Trailer Drops Tomorrow

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

1 hour ago, Daenelia said:

And the story at its core, even if I am not always happy with the writing and telling of the story.

 

Tell us more about that. 

What would you say is the core of the story?

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

6 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

Keep one other thing in mind - Elaida’s rationale for the coup. It’s a little convoluted and not the easiest to explain. Putting Moiraine and Logain together might very well link to that storyline. Perhaps Moiraine is blamed for Logain’s escape? Siuan sides with Moiraine and Elaida uses that fact to drive the coup. 

 

I like this idea. If the scenes they add - help enhance and show the story of the books then I'm going to be really pleased. Which is why I think using Logain more sooner could be a great idea - then you can show why people are so conflicted about the Dragon ... because men who can channel are the boogie man and if there's a Dragon then the end is really near. 

 

But ... The other thing I want them to change that... Unless they're just being really clever I don't think we're seeing this season... is to enhance the Forsaken. Give us some backstory. Show us rivalries and motivations and hints of madness. 

 

They are very 2D and a little unbelievable in the books. They could be done better by the show. I especially wanna see Lanfear and Demandred. 

 

Anybody think we're going to get a lot more of the Forsaken in later seasons? Or will they be massively condensed? Like maybe we only get 3 Forsaken? 

[Beidomon]

6 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

You realize, saying "W" instead of Woke is still saying it right?

 

Just like putting *@$& in place of the letters after the F bomb, is still infact making people read the word.

You’re right. Is that a problem? Is that word verboten on this forum? You seem to be very touchy about this. More so than, say, another moderator with whom I’m having a very good, respectful, and interesting dialogue. “The W” is a legitimate issue even if you disagree. 

[SinisterDeath]

18 minutes ago, Beidomon said:

You’re right. Is that a problem? Is that word verboten on this forum? You seem to be very touchy about this. More so than, say, another moderator with whom I’m having a very good, respectful, and interesting dialogue. “The W” is a legitimate issue even if you disagree. 

Just don't call other users "Woke", or "SJWs" like an insult, and you should be good.

As for whining about the show being "Woke"... I find it's a stupidly lazy criticism, that instantly makes me lose a little respect for the user each time they use it.

[Beidomon]

8 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Just don't call other users "Woke", or "SJWs" like an insult, and you should be good.

As for whining about the show being "Woke"... I find it's a stupidly lazy criticism, that instantly makes me lose a little respect for the user each time they use it.

K. I see no reason to call other users “woke” (although I do think it’s funny that this has now become an insult given that the word started as signaling virtue). I’m very sorry to have lost your respect. It’s a legit issue that is causing me concern because I really want WOTTV to be good. Even better than WOT. It really can be, if they stick to the story but tighten things up and add some depth. 

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

5 minutes ago, Beidomon said:

K. I see no reason to call other users “woke” (although I do think it’s funny that this has now become an insult given that the word started as signaling virtue). I’m very sorry to have lost your respect. It’s a legit issue that is causing me concern because I really want WOTTV to be good. Even better than WOT. It really can be, if they stick to the story but tighten things up and add some depth.

 

We'll be able to tell which way it's going to go based on: if they don't transition at some point (at the end of S1) to the main focus being on 

Spoiler

Rand and the Dragon

Rather than on Moiraine and the Aes Sedai. 

 

At least that's what I think. 

 

[CaddySedai]

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Just don't call other users "Woke", or "SJWs"

 

But SD, you are totally a Saidin Justice Warrior. 

 

Ahhh wait… I misunderstood the acronym. 

 

Carry on. 

[king of nowhere]

1 hour ago, SinisterDeath said:

Just don't call other users "Woke", or "SJWs" like an insult, and you should be good.

As for whining about the show being "Woke"... I find it's a stupidly lazy criticism, that instantly makes me lose a little respect for the user each time they use it.

"they ruined the story conform to a political agenda"

or

"they added useless and contrived plot to tell and aesop"

 

is a perfectly legitimate criticism. or source of worry if you've only seen a trailer.

I don't think that will be the case; it's something extremely rare. Though I can later books by terry pratchett (of whom, by the way, I am a fan) being ruined by trying too hard to tell an aesop. Even though it's an aesop I do actually agree with, I still don't like authors using a story for political propaganda, not even when it propagandizes some ideas I share.

 

That said, there's no need to use "woke" as an insult. It can be used as legitimate criticism.

And while I do not think wottv will have that problem, I'm not losing respect for someone quoting the various interviews with rafe getting excited about inclusion to claim he's afraid the show could be leaning into politics too much.

 

Of course, I could still lose respect for statements like "eeewww, there's women in leading roles, that could give strange ideas to our daughters" or "there's a gay couple, that's perverse and degenerate". But those are not the kind of statements that were being made.

[SinisterDeath]

21 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

"they ruined the story conform to a political agenda"

or

"they added useless and contrived plot to tell and aesop"

 

is a perfectly legitimate criticism. or source of worry if you've only seen a trailer.

I don't think that will be the case; it's something extremely rare. Though I can later books by terry pratchett (of whom, by the way, I am a fan) being ruined by trying too hard to tell an aesop. Even though it's an aesop I do actually agree with, I still don't like authors using a story for political propaganda, not even when it propagandizes some ideas I share.

 

That said, there's no need to use "woke" as an insult. It can be used as legitimate criticism.

And while I do not think wottv will have that problem, I'm not losing respect for someone quoting the various interviews with rafe getting excited about inclusion to claim he's afraid the show could be leaning into politics too much.

 

Of course, I could still lose respect for statements like "eeewww, there's women in leading roles, that could give strange ideas to our daughters" or "there's a gay couple, that's perverse and degenerate". But those are not the kind of statements that were being made.

Let me put it this way.

 

Casting non-white actors, and creating "gay" characters isn't "pushing a political agenda".

The Push back against those things, actually IS a political agenda.

 

"Woke" also doesn't mean what you think it means. (General You, not you the individual) 

Using it as a criticism in media, literally tells me what news channel you watch. ?

 

PC (political correctness) is at least something we should all be familiar with, and is probably the more apt word to use.

[Guire]

23 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

"they ruined the story conform to a political agenda"

or

"they added useless and contrived plot to tell and aesop"

 

is a perfectly legitimate criticism. or source of worry if you've only seen a trailer.

I don't think that will be the case; it's something extremely rare. Though I can later books by terry pratchett (of whom, by the way, I am a fan) being ruined by trying too hard to tell an aesop. Even though it's an aesop I do actually agree with, I still don't like authors using a story for political propaganda, not even when it propagandizes some ideas I share.

 

That said, there's no need to use "woke" as an insult. It can be used as legitimate criticism.

And while I do not think wottv will have that problem, I'm not losing respect for someone quoting the various interviews with rafe getting excited about inclusion to claim he's afraid the show could be leaning into politics too much.

 

Of course, I could still lose respect for statements like "eeewww, there's women in leading roles, that could give strange ideas to our daughters" or "there's a gay couple, that's perverse and degenerate". But those are not the kind of statements that were being made.

I am not overly concerned about woke reinterpretation of WoT.  I actually could see over sensitivity to social issues ruining series but so far I havent seen signs to indicate that.  Eamon Valda has a black actor in role.  If all the White Cloaks were white and white actors were cast exclusively in more villian type roles then I might see a point.  The original story already has pretty good male/female power balance and tiny bit we have seen reflects that reality.  Adding some gay  characters shouldn't affect story unless it majorly changes a storyline due romantic relationship. Say making Lan gay and losing relationship with Nyn.  But having Gaul be gay and leaving him as Perrin's running buddy without them having romance wouldn't change anything. 

 

My head cannon is probably way more diverse than what I have seen in casting so far. I do wish EF had a more consistent appearing racial composition but I know that casting acting skill is more important than having perfectly consistent look. I think we are good overall.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Guire

[Rose]

I personally don't see these changes as any different or inherently more political than others. Why do we see casting racially diverse actors, or giving increased focus to the female characters in the beginning, as more political than, say, giving Logain a more prominent role early on or condensing the plot of books 7-10? They're all choices being made to tell a compelling story that will work well on a visual medium, that will be accessible to modern, non-book-reader audiences, and that will address some of the (gasp!) issues in the source material. Why is one type of change instinctively being chalked up to a political agenda while the other is considered neutral? I feel there are assumptions underlying this distinction. In my opinion, the distinction doesn't have to be there. We can see all of these changes as artistic license on the part of the show, and consider them purely on their practical merits and what they actually achieve, rather than on the intent we assume motivates them. In my mind, all that matters is: Do these changes make the adaptation work for TV? Do they help bring in a new audience? Do they take away from the quality of the storytelling? That's what matters in the end, to me at least.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Rose

[CaddySedai]

I’m all for content but lets just make sure not to let this get out of hand. 

 

Not that it has, or will. Just be mindful ❤️

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

20 minutes ago, CaddySedai said:

I’m all for content but lets just make sure not to let this get out of hand. 

 

Not that it has, or will. Just be mindful

 

I agree. 

 

We have diverted from talking about the trailer...which is what this thread is about... and I know that because, there's literally nothing in the trailer that is "woke" or PC or whatever you want to call pushing one political agenda over against another. 

 

Now. I asked a good question above: 

4 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

Anybody think we're going to get a lot more of the Forsaken in later seasons? Or will they be massively condensed? Like maybe we only get 3 Forsaken? 

 

Let's talk about that. 

We know we didn't see Forsaken in the trailer right? 

[Guire]

15 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

 

I agree. 

 

We have diverted from talking about the trailer...which is what this thread is about... and I know that because, there's literally nothing in the trailer that is "woke" or PC or whatever you want to call pushing one political agenda over against another. 

 

Now. I asked a good question above: 

 

Let's talk about that. 

We know we didn't see Forsaken in the trailer right? 

I would like to see number of Forsaken cut some.  But agree they need a bit more heft as characters.  Not sure who I would cut.  Ish, Demandred, Lanfear, Moghedian, maybe Asmodian kind of untouchable.  Maybe combine Rahvin and Sammael.  Others have to think about. And yea pretty sure no Forsaken sightings yet.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Guire

[CaddySedai]

Mesaana should be expanded on. No bias tho. 

 

Not like I was Mesaana lmao

[Guire]

31 minutes ago, CaddySedai said:

Mesaana should be expanded on. No bias tho. 

 

Not like I was Mesaana lmao

If they keep all the forsaken except Messana a little bit of your soul would die right there huh?

[AusLeviathan]

49 minutes ago, Guire said:

I would like to see number of Forsaken cut some.

I feel like there being 13 of them is important thematically.

 

Plus the large number allows for some to be short term villains who get killed off whilst keeping enough of them around for the last battle.

[CaddySedai]

12 minutes ago, Guire said:

If they keep all the forsaken except Messana a little bit of your soul would die right there huh?

 

Yes, because she has such a cool arc to begin with culminating in being a vegetable lol. Still she survives! Something unique amongst the Chosen lol.

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

8 minutes ago, AusLeviathan said:

I feel like there being 13 of them is important thematically.

 

Plus the large number allows for some to be short term villains who get killed off whilst keeping enough of them around for the last battle.

 

I agree with you, it's just too many antagonists for TV. 

 

It's huge in the books - that they keep coming back as well. Makes you feel like ... It's impossible for the good guys to win. 

 

Ish/Moridin's whole rational ends up making a lot of sense. They could lose a million times, but they only need to win once. And they're bound to win once. 

 

Right? 

 

Unfortunately. I dunno how I would adapt it because that's just too many characters to keep track of for TV. 

 

I guess you could have 13 but really only cast or show 3 or 4, and the rest are just ...there... In the shadows.

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

It's something to keep in mind/not be too critical of for the show. Just like they're going to cut certain places because of budget ... And that dramatically alters the story. 

 

They're going to have to cut characters & plot-lines & focus in on just a few main arcs. 

 

So, for example, in this season, we're going to see less of Thom and Min and Lolial... Elyas may become Steppin... Faile maybe is gone but Layla or whatever replaces her and has some vestiges of her character. 

 

It just has to be done because you can't have 50 main actors. 25 full size sets. Toooons of extra/unnecessary description. 

 

It's gotta be TV interesting. 

Book fans are always going to have complaints because they are two very different mediums for telling stories. 

[AusLeviathan]

9 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

I guess you could have 13 but really only cast or show 3 or 4, and the rest are just ...there... In the shadows.

You don't need to have 13 at the same time, even in the books they appear in a staggered way. All you'd need to do is give some early appearances for some of them like Demandred and Graendal to other Forsaken.

 

Then you use the lesser Forsaken who do get killed before the last battle as mid and end season battles.

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

4 minutes ago, AusLeviathan said:

Then you use the lesser Forsaken who do get killed before the last battle as mid and end season battles.

 

I hope so. So far I like the antagonists we've seen. Fades and Trollocs and Shadar Logoth look good. 

[johnnysd]

11 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

 

There has not been someone cast as Elayne yet. You should note that half of those from the link you gave are rumors of questionable reliability.

Elayne has absolutely been cast as they are filming season 2 right now and the casting has been confirmed by staff on the show and she was in a couple pics with the cast,

[Harldin]

13 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

 

There has not been someone cast as Elayne yet. You should note that half of those from the link you gave are rumors of questionable reliability.

You want to back that up with some evidence, that Elayne has not been Cast. And I certainly don't agree with your questionable reliability comment, i have found the likes of Wotseries.com, Naeblis and Wotup to be fairly reliable. Ceara Coveney has now been invloved in filming for Weeks and fits the profile spot on, 

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

I was talking about season 1.

 

https://screenrant.com/wheel-time-show-release-date-cast-story-updates/

 

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/the-wheel-of-time-amazon-series-announces-more-castings/

 

But even for season two, one should note that no official sources have confirmed this info.

 

https://www.wotseries.com/2021/09/05/new-cast-alexander-karim-other-cast-updates/

 

Though, those speculating...as you've noted ... Are pretty good at it.