendir said:

I did not see anybody use acronyms in such way here, as you two expected from me.

You need to read think in context and do not see Mat everywhere.

I do not know what the meaning of MC = Mat would make in this sentence:

 

However that still doesn't prevent you from quickly pointing out who's to blame.

 

I think you are lying when you say you cannot see how "MC" can be confused with Mat Cauthon, as it makes PERFECT SENSE within the context of removing characters from a story arc. Stop making excuses for yourself and own up to your mistake. 

 

The main character of the book before the third book is the main character of the second book (or or the first book, but I thought the second). If for you the MC from the book before the third book was Mat. So you wrote about Mat from the second book. “context”

 

This is such a dishonest argument to make. On so many levels! First, you KNOW that I read "MC" as Mat Cauthon, NOT "main character" so it's entirely disingenuous for you to frame this response as me thinking Mat was a main character of any of the books.

 

Second, I definitely WAS talking about Mat from Book 3 because YOU said, "Third book will again connected with 'disappearing' of MC from book..." You don't get to alter reality.

 

I've patiently explained how your post was confusing, but instead of saying, "whoops sorry," you have been nothing short of obstinate and deflectionary. Pathetic!

[SinisterDeath]

*Mod Hat*

Everyone take a chill pill before this thread gets locked.

[Effete]

Back to the topic...

 

What I would tell Rafe, if given the chance, would be:

 

1) leave modern socio-political retoric out of the show. The vast majority of people don't espouse the type of ideology being pushed in many TV shows, movies, comic books, and video games, and the feeling of being "preached at" is the one and only cause these ventures fail.

 

I placed this at number 1 because it is THE most important piece of advice I can give. Jordan went into excruciating detail to describe what certain people from certain places looked like. All you need to do, Rafe, is give us an accurate depiction; there is more than enough "diversity" in the books already without trying to force it. Likewise, Jordan's portrayal of females is quite empowered, but they are also deeply flawed as well. Allow them to fail. It's humanizing.

 

2) Show, don't tell. As I said in a previous post, one of the major factors between a good story and a poor one is the use of exposition. When characters need to relay information to the audience, do it in an organic way, with believable dialog. Not in a hamfisted way.

 

The phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words" is one I think many modern show writers have never heard. Don't fall into that trap. Jordan had a lot of banal dialog in his books (and it's one of my major criticisms of the novels), but it's more forgivable with a written medium. With visuals, you can present so much more in the span of a few seconds than RJ did with an entire page. Having characters emote and react to each without a single word is far more poignant than some of the tripe back-and-forth dialog Jordan used. In short, trim the fat.

 

3) Subtlety with the visuals. Don't try to be a Marvel movie. I think the One Power would be much better depicted through suggestion, rather than overt CGI. Only if a scene is meant to been seen from a channeler's perspective, or if showing the weave is pertinent to the narrative, should it be shown. Focus on the story and the interactions being characters. "Trying to please everyone, you'll please no one."

[Ascended]

I agree with a lot of what people are saying. 

 

Regarding the focus on Moraine....that makes sense for season 1. That first book, a big part of it is figuring out which of the boys the Dark One is really after. So sure, for season 1, or however long it takes them to tell the story of EotW, I don't mind if Moraine gets the lion's share of screen time....as long as subsequent seasons branch out just as the books did, and the show shifts into not having a main character at all. 

 

Beyond that....it's already been said but I'll support the "don't skimp the details" stuff. The real glory of these books are in the quiet moments; that's where we truly feel for and understand these characters. I don't want this show to just be a highlight reel where actors move from one big set piece or plot point to another. The only exception to that would be Perrin's plot when Faile is captured and Elayne's war for the crown. That stuff can be moved through quickly without losing anything I think, but otherwise....take the time to give us those small, seemingly meaningless moments. They add up and they pay off in a way rushing the plot never, ever will.

 

But if I could tell the crew and cast just one thing.....it's "this is not your story." I am not interested at all in somebody's translation, or see their own spin and "improvements" on the story. Do what Jordan (and then Sanderson if the show makes it that far) put on the page, whether it was the best choice or not, whether you agree with it or not. I know that the shift to television will require *some* adjustment. Of course it will. But those adjustments should be made only where they must be, and nowhere else. 

[Guest MDfromMD]

On 1/30/2020 at 1:27 AM, bmarluke said:

 

This is where I definitively and categorically disagree. There are far, far too many examples of outstanding TV and movies that have almost no swearing in them, who have gone on to reach cult status, critical acclaim, and billions in revenues. If this series focuses on the battles, gore, and nudity, it will probably do fine. I will just hate it and pull a Kesey on its sorry @ss. (in reference to Ken Kesey refusing to watch the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest movie after the script was basically stolen and mangled.)  Naw, just kidding, I'd watch it, but still piss and moan about it over a pint.

 

I can totally see fame and fortune any way they go here. The story is just that good. GOT proved tits and blood works. Star Wars proved that deep character development, no boobs, no swearing, and special effects works. (Nerf herder??) LOTR proved that a cult following can propel a book into a blockbuster movie even though there where MAJOR transgressions on the story in the making... (I love both.) Both have their own place.

 

I guess what I am saying here is, making broad sweeping statements of failure is pointless. Getting pissed off over the casting is pointless. This story is great and the TV show good or bad will not change my mind on that. IF this show crosses too many lines, the community will be pissed and I'm guessing the show will still do fine. BUT remember, we have some outstanding talent on our side and we NEED to remember they are fighting for Jordan's vision. Harriet McDougal, Brandon Sanderson, and many, many others are working on making this one of the best flaming, bloody, mother milk in a cup TV show we have ever seen. (thank you)

 

OH, lastly, WOT can absolutely be for kids. I would recommend 10+. As the story is a bit too complicated for younger... But, this series is no darker than the last two books of Harry Potter or The Hunger Games. Which I might add was for sale at my daughters 5th grade book fair... (WTF?!) WOT COULD be made in a way so it didn't warrant an R rating. I for one, hope they do. It will let the story be shared with more people. And it will mean that the story mattered more than the tits and gore... Which, in my humble opinion, it should.

 

 

^^ This^^

I'm late to this string, but we're greatly looking fwd to WoT on Amazon Prime.

A lot of good points hv bn made above, and I'm hoping the show is going to be more TV14,

so I can rec it to more of my family/friends. 

We did not watch GoT - but big LOTR fans, and I think RJ wrote this to be more like LOTR.

And I think it will hv a larger audience if it's more like LOTR.

Stargate SG-1 changed fm R on ShowTime to TV-14/PG, and it did very well.

(Hopefully the producers are more interested in a larger audience,

than in GoT-like "critical acclaim"....)

[Harldin]

On 1/30/2020 at 4:27 PM, bmarluke said:

 

This is where I definitively and categorically disagree. There are far, far too many examples of outstanding TV and movies that have almost no swearing in them, who have gone on to reach cult status, critical acclaim, and billions in revenues. If this series focuses on the battles, gore, and nudity, it will probably do fine. I will just hate it and pull a Kesey on its sorry @ss. (in reference to Ken Kesey refusing to watch the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest movie after the script was basically stolen and mangled.)  Naw, just kidding, I'd watch it, but still piss and moan about it over a pint.

 

I can totally see fame and fortune any way they go here. The story is just that good. GOT proved tits and blood works. Star Wars proved that deep character development, no boobs, no swearing, and special effects works. (Nerf herder??) LOTR proved that a cult following can propel a book into a blockbuster movie even though there where MAJOR transgressions on the story in the making... (I love both.) Both have their own place.

 

I guess what I am saying here is, making broad sweeping statements of failure is pointless. Getting pissed off over the casting is pointless. This story is great and the TV show good or bad will not change my mind on that. IF this show crosses too many lines, the community will be pissed and I'm guessing the show will still do fine. BUT remember, we have some outstanding talent on our side and we NEED to remember they are fighting for Jordan's vision. Harriet McDougal, Brandon Sanderson, and many, many others are working on making this one of the best flaming, bloody, mother milk in a cup TV show we have ever seen. (thank you)

 

OH, lastly, WOT can absolutely be for kids. I would recommend 10+. As the story is a bit too complicated for younger... But, this series is no darker than the last two books of Harry Potter or The Hunger Games. Which I might add was for sale at my daughters 5th grade book fair... (WTF?!) WOT COULD be made in a way so it didn't warrant an R rating. I for one, hope they do. It will let the story be shared with more people. And it will mean that the story mattered more than the tits and gore... Which, in my humble opinion, it should.

 

Battlestar Galactica used Frak instead of F**k and was very successful, so no you don’t need to use modern swear words. But no swear words or strong sex scenes are not the only things that will draw a strong rating, This series should be very heavy on violence and Horror themes, and lets not forget that there is a lot of casual nudity in the Books. 
The warnings i expect to see for this series are

strong violence

horror themes

nudity

sex themes

and occasionally “Sex Scene”

Seeing Dark Spawn is going to scare the c””p out of a lot of people

 

[Guest death masks bravery]

I think the most qualitative detail in movie/tv production, is the class point of presentation in production.

Theres a sort of grain, in dispatching the sequence of actors and landscapes, that combine with the liteary poignancy of the effecting theme. A hue of parameters and distortions, that leave the length of the entire title, stemmed throughout the core of the bridgeworks, set to the entire cited arc of the passage system within.

 

If you were to recall Willow, from a distant point of growing up in the 90s, and not affectualizing the D*D fantasy class throughout the 80s, youd recall the short magical imp, set to save the grace of a baby, supported by the key role figure of a knight named 'Madmartigan', the three tributes of the story point go decisively by grace, hope and pertinence. to its time, the best set accolade they had, was a helecopter, and the weather, plus the perfectly prompt influence of the extras, as stemming from the time and ideals of communal production that would have been headway at the time... these things combine a glint over a piece of work, the thing that defines it on the shelf to its book spine.

 

Dragonheart - Dennis quaid, played the lout in voilition, to the stagecraft of Sean Connery as a mere voice, but in its essence of cheesy villanry, the real citation of the dragons relation to the bad king, set back against the ancient trust, that was once, and always is the stories of kingdoms of old, it actualizes itself from the first feignt of that story, into the last redress of its climax facing ends..

 

The First Knight - a profile adaptation of King Arthur, set so novelly into the rhetoric of it being a far off spun tale from the Dark  Ages, only resonated by its promoted regality, from within the middle ages therein, Armor and rank, and order, and conduct, within the economic philosophy of the feudal system, rode genuinely in the support of its production profile.

 

Gladiator, Braveheart, Stuart Little...they all have an expression of moments that build simultaneously, and establish a foundation of ultimate rhetoric within dispatch of the quarry of their entire submission.

 

 

But then there are movies or tv shows, that fill scenes in with layered silence, and pogoing interactions, where for fleeting moments, your left with the perception of the actor or actress, trying to decipher the story, with quaint brilliance, in itself for being a mere identity of a show or movie that it is inside the harnessed passage of portraying.

 

But with this, it is Wheel of Time, beginning back from the span of the 80s, and reaching through the labored sets of cultured personality, gained in adolescence, before these times have nominally set the process of prdouce as much semblant quotes as possible, to fill the range of notorious outliers, in the seed of one degenerative collaboration of exported materials.

 

Do not turn Wheel of Time into that outdrift through your staffing profile. Work them, and assign the distinction of the class system of the story to be generated and pertinently matched, on the series outlet, being afforded to govern that very directive.

 

sink in, get ready, you got 30+ years of regimental decision to go by.. use it wisely..

[imlad]

Uh... what? I know I didn't smoke that much, that I'm not that high right now*, but I know you're trying to say something, and you used a lot of great words and phrases, but I don't get how they fit together and say anything as a cohesive whole. I'm totally lost reading that. Sorry mate. What did you say? ?

 

 

* It is legal where I live (as it should be), so please, don't kavitch. ?

[Thrasymachus]

While being somewhat prone to erudite loquaciousness myself, I was likewise lost as to the meaning of the above post.  The best I can reckon is that he wishes to recommend to make sure to establish a kind of character for the show.  Something that's not quite a theme but more of a style or aesthetic.  I think.

[imlad]

47 minutes ago, Thrasymachus said:

While being somewhat prone to erudite loquaciousness myself, I was likewise lost as to the meaning of the above post.  The best I can reckon is that he wishes to recommend to make sure to establish a kind of character for the show.  Something that's not quite a theme but more of a style or aesthetic.  I think.

 

Oooh, nicely used vocabulary there! ???

[mistborn82]

I don't smoke anything and I was lost too.

[2RiversFan]

I haven't been high in over 30 years, it wasn't the herbs Imlad. I'm not trying to mock or be rude by saying this, it was just pretty hard to understand.

But having said that, my best guess is that @death masks bravery is trying to say is something about how a movie can attain symmetry / balance if the characters are introduced in the correct atmosphere/scenery.  Doing so makes it more poignant and pulls the audience in deeper.

If that is what his point was, I agree. 

[SinisterDeath]

2 hours ago, 2RiversFan said:

I haven't been high in over 30 years, it wasn't the herbs Imlad. I'm not trying to mock or be rude by saying this, it was just pretty hard to understand.

But having said that, my best guess is that @death masks bravery is trying to say is something about how a movie can attain symmetry / balance if the characters are introduced in the correct atmosphere/scenery.  Doing so makes it more poignant and pulls the audience in deeper.

If that is what his point was, I agree. 

There's a 75% chance, he's a spam bot. Future posts will confirm.

[2RiversFan]

On 6/18/2020 at 1:35 PM, SinisterDeath said:

There's a 75% chance, he's a spam bot. Future posts will confirm.

 

Lol...  Color me embarrassed in that case for not realizing that.

[Thrasymachus]

It does rather read like something a bot that was trained on some high-level literature and movie/TV analysis would put together.

[SinisterDeath]

On 6/19/2020 at 5:23 PM, 2RiversFan said:

 

Lol...  Color me embarrassed in that case for not realizing that.

If I had a super power, it would be spotting fake accounts, spam bots, etc.

Like, that hot girl/guy on facebook that sent you a friend request?
Total bot. STILL see people just blindly 'accepting' those invites.