IGN Explainer - the Dark One

[Jackdaw_Fool]

51 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

So long as the Dragon cannot in fact be a woman, the state of Aes Sedai knowledge about who the Dragon may or may not be makes little, if any, difference to the characters, the plot, the magic system, or anything else that matters.

I think that's the part that a number of us disagree with. If the Aes Sedai believe the dragon can be female, there should  be changes of great consequence within the world. For one, this likely makes a female dragon preferable to a male one who must channel saidin and deal with the taint and likely go mad. That should be a huge plot point ripe for Aes Sedai manipulation/usage.

 

It's not difficult to imagine during the tower's history a strong sister (or sisters) attracting followers believing she to be the one, and the repercussions that would have. I'd imagine the DO would be very on board with the prophecies being non specific about gender to allow for and to make use of the divisions within the tower and the chaos that would certainly ensue. I'd further imagine that it wouldn't take very much manipulation on the DO's part to birth the Aes Sedai faction of male dragon reborn assassins... I don't think it would take much for some reds to truly believe it's best for the world to eliminate a male dragon with haste to roll the dice again and hope the pattern might spin out a female dragon, before all is lost. And the black ajah... Sowing division within the tower becomes easier, bringing about the death of the dragon reborn becomes easier... Things of consequence should  happen.

 

And presumably if there are no prophesies specifying the dragon reborn to be male, and the Aes Sedai believe a female dragon is possible, then likely a large portion of the world's population won't know any better either. And so we have all the same concerns about female false dragons, using the situation for political gain, using the desire of the populace for a female dragon where possible, wars, repercussions through history, shaping of nations, however far you want to go.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Jackdaw_Fool
Typo

[Ryan al'Thor]

6 minutes ago, Jackdaw_Fool said:

I think that's the part that a number of us disagree with. If the Aes Sedai believe the dragon can be female, there should  be changes of great consequence within the world. For one, this likely makes a female dragon preferable to a male one who must channel saidin and deal with the taint and likely go mad. That should be a huge plot point ripe for Aes Sedai manipulation/usage.

 

It's not difficult to imagine during the tower's history a strong sister (or sisters) attracting followers believing she to be the one, and the repercussions that would have. I'd imagine the DO would be very on board with the prophecies being non specific about gender to allow for and to make use of the divisions within the tower and the chaos that would certainly ensue. I'd further imagine that it wouldn't take very much manipulation on the DO's part to birth the Aes Sedai faction of male dragon reborn assassins... I don't think it would take much for some reds to truly believe it's best for the world to eliminate a male dragon with haste to roll the dice again and hope the pattern might spin out a female dragon, before all is lost. And the black ajah... Sewing division within the tower becomes easier, bringing about the death of the dragon reborn becomes easier... Things of consequence should  happen.

 

And presumably if there are no prophesies specifying the dragon reborn to be male, and the Aes Sedai believe a female dragon is possible, then likely a large portion of the world's population won't know any better either. And so we have all the same concerns about female false dragons, using the situation for political gain, using the desire of the populace for a female dragon where possible, wars, repercussions through history, shaping of nations, however far you want to go.

? concur

[Rose]

7 hours ago, Youss99 said:

 Well we do know it.  Since the heroes of the Horn came back and are always the same gender.  Birgette tells her story that she is always spun out after Gaidal Cain and marries him (or they get together, etc). 

 

Who's "we"? Who in Randland has access to a hero of the horn to have this explained to them?

 

The fact that we as readers know it is irrelevant. My point is that people in world have no reason to know definitely one way or another.

 

So the show could play with that. 

 

I'm not trying to say it's "okay" or "not okay" that they're doing this. I'm trying to think through how they might pull it off.

[Rose]

8 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

But after that, I'll be really curious to see if it ends up being the case that a bunch of ppl on DM - just have a really high tolerance for any changes...

 

 

Honestly? I think this is me. I have a high tolerance for changes. It doesn't bother me that a lot of things will be different. I find it exciting to have brand new story elements to look forward to, to not know exactly what's coming, to be able to theorize and speculate again, something I haven't gotten to do in nine years.

 

The books aren't going anywhere. I want the show to hold up as an excellent and engaging piece of media in its own right. Even if it's different.

 

But I also understand that this is not where many people are at. Some people are really bothered by the changes, and that's very valid. We're just coming from different places.

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile that though, because the result it seems is that many of the discussions here are at cross-purposes with each other. When some people try to break down the changes and use them as clues to theorize about what we might see in the show, others see it as trying to "justify" something that seems fundamentally wrong to them. And we're using different measuring sticks. If you believe that for a change to be acceptable, it has to be compatible with the existing book lore, and I don't, we'll never see common ground.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Rose

[Rose]

A humble suggestion to the admins and mods: Maybe we should have one thread for venting about the things we're worried about, to discuss why we don't like the changes and why we think they won't work. And then another thread for theorizing about what we think we'll see in the show and how it might play out.

 

In thread 1, people who need to vent can vent without being told they're wrong or having their concerns dismissed. (I will happily join in because there are actually some things I'm not too thrilled about.)

 

In thread 2, people who want to nerd out about the show and come up with analyses and theories can do so without being told it's pointless because the show will be awful. (I will also happily join this because even though there are things I'm not thrilled about, there is still much nerding out to be done.)

[SinisterDeath]

1 hour ago, Rose said:

A humble suggestion to the admins and mods:

@Elder_Haman What do you think?
If a user wants to make those threads, let them stay up until things get nasty? And move posts between the two that go off-topic?

 

[SinisterDeath]

3 hours ago, Rose said:

Honestly? I think this is me. I have a high tolerance for changes. It doesn't bother me that a lot of things will be different. I find it exciting to have brand new story elements to look forward to, to not know exactly what's coming, to be able to theorize and speculate again, something I haven't gotten to do in nine years.

 

The books aren't going anywhere. I want the show to hold up as an excellent and engaging piece of media in its own right. Even if it's different.

I've always had a knack for being able to separate the book & the movie/tv show.

 

Take Sahara (2005)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318649/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

It ranks at average for user & critic reviews. It's a fun action romp with everyone's favorite Matthew McConaughey. And while the casting of some of the crew was horrible (Matthew is no Dirk Pitt), William H. Macy was a fantastic Sandecker.

As a Stand-Alone movie, and the majority of people having never read the book, or even knew there was a book, it's just average enough that you won't love or hate it, and you'll probably watch it when it flips on TNT for the umpteenth time.

Yet, as a book adaptation it was absolutely god awful.
Casting was crap. It didn't stick to the story, and it lost the heart and soul of a Dirk Pitt book... A book series which is generally considered an average, fun action/adventure romp, A book you can pick up at an airport, and it hardly matters if you've read any of the previous books.

Lets Look at Dexter (2006-2013).

The show was nominated for a ton of awards, it won several, including a Golden Globe. (John Lithgow, just wow.)
Yet, as an adaptation? Very not faithful.

I haven't personally read the book series, Mainly because I was told by several people who read the books, "Don't bother, the show is better then the books".

Let's Look at True Blood (2008-2014)
Just like the above, It also got nominated for a lot, and won a lot. Anna Paquin (Whom we all loved as Rogue in X-Men) won a Golden Globe for her performance. This also deviated severely from the books. Though I heard less people talk about it being better then the source material then the aforementioned Dexter. In fact, I seem to recall many complaints that the show skipped entire plot lines, changed characters completely, and just kind of ultimately did their own thing (like GoT final Season) when they ran out of ideas.

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980)
Stephen King absolutely hated the Kubrick's Shining. It followed the general plot of the book, but also skipped a lot of other stuff. However this film became a beloved cult classic, unlike the 1997 Shining TV series which was a much truer to the books adaptation then the Movie. (Kubrick's' Film has an average 8/10 score, where as the tv series has a 6/10)
 

My take away.

Book to Film Adaptation are going to result in a lot of changes. This is known.
How those changes effect the story, and ultimately the shows critical success depend on a variety of factors.

Sometimes changing how a character dies, will make more sense to audiences.

Changing an entire character's looks & personality is going to grate book fans (Like How Wendy in the books was a Blonde Beauty, strongly independent, unlike her counterpart that was dark hair, homely, and submissive.) 
Manipulating entire plotlines, Removing plotlines, and Adding new plotlines become necessary when trimming the fat. Some changes have ramifications down the road. 
 

Perhaps a character's motivation to do Y, is changed because event X never happened. And if they don't do Y, Z can't happen. Sometimes adding motivation creates more dramatic tension, while not actually changing much.

Like the idea that Perrin kills his wife, and then flees the two rivers. This adds more tension and motivation for Perrin's future timeline with Faile, and recapturing her. His brutality against the Aiel becomes more justified? But it also changes the dynamic of him being a hero upon his return. More likely certain characters will turn him in. 

If they remove Rand's familial connection to Galad & Moiraine, we won't lose anything. That connection was never really explored in the book series.

If they make it known, perhaps they'll expand it?

Comes down to it, until the show is released, we won't know if they did a good job with these changes, or a great job. My hope, is that the show is a financial and critical sucess, because that means more people will read the books, and when they read the books, they'll come to Dragonmount.

If the show is absolute trash, people will dismiss the books.

*EDIT*

Corrected, Anna Paquin was NOT in Heroes. She was in X-Men.

[Maximillion]

11 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

Sarah's tweets don't make me feel better ... So they discussed at length with full knowledge of the reprocussions what the possibility of a female dragon would do ... Dug into the lore & background & everything we've discussed ad nauseum ... and then decided, "Yup. It's worth it." ??? 

 

[Even though their going to keep the books DR & reveal HIM in S1]?? 

 

Soooo... what's "the line" for Sarah? Where she says, "No. This is no longer the WoT I love. I'm done." 

 

Makes me feel a whole lot worse...

 

Because my line would be (and this would be true of ANY show) ... if they're going to shove a certain agenda in my face even if it in no way benefits the story [and that's a two way street - I stopped reading the Sword of Truth series once it got super preachy. And watched three episodes of the Seeker before I abandoned that.] 

 

Now, I'm not saying that they're doing that. Hear me say that, please. 

We will see soon. We got to actually see these three episodes. 

 

But after that, I'll be really curious to see if it ends up being the case that a bunch of ppl on DM - just have a really high tolerance for any changes...

 

 

I agree.

I have been very disappointed in Sarah's comments.  She's taken the role of being the front person for justifying unnecessary changes.

I get and support ANY change that is needed in order to make the show successful on screen, after all a book can't be turned into a film or TV show word for word, scene for scene.

However, the changes we've seen are not required at all.  Sounds like she is saying they spent a lot of time justifying changes they WANTED to make rather than creating solutions for the changes they NEEDED to make.

 

All that said, the show may still be good and get a large following.  Ultimately that is success for Amazon, Rafe and the cast.  I don't believe they care about being true to the material, despite saying they are. I think it is all about ratings and honestly, that is not wrong.  It's their job.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Maximillion

[Jackdaw_Fool]

7 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

Anna Paquin (Whom we all loved from HEROES as the cheerleader)

?

[Beidomon]

9 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

But changing the prophecy to remove the gender does none of these things.

• Gentling men isn't less risky or more mundane. They are still powerful, destructive and insane. And one of them could still be the DR. In fact, one of them is most likely to be the DR.
• It doesn't change the fact that the DR is in fact a male and will have to channel tainted saidin. 
• It literally does nothing to the Dark One's parting shot, because it doesn't change the fact that the Dragon must be a man.

I guess we each find different things interesting. To me it changes virtually nothing if the Aes Sedai aren't entirely sure who the Dragon is going to be. So long as the Dragon cannot in fact be a woman, the state of Aes Sedai knowledge about who the Dragon may or may not be makes little, if any, difference to the characters, the plot, the magic system, or anything else that matters.

Respectfully, EH, if I had proposed this change just a few months ago you would have laughed and said that is preposterous. Now you are trying to justify it. You are reaching. And I get it - you really really want this show to be great. Probably more than I do. You’re a great fan and I really respect your wonderful contributions here. But I think I’m seeing this with just slightly clearer eyes. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Beidomon

[Beidomon]

2 hours ago, Rose said:

A humble suggestion to the admins and mods: Maybe we should have one thread for venting about the things we're worried about, to discuss why we don't like the changes and why we think they won't work. And then another thread for theorizing about what we think we'll see in the show and how it might play out.

 

In thread 1, people who need to vent can vent without being told they're wrong or having their concerns dismissed. (I will happily join in because there are actually some things I'm not too thrilled about.)

 

In thread 2, people who want to nerd out about the show and come up with analyses and theories can do so without being told it's pointless because the show will be awful. (I will also happily join this because even though there are things I'm not thrilled about, there is still much nerding out to be done.)

I disagree. I don’t find contrary opinions bothersome or annoying. It is neither tolerant nor good for the health of a message board to be segregating opinions. We are having a good discussion here.

[Beidomon]

55 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

@Elder_Haman What do you think?
If a user wants to make those threads, let them stay up until things get nasty? And move posts between the two that go off-topic?

 

This discussion has not gone off topic. It DIRECTLY pertains to part of the content of the video. 

[TheDreadReader]

21 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

I think the show is 100% going to explore this. I'm just not quite sure how. Starting to wonder whether we are going to get a bunch of Age of Legends flashbacks as a vehicle to get to know the Forsaken better.

 

There may be a rights issue with doing AoL stuff considering the folks behind Winter's Dragon are talking about doing AoL movies.  They may not be legally able to go down that route.   

 

 

[SinisterDeath]

31 minutes ago, Beidomon said:

This discussion has not gone off topic. It DIRECTLY pertains to part of the content of the video. 

I don't think you understood what I was talking about.

[DaddyFinn]

43 minutes ago, Jackdaw_Fool said:

?

Hayden Panettiere, right?

[SinisterDeath]

45 minutes ago, Jackdaw_Fool said:

?

Well shoot, my memory failed me, I thought the cheer leader was anna Paquin, turns out it was Hayden Panettiere. But she was definitely X-Mans Rogue!

I blame IMDB showing me "Heroes" under Anna's profile. ? 

[Beidomon]

17 hours ago, Skipp said:

Thanks for posting this.  Only saw it myself a few minutes ago.  I am so very happy that have Sarah on the team that is making this.  Her love for the series cannot be understated. 

 

I’ve got a long drive today so I’m going to load up a couple of her interviews on YouTube.

[Rose]

1 hour ago, Beidomon said:

I disagree. I don’t find contrary opinions bothersome or annoying. It is neither tolerant nor good for the health of a message board to be segregating opinions. We are having a good discussion here.

 

It's not about segregating opinions, it's about having separate threads for separate purposes. Will the adaptation be good and faithful to what we love most about the Wheel of Time? Is a different question than: How will the adaptation be carried out and what can we expect to see? The latter is about describing and predicting what will change (and what won't). The former is about how we feel about it. They're different conversations, and I believe some of the frustration of recent days that has led to threads being locked is due to mixing the two.

 

Like I said, I'll participate in both. I just think we'll have an easier time discussing things productively if we don't mix factual analysis with value judgments.

[Skipp]

23 minutes ago, Rose said:

 

It's not about segregating opinions, it's about having separate threads for separate purposes. Will the adaptation be good and faithful to what we love most about the Wheel of Time? Is a different question than: How will the adaptation be carried out and what can we expect to see? The latter is about describing and predicting what will change (and what won't). The former is about how we feel about it. They're different conversations, and I believe some of the frustration of recent days that has led to threads being locked is due to mixing the two.

 

Like I said, I'll participate in both. I just think we'll have an easier time discussing things productively if we don't mix factual analysis with value judgments.

I agree, it was disheartening to see the two previous threads devolve into people just shouting past each other. as Rose pointed out we barely got to discuss anything in the Moiraine 1st minute of the show clip because the discussion couldn't move past the Dragon gender issue. 

 

There is a fundamental difference in how some people are approaching the show.   I see the term "reaching to justify" a fair amount when we are just theorizing why a change was made and what that could mean for future events in the show.  Personally I am not trying to justify anything, there have been plenty of changes that don't sit well with me but I am excited nonetheless to see how these changes work out for the show.  Because let's face it, the 1 season is done, 2nd season is filming and no amount of griping is going to change how those seasons play out.

 

I am choosing to focus my energies into things that I like about the show instead of making myself feel bad by focusing on the stuff I really don't like.  It is possible I won't like the show when it airs but I don't find worrying about that possibility to be of any help to my mental health personally.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Skipp
extra thought

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, Beidomon said:

Respectfully, EH, if I had proposed this change just a few months ago you would have laughed and said that is preposterous. Now you are trying to justify it. You are reaching. And I get it - you really really want this show to be great. Probably more than I do. You’re a great fan and I really respect your wonderful contributions here. But I think I’m seeing this with just slightly clearer eyes. 

I concede that I did not see this change coming and that my first reaction to hearing it was not a positive one. 
 

I think where the difference lies is that I am assuming good intentions and professionalism from those involved. It’s not just that I want the show to be great. It’s that I truly believe that everyone involved in making it also wants it to be great. 
 

So after my initial negative emotional reaction, I thought it prudent to step back and try to understand whether there was a reasonable explanation for the change that isn’t based purely in identity politics. I think there is. 
 

Now, like everyone else, I just have to wait and see how it plays out on screen and over the course of the series. 

[Elder_Haman]

2 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

@Elder_Haman What do you think?
If a user wants to make those threads, let them stay up until things get nasty? And move posts between the two that go off-topic?

 

I’m good with that. 

[TheDreadReader]

10 hours ago, Jackdaw_Fool said:

I think that's the part that a number of us disagree with. If the Aes Sedai believe the dragon can be female, there should  be changes of great consequence within the world. For one, this likely makes a female dragon preferable to a male one who must channel saidin and deal with the taint and likely go mad. That should be a huge plot point ripe for Aes Sedai manipulation/usage.

 

 

I generally agree with this statement "if the Aes Sedai believe the dragon can be female, there should be changes ... within the world."   But, I am not sure that "great consequences" necessarily follows.  Belief does influence actions.   However, there are other, perhaps, lesser ways to display that in the show that are not as lore-impacting. 

 

Personally, I think that we can safely assume that the most extreme examples posed by both sides of the "of course they can change the dragon*" and the "oh no they are changing the dragon" are both equally unlikely to happen.  The answer is most likely somewhere in the muddled middle.  

 

* On the whole, I haven't seen too many of these arguments here on dm but you can definitely see them on reddit and twitter.

 

Back to Elder Haman's theory...

 

If the Aes Sedai believed (rightly or wrongly based on the lore) that this was true "Rand is a destroyer, then you must believe that someone else will be the savior."  It would be logical for them to think a limiting condition of "and the savior will be a woman" just based on the power dynamics in RJ's world. 

 

You wouldn't be breaking existing lore by doing that you would be staying fairly consistent with it.   Even if they took it even a step further and had the Aes Sedai believe that the dragon can be a woman (while keeping the dragon a male channeler)  then you're still consistent with existing lore and the spirit of the books because of Jordan's tendency to show us that the beliefs of those with power are often wrong.   

 

Just think of all the arguments that Rand and Moiraine have with Rand ending up be correct in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

5 hours ago, Rose said:

 

Honestly? I think this is me. I have a high tolerance for changes. It doesn't bother me that a lot of things will be different. I find it exciting to have brand new story elements to look forward to, to not know exactly what's coming, to be able to theorize and speculate again, something I haven't gotten to do in nine years.

 

The books aren't going anywhere. I want the show to hold up as an excellent and engaging piece of media in its own right. Even if it's different.

 

But I also understand that this is not where many people are at. Some people are really bothered by the changes, and that's very valid. We're just coming from different places.

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile that though, because the result it seems is that many of the discussions here are at cross-purposes with each other. When some people try to break down the changes and use them as clues to theorize about what we might see in the show, others see it as trying to "justify" something that seems fundamentally wrong to them. And we're using different measuring sticks. If you believe that for a change to be acceptable, it has to be compatible with the existing book lore, and I don't, we'll never see common ground.

 

I think this is really insightful Rose.

 

But surely even for you (or Sarah - which I think means this divergence is still on topic) ... there's got to be a line (I think I brought this up in a thread months ago)? Right? Where you no longer go: hmm it'll be fun to think about the implications of this. To: what in the bloody, flaming world were they thinking??? 

 

I mean, if they really did make Eg the Dragon (I really don't think they are going to do that - Daniel Henney said "he" and how they reveal the Dragon is cool/creative) would that be too much? Or would you go ...

"Cool. I really didn't see that coming!" 

 

I mean - other changes for me that (might be coming?) - that is close to intolerable even if the show is well done are: having Perrin have a wife he kills (that's been rumored) and having Matt come from poor or crappy parents (that's been rumored). 

 

Because those changes, to me, would signal that they seriously misread and screwed up two of my all time favorite book characters.

 

And again (that would give me 0 - less than 0 - confidence in Sarah as a book consultant) if they changed that and she signed off or defended them (are you kidding me?? Did we read the same books?? Or am I in some kind of Bizzaro world?) 

 

Perrin would be an utterly shattered and useless character if (because of an animal nature within) he accidentally killed the woman he loved. He'd be donezo. And he would definitely, then, never "go wolf". 

 

Making Matt the Rogue character that we love sooner - that's a really good change - Matt was more obnoxious than loveable in EoTW. But making him poor or a thief rather than mischievous, ahhh no. As was mentioned - core to Matt even in his rogueish behavior is that he had great parents and deep down wants to do the right thing (just like all the EF5 characters) but he does it in his own way. They ALL reeally want to choose their own destiny & not be manipulated by anyone. 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Wolfbrother31

[Elder_Haman]

13 minutes ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

I mean - other changes for me that (might be coming?) - that is close to intolerable even if the show is well done are: having Perrin have a wife he kills (that's been rumored) and having Matt come from poor or crappy parents (that's been rumored).

I don’t think these would be intolerable for me. I don’t love either of them, but I completely understand the desire to give both some meatier backstories. 

[Guest Wolfbrother31]

Can you post that IGN video where each of the actors talks about their character somewhere??? 

 

I mean, Josha's line, in my book it says, "Hero" ... Oh, my gosh, doesn't your heart flutter with panic ... Who are these writers???