Sanderson's Recent Interview

[Elder_Haman]

I think the question that you have to ask is what combination of events, timing, and location are necessary to maintain Jordan's vision. So to go down your list:

 

1. Baerlon

4 minutes ago, redgiant said:

Baerlon (b/c of Min, Morraine vs Children of the Light)

What's important here is the events, but not so much the timing or location. Both of these events can be moved to another time and/or location without sacrificing much, if anything, of Jordan's vision.

 

2. Four Kings

7 minutes ago, redgiant said:

Four Kings (b/c of Matt's condition and Rand taking care of him against Hake, and what Rand does but doesn't realize he did yet, and in the TV show I presume it would be the same for the audience not to know for a while in how they depict it occurring)

Again, the events are important - especially Rand's channeling. From a timing standpoint, that needs to happen when Moiraine isn't around, but otherwise these events can be moved geographically without sacrificing much. 

 

I'm guessing the events of Four Kings will be changed to incorporate Thom's introduction. But the meat of what's important will probably be kept in some form or fasion.

 

3. Whitebridge

9 minutes ago, redgiant said:

Whitebridge (b/c of Thom and what happens, and the awe of the bridge itself and a reminder to the audience of the at-this-point mysterious and largely unexplained AoL, and its world building)

Thom's "sacrifice" at Whitebridge is not that important and the Bridge is unnecessary - we will get plenty of awe and wonder and mystery. Easy cut.

 

4. Camelyn

11 minutes ago, redgiant said:

Camelyn (this is a MAJOR omission and change for quite a few reasons which everyone knows, like omitting Bree in LOTR)

Lots of important stuff happens in Camelyn. But for simplicity's sake, you can break it down to three important things: meeting Loial, meeting Elaida and the Trakands, and the moment when Rand sees Logain.

 

Loial (and the Queen's Blessing) can easily be moved to somewhere Camelyn adjacent. The Rand/Logain moment can likewise be moved to anywhere. And the Trakands are best saved for season 2 for lots of different reasons. It's really not like omitting Bree from LotR at all - the hobbits sought out Bree because that's where Gandalf told them to go (and where he sent Aragorn). Camelyn is never an intended destination for the EF5.

 

16 minutes ago, redgiant said:

And as to changing the Eye, Malkier, Tarwin's Gap, Green Man etc ... If they don't include Someshta then how would they have for example the utterly epic linkage much later in Forward and Back when we see how all this started in the AoL? A large part of the mystique and world-building of WoT is this linkage system he built up over the course of all these books: foreshadowing, back refs and so on. God don't lose that, Rafe.

Eh... I think we risk getting bogged down in the lore here. They don't need Someshta to link the Eye to the AoL. Indeed, cutting him makes sense for the same reasons cutting Bombadil made sense in LotR. It would require a ton of effort and energy to bring to the screen, but there's never any real payoff and we won't have sufficient time with Someshta on screen to care much about his death.

 

That's not to say that Rafe should abandon some of RJ's subtle foreshadowing or ignore the lore completely. It's just to say that none of these cuts will really do anything to damage the spine or heart of the story. 

[mistborn82]

@redgiantI think Four Kings or some combo of Four Kings/Whitebridge will be there, too much happens at those places. I think another reason Whitebridge is omitted is because the Thom incident is never made clear and is accepted as early bookism. I wish Baerlon could be included because of the line dancing scene. They're trying to keep the Dragon mysterious so no Eliada. Unlike books, you have to get people to play roles and that's basically a blink and you miss it scene. Big difference about Bree is Aragon stays with them whereas no one from Caemlyn becomes an MC, at that point.

[Guest redgiant]

On 7/13/2021 at 2:39 PM, Beidomon said:

Not as bad as the blatant fan servicing “let’s take all the favorite character on a hunting trip to catch an ice zombie - just think of all the great banter” episode. That was the show’s zenith. Or maybe it was turning the Night King into a level boss. Or… damn those last couple of seasons just got so bad. 

The last two seasons were chock full of good-looking visuals and cool ideas, with crappy dialogue and plot surrounding them. It was literally jarring to see how pretty everything was but with 3rd-rate script and plot elements all around them, like the dragon and the lake, but with the lead-up excuse as to why they are even there and how they got there it ruined it quite a bit for me. I felt sorry for the actors b/c you know they realized this while making it I am sure. It's painfully obvious.

Edited July 15, 2021 by redgiant

[Harldin]

8 hours ago, redgiant said:

Well although I agree with your idea of nits vs material things, I have to say that these being omitted *is not* very close to the books for me, but it could all work out if what is there is exceptionally done in the spirit of Jordan's book vision - its just to me, some of these scenes that are being dropped *are* the best way to express certain aspects of his vision and world-building early on; it remains to be seen if worthy substitutes or alterations work:

• Baerlon (b/c of Min, Morraine vs Children of the Light)
• Four Kings (b/c of Matt's condition and Rand taking care of him against Hake, and what Rand does but doesn't realize he did yet, and in the TV show I presume it would be the same for the audience not to know for a while in how they depict it occurring) - I think 4K is in from what I've seen
• Whitebridge (b/c of Thom and what happens, and the awe of the bridge itself and a reminder to the audience of the at-this-point mysterious and largely unexplained AoL, and its world building)
• Camelyn (this is a MAJOR omission and change for quite a few reasons which everyone knows, like omitting Bree in LOTR)

 

(are any of the above known to be included yet?)

 

I get the rationales given for all of these changes, but they each have their valid reasons for being included, and if I had one choice I could include it would be Camelyn, there's just too many cool and important things happening there. If they drop  Camelyn, they better at least hit the nail on the head at the Eye itself conveying when Rand's hair on his neck stands up, he backs away from the pool but doesn't really know why, and its a very subtly-handled moment on film I hope - I need to see Rand plastered up against that wall but not even realizing he did it, so Josha please sell this scene! (Four Kings alone doesn't convey this b/c we are not supposed to connect what happened there yet on its own).

 

And as to changing the Eye, Malkier, Tarwin's Gap, Green Man etc ... If they don't include Someshta then how would they have for example the utterly epic linkage much later in Forward and Back when we see how all this started in the AoL? A large part of the mystique and world-building of WoT is this linkage system he built up over the course of all these books: foreshadowing, back refs and so on. God don't lose that, Rafe.

Who said 4 Kings and Whitebridge have been dropped? Caemlyn almost certainly has, disappointing but i understand and agree with the reasons, Baerlyn probably has been but there is no certainty. 

[Elder_Haman]

9 hours ago, Harldin said:

Who said 4 Kings and Whitebridge have been dropped?

At a minimum, I'm guessing they've been combined just for purposes of pacing.

[king of nowhere]

iirc, they mentioned 4 locations for which they made big sets.

two of them are emond field and shadar logoth, for sure. we're not sure about the other two.

 

this does not preclude smaller location like "a random tavern" or "a random farm"

[Elder_Haman]

8 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

iirc, they mentioned 4 locations for which they made big sets.

two of them are emond field and shadar logoth, for sure. we're not sure about the other two.

 

this does not preclude smaller location like "a random tavern" or "a random farm"

The "4 locations" was discussed in terms of a hypothetical, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that being the actual number of "big sets" being 4. But we do know about a few "big sets":

 

Emond's Field

Shadar Logoth

The unnamed village built in the quarry

Fal Dara

An unnamed location (Ghealdan) used for Logain filming

 

It is also most definitely the case that smaller locations - especially interiors - are easily done in the studio. And we will certainly be getting digital additions. 

[TheMountain]

Elder_Haman, I think your arguments make sense... if the only thing we care about in the story is character development. For myself and I think a lot of other people, the worldbuilding of WoT is a unique strength, a major draw to the series, and sets it apart. I think that the more we take away from that, the more generic and forgettable we become, even if it ends up being "good."

[mistborn82]

Thing is though, unlike a book where you can create locations with words, in TVland, it takes money. I know Bezos is a mega-billionaire and we should be getting real shadowspawn and all the bells and whistles, we just aren't. Maybe someone can convert Bezos into a superfan but until then, we have to make do.

Along with @Elder_Hamanlist of cities, we also know we're getting Tar Valon.

[Elder_Haman]

25 minutes ago, TheMountain said:

Elder_Haman, I think your arguments make sense... if the only thing we care about in the story is character development. For myself and I think a lot of other people, the worldbuilding of WoT is a unique strength, a major draw to the series, and sets it apart. I think that the more we take away from that, the more generic and forgettable we become, even if it ends up being "good."

There's no question that WoT's worldbuilding is a unique strength that sets the series apart!! But that worldbuilding can't sustain multiple seasons of a tv show unless that show's characters are compelling. The task for the writers is to build good characters first and then fill the world around them. 

 

This process doesn't have to detract from RJ's worldbuilding (though it is no doubt a danger) and can - if done properly - highlight the worldbuilding. Whatever happens, character development has to come first and the things that detract from telling a good story about the characters should properly be discarded.

[SinisterDeath]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

The "4 locations" was discussed in terms of a hypothetical, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that being the actual number of "big sets" being 4. But we do know about a few "big sets":

 

Emond's Field

Shadar Logoth

The unnamed village built in the quarry

Fal Dara

An unnamed location (Ghealdan) used for Logain filming

 

It is also most definitely the case that smaller locations - especially interiors - are easily done in the studio. And we will certainly be getting digital additions. 

Was just thinking... "Big Set" is an interesting choice of words.
Emond's Field is a "tangible" location, just like Fal Dara, that the characters "explore" multiple locations.

Caemlyn & Shadar Logoth don't actually need to be big sets. They can be almost 100% CG. The "sets" for those locations can come down to Inns, Taverns, "Houses". We the viewer don't need to "actually" see Rand exploring all of Caemlyn, we only really need to see the Inn set, and maybe a courtyard set.

Something like Four Kings & White Bridge could be a mix of big and small set... depending.
Heck, do we count a "real" city as a "big set"?

[Thrasymachus]

Cutting Caemlyn makes little sense, as Basel Gill's tavern could have been a redressed tavern set they're going to need a lot of anyway, and the Caemlyn palace and palace grounds are important settings for future events anyway, so they should have just gotten that very expensive set designed and built and out of the way for season one.  Cutting it is only a good idea for not having to cast and keep under contract the Trakands, who would otherwise have a brief scene and then not show up again until season 2.  But replacing it with Tar Valon, having the Emond's Field 5, and particularly Rand, go there on the way to the Eye, just blatantly undermines and ignores important symbolism RJ drew upon and built into his story and world.  But this show doesn't seem to care that much about that kind of symbolism.  I would not be surprised to see them change Tar Valon so that it no longer resembles female genitalia, or put Dragonmount so close it actually overshadows the city and the Tower.

[SinisterDeath]

1 hour ago, Thrasymachus said:

Cutting Caemlyn makes little sense, as Basel Gill's tavern could have been a redressed tavern set they're going to need a lot of anyway, and the Caemlyn palace and palace grounds are important settings for future events anyway, so they should have just gotten that very expensive set designed and built and out of the way for season one.  Cutting it is only a good idea for not having to cast and keep under contract the Trakands, who would otherwise have a brief scene and then not show up again until season 2.  But replacing it with Tar Valon, having the Emond's Field 5, and particularly Rand, go there on the way to the Eye, just blatantly undermines and ignores important symbolism RJ drew upon and built into his story and world.  But this show doesn't seem to care that much about that kind of symbolism.  I would not be surprised to see them change Tar Valon so that it no longer resembles female genitalia, or put Dragonmount so close it actually overshadows the city and the Tower.

...What... What if they make it even more obvious? Like, a couple of different shades of Pink walls, lots of trees along the ports, and an infamous tavern no man can find?

[Thrasymachus]

Subtlety and symbolism are just not the strong suit of today's TV showrunners, I guess, nor of audiences I suppose.

[Elder_Haman]

14 hours ago, Thrasymachus said:

But replacing it with Tar Valon, having the Emond's Field 5, and particularly Rand, go there on the way to the Eye, just blatantly undermines and ignores important symbolism RJ drew upon and built into his story and world. 

There’s no proof this is going to happen. We know there is a Tar Valon set. But it is not confirmed that any of the EF5 will go there. And definitely not confirmed that Rand will go there. 
 

It’s also worth keeping in mind that Rand DOES go to Tar Valon in EotW - albeit in a dream. So we shouldn’t just assume that any appearance in TV will be a giant deviation. 
 

As for the symbolism, I can cope if the city isn’t shaped like a giant vagina. 

[king of nowhere]

to be noted that when they scripted season 1 they had no guarantee there would be a season 2, so making an unnecessary caemlyn set that could be easily cut out in season 1 because it would be relevant in season 2 may not have been their priority.

now that they have been confirmed for more, it's fairly sure they will have permanent sets for most main cities

[Harldin]

2 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

to be noted that when they scripted season 1 they had no guarantee there would be a season 2, so making an unnecessary caemlyn set that could be easily cut out in season 1 because it would be relevant in season 2 may not have been their priority.

now that they have been confirmed for more, it's fairly sure they will have permanent sets for most main cities

Not sure we will see Caemlyn in S2 either, its only appearance in books 2 and 3 are when Mat drops off Elayne’s letter to Morgase and with Tar Valon a certainty, Falme a probable, Carhien a fair chance and Tear a possibility, they are are not short for Cities.

[SinisterDeath]

23 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

 

As for the symbolism, I can cope if the city isn’t shaped like a giant vagina. 

I'm gonna be that "well actually guy" here.

It's shaped like a Vulva, not a vagina. ?

 

[thoughtless]

On 7/2/2021 at 6:18 AM, johnnysd said:

In terms of Sanderson, I hate his WoT books and do not consider them cannon so not super concerned about his opinion.

Here's a hot take: Robert Jordan's decision to hand over the series to Brandon Sanderson is the definitive one in terms of what constitutes canon, rather than some random fan on the internet. Honestly it's pretty weird and disrespectful to look to disregard what amounted to a dying wish. You're allowed not like the Sanderson books, but you really don't get a say in whether they count as authentic.

[thoughtless]

On 7/17/2021 at 4:05 PM, Elder_Haman said:

As for the symbolism, I can cope if the city isn’t shaped like a giant vagina. 

If Tar Valon isn't shaped like a vulva it will shatter my suspension of disbelief. Also there need to be exactly thirteen Forsaken or else the show won't make sense. And the protagonists should all be solid, Anglo-Saxon types, ideally with early modern European teeth. And if there are no chameleon cloaks for the Warders, I'm burning down the city of Prague.

 

[SinisterDeath]

51 minutes ago, thoughtless said:

If Tar Valon isn't shaped like a vulva it will shatter my suspension of disbelief. Also there need to be exactly thirteen Forsaken or else the show won't make sense. And the protagonists should all be solid, Anglo-Saxon types, ideally with early modern European teeth. And if there are no chameleon cloaks for the Warders, I'm burning down the city of Prague.

 

[Beidomon]

13 hours ago, thoughtless said:

Here's a hot take: Robert Jordan's decision to hand over the series to Brandon Sanderson is the definitive one in terms of what constitutes canon, rather than some random fan on the internet. Honestly it's pretty weird and disrespectful to look to disregard what amounted to a dying wish. You're allowed not like the Sanderson books, but you really don't get a say in whether they count as authentic.

It’s like, just his opinion, man. Let’s just chill with all the disrespecting a dying wish stuff, k?

[Harldin]

On 7/21/2021 at 10:47 PM, thoughtless said:

Here's a hot take: Robert Jordan's decision to hand over the series to Brandon Sanderson is the definitive one in terms of what constitutes canon, rather than some random fan on the internet. Honestly it's pretty weird and disrespectful to look to disregard what amounted to a dying wish. You're allowed not like the Sanderson books, but you really don't get a say in whether they count as authentic.

Robert Jordan didn’t hand the series over to Brandon Sanderson Harriet McDougall did. 

[thoughtless]

9 hours ago, Harldin said:

Robert Jordan didn’t hand the series over to Brandon Sanderson Harriet McDougall did. 

Isn't that just disregarding a dying wish with extra steps?

 

Nah look, genuine apologies to johnny for going overboard, there was something about the tenor of the comment that got under my skin. I'm in the middle of a reread atm and am mad excited to see a new vision of the story on screen, and really hope people can let go of not-useful attachments to trivial details and enjoy the series if it's a good piece of work in and of itself. Hardcore purism detracts from the whole thing (as it did for the deeply unfortunate people who weren't able to enjoy even the early, excellent seasons of GoT), including the social aspect of chatting shit about it (or lurking!). I think it's gonna be awesome seeing an insanely talented, attractive, and diverse cast bring these characters and plots to life, and if (a) it's any good at all, and (b) we get to the end - as conceived by Jordan and written by Sanderson, in line with his and his widow's wishes - we'll be the luckiest fanbase going. And that's absolutely the case whether or not Balthamel or Someshta or whatever other pissant character shows up. ?