How did the show hold up for you?

[Andra]

7 hours ago, Requiem said:

Why does when his replacement was announced or its relation to the season beginning or its last episodes airing have any relevance to replacing a major role on the show?

 

We know that after the Covid disruptions they filmed the last parts of the series in April and May 2021 and that filming of the second season began in late July 2021. Assuming they knew a month before filming starts that Barney wasn't returning means they took between 3 and 4 months to cast his replacement which seems perfectly reasonable time period to me.

 

They then announced the recasting in September well after the filming for season two had begun.

 

This is a large production with a lot of money behind it. These decisions are not taken lightly and are never made quickly.

Because my comment was about the time it would have taken to replace him in the episodes filmed after he left.

I didn't say it wasn't a large production or that there wasn't a lot of money behind it.  Just that a claim that there wasn't enough time to replace him fails because he had already been replaced.

 

Yes, September was after filming for the second season had started.  But it wasn't before the first season had aired.  Which means they had the time to fix the last two episodes.

[Andra]

4 hours ago, VooDooNut said:

I did not make the argument that Rafe&Co. had no choice.

 

I agree that Rafe&Co. (and how others have mentioned, higher-ups above even the production team's purview) had many options for how to handle the actor swap. They had many choices. They could have replaced Mat with a sock puppet, for example. But my argument was, and still is, that I believe they chose the best course of action they saw fit given the situation (and we will never know the full extent of the factors at play here). I'm trusting in Rafe&Co.'s artistic integrity that they did what they thought was best. It doesn't mean I'm 100% happy with the outcome, but I accept it. I will have more to say when we see Mat in season 2.

I didn't say you had made that argument.

But as you were paraphrasing my statement, I wanted to clarify what I was saying, and why.

 

And the point I was responding to did pretty much argue that they had no choice.  That the decision was essentially taken out of their hands by circumstances.

[expat]

One aspect that no one has mentioned is that the new actor would need to adapt his style to the existing acting style that Barney used in the first 6 episodes.  This is a streaming series, so many people would be watching episode 7 immediately after episode 6 (even a week between episodes would have pretty much the same affect for current viewers). It would be jarring enough when a new face shows up for Mat, but if the new actor talked differently (say faster or slower) with a different accent using different mannerisms, the sense of something wrong would be that much stronger. Just like any other complex job, there is a learning curve that new people need to follow before they can replace an existing employee. 

 

While there will still be people who binge watch season 2 immediately after season 1 who will still have a problem, changing actors between seasons makes it much easier for everyone else because time has dulled the memory of Barney's specific acting style for the character.

 

Quote

Defending their decisions by claiming they had no choice is simply false.

But you are happy to criticize their choices with no idea on how and why they made them because you know TV production better than they do.  Maybe you are right, and they screwed the change up, but none of us are in position to be dogmatic on the issue.  Too much is unknown.

[Scarloc99]

On 2/19/2022 at 4:01 AM, aburuq said:

I have definitely not kept up with the vast amount of discussion about the show on this forum, but from the bit I read in the past few months, I don't think I've come across the following sentiment: 
Personally, I don't mind a lot of the changes in events and how the plot is moving forward, I think a lot of it seems good or acceptable as an adaptation etc, particularly needing to condense things etc. What bothered me the most was one really central emotional thread that seems to really betray the spirit of the first 3 books and really weakens the power of the story: how much utter terror and dread there is about the Dragon in the books, which is really just not there in the show.
I just re-read the first 3 books after having left the series at book 11 in 2006. And one of the most striking things about it is just how incredibly resistant Rand (as well as the others) are to being the Dragon. So much so that even after he defeats Ba'alzaman the first time and knows he can channel, he is horrified by the ability to channel but it doesn't even occur to him to think that he's the dragon. Moiraine doesn't even try to suggest it until that meeting along with Siuane, and he is beyond shocked, it is unthinkable. Even after he proclaims himself the dragon after Toman Head he's still in denial, doesn't believe it. Doesn't want anything to do with the idea, etc. 
Whereas in the show literally the first thing Moiraine tells them when the Trollocs come: "one of you is the dragon. Come on let's go" and they're like, ehh ok if you say so. And then they're a bit dismissive of the idea, but also kinda taking it seriously.

The only interview I have ever heard of RJ makes this point essential to why he even wrote it -- the idea of trying to realistically depict how some country bumpkin being told "you're the savior and destroyer of the world" would react. I feel that is the weakest part of the show so far. I hope they can rectify it somewhat in what follows.

I think this comes in part due to the fact that a decision was made to keep the Dragon almost unknown to many, as well as Morraine having access to information she doesn't understand. This then ties into the idea of the Dragon being a myth, a spook story many believe will never come true. 

I think as season 2 progresses and Rand discovers he has not fought the final battle, and word starts to get out that the Dragon is reborn you will get more of a sense of the fear within the population. 

[Deviations]

21 minutes ago, expat said:

One aspect that no one has mentioned is that the new actor would need to adapt his style to the existing acting style that Barney used in the first 6 episodes.  This is a streaming series, so many people would be watching episode 7 immediately after episode 6 (even a week between episodes would have pretty much the same affect for current viewers). It would be jarring enough when a new face shows up for Mat, but if the new actor talked differently (say faster or slower) with a different accent using different mannerisms, the sense of something wrong would be that much stronger. Just like any other complex job, there is a learning curve that new people need to follow before they can replace an existing employee. 

Mat was the least remarkable of the three (book and TV) to this point in the story.  Better to have the slight whiplash of an actor change than to completely change the story.

[Andra]

1 hour ago, expat said:

But you are happy to criticize their choices with no idea on how and why they made them because you know TV production better than they do.  Maybe you are right, and they screwed the change up, but none of us are in position to be dogmatic on the issue.  Too much is unknown.

Ummm ... What?

At no time did I even imply that I "know TV production better than they do."

 

My points about TV production were all in response to claims (in this thread and elsewhere) that their choices were unavoidable, and somehow forced on them.  Which is simply false.  They could have made different choices.  Choices that might have made things better.  But because of issues that I have acknowledged might have influenced their decisions (additional delays, additional costs, just the headache involved, etc.) they didn't.

 

I'm happy to criticize their choices because - as a viewer - I find their actual choices to have made things worse, not better.  I don't have to wait until more evidence of something is uncovered to have that opinion.  Nor is it "dogmatic."  It's the opinion of a viewer who didn't like how they dealt with things.

[expat]

Quote

I'm happy to criticize their choices because - as a viewer - I find their actual choices to have made things worse, not better.  I don't have to wait until more evidence of something is uncovered to have that opinion.  Nor is it "dogmatic."  It's the opinion of a viewer who didn't like how they dealt with things.

I used dogmatic very deliberately because your posts never acknowledge that your opinions could be wrong.  As I said in the previous post, you might be right that there were easier and better ways to fix the problem.  You never grant the reverse, that the opinions of other people could be correct that your solution doesn't work in the real world of television.  Nobody knows enough of the details (when the team learned that Barney wasn't coming back (forced him out ?), how easy was it to recast in the middle of Covid, when the chosen replacement would be available, how they felt that viewers would react to a changed actor in episode 7, how easy would it be to reshoot some scenes from the first 6 episodes to accommodate the actor change etc.) to have anything other than a half assed opinion on what was the best option. 

 

Dogmatic would be inappropriate if someone felt that once they choose not to recast Barney for the last two episodes, the way they rewrote the last two episodes was poor.  

 

 

[Andra]

1 hour ago, expat said:

I used dogmatic very deliberately because your posts never acknowledge that your opinions could be wrong.  As I said in the previous post, you might be right that there were easier and better ways to fix the problem.  You never grant the reverse, that the opinions of other people could be correct that your solution doesn't work in the real world of television.  Nobody knows enough of the details (when the team learned that Barney wasn't coming back (forced him out ?), how easy was it to recast in the middle of Covid, when the chosen replacement would be available, how they felt that viewers would react to a changed actor in episode 7, how easy would it be to reshoot some scenes from the first 6 episodes to accommodate the actor change etc.) to have anything other than a half assed opinion on what was the best option. 

 

Dogmatic would be inappropriate if someone felt that once they choose not to recast Barney for the last two episodes, the way they rewrote the last two episodes was poor.  

 

 

Again ... what?

 

In this part of the discussion, I have stated two things.  One is an opinion, the other is a simple statement of fact.

 

The first is that what they chose to do in response to Barney leaving didn't work, and actually made the story worse.  That is a statement of opinion.  And precisely what you just said would be inappropriate to describe as "dogmatic."

 

The second is that they could have chosen to do any of a number of other things.  And that therefore claiming they had no other choice is false.  That's simply a statement of fact, so I don't see how it is potentially an opinion that could be wrong.

 

Is it possible that they had reasons not to choose to do any of those things?  Of course, since that's precisely what happened.  I have never claimed otherwise.  In fact, I specifically pointed out what some of those reasons might be.

 

If that's incorrect, and something actually made it impossible for them to have chosen any other option than they did, please let me know.  I will gladly admit it.  So far, no one has done anything but misstate my actual position.  And criticize me for their misstatement.

[KakitaOCU]

Just as a quick aside of an issue I'm seeing on both sides of the debate.

Proper debate form means you state your opinion and stance firmly, that you present it as solidly as possible, and at no point is there some weird expectation that you must say IMO at the end of every sentence.

Similarly, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are doing so with some ulterior motive.  It's entirely possible to have disagreeing opinions without one side being a shill, or paid rep or being domatic, etc.

Andra is not being dogmatic.  I clearly disagree with them on a great many points, but while there's been certain aspects I've had issue with, by and large they're just debating their point.

Same on my side for example, I clearly like the show, and argue my points as solidly as I can.  I'm also sure I've made errors, but again, not being dishonest or fake either.   

I could go through every poster on each side.  There's a few who've clearly just moved from honest debate to sarcasm and writing off.  But the people still honestly arguing the point are fine.  Even if they're wrong (I'm joking on that last point, borrowing a line from Sanderson)

Edited February 22, 2022 by KakitaOCU

[Scarloc99]

19 hours ago, expat said:

One aspect that no one has mentioned is that the new actor would need to adapt his style to the existing acting style that Barney used in the first 6 episodes.  This is a streaming series, so many people would be watching episode 7 immediately after episode 6 (even a week between episodes would have pretty much the same affect for current viewers). It would be jarring enough when a new face shows up for Mat, but if the new actor talked differently (say faster or slower) with a different accent using different mannerisms, the sense of something wrong would be that much stronger. Just like any other complex job, there is a learning curve that new people need to follow before they can replace an existing employee. 

 

While there will still be people who binge watch season 2 immediately after season 1 who will still have a problem, changing actors between seasons makes it much easier for everyone else because time has dulled the memory of Barney's specific acting style for the character.

 

But you are happy to criticize their choices with no idea on how and why they made them because you know TV production better than they do.  Maybe you are right, and they screwed the change up, but none of us are in position to be dogmatic on the issue.  Too much is unknown.

Agree here in addition not only that you have costuming that needs to be tailored, you have potential stunt training, he may well have been doing something that he needed to finish up, stage work or another acting job. He needs to have time to study the character, get into the role (believe it or not, this might shock those who think an actor turns up on set day one there are table read throughs and rehersals, sometimes months before shooting). 

In terms of filming, this was a covid world, I imagine changing visas, re arranging quarantine hotels, going through the whole testing and isolation before flying out meant that moving shooting dates was even harder than it normally is. 

I love how people armchair produce without being able to present a viable alternative script, shooting plan, an idea of what it will all cost and how you will get all the actors to set on the days you need them to make Your version of the story. It is so easy to sit there and complain but seems a lot harder to actually out the work in to plan out, in detail, script by script what you would do instead, where and how you would shoot it and how you would book those days. But I forget the best directors just turn up on day one and shout Start Filming to whoever turns up on the day. (not a dig at you by the way but those you where commenting to ? ) 

[expat]

Quote

The second is that they could have chosen to do any of a number of other things.  And that therefore claiming they had no other choice is false.  That's simply a statement of fact, so I don't see how it is potentially an opinion that could be wrong.

You are mistaking opinion and fact here.  Literally, "no other choice" is clearly factually wrong in that there are always other choices available. However, I don't recall anyone but you using that phrase to capture the larger argument.  The arguments were that there were potentially legitimate reasons for not recasting immediately.  Deciding on the best approach is clearly opinion.  Your opinion is that there were better options available to them then the approach they took with the last two episodes.

 

If I misremembered and other posters repeatedly argued that there "was no other choice", then I am wrong.

 

Quote

The first is that what they chose to do in response to Barney leaving didn't work, and actually made the story worse.  That is a statement of opinion.  And precisely what you just said would be inappropriate to describe as "dogmatic."

Agree, which is why I added the second paragraph.

[VooDooNut]

3 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Just as a quick aside of an issue I'm seeing on both sides of the debate.

Proper debate form means you state your opinion and stance firmly, that you present it as solidly as possible, and at no point is there some weird expectation that you must say IMO at the end of every sentence.

Similarly, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are doing so with some ulterior motive.  It's entirely possible to have disagreeing opinions without one side being a shill, or paid rep or being domatic, etc.

Thank you for this @KakitaOCU . It's always good to be reminded that respectful debate it possible and should be something we all strive for on this forum (and in life). I've pushed the IMO stuff a bit in the past, and it can understandably become grating, so I hear you on that. I don't, however, see any harm in promoting the philosophy of a healthy discussion where no one person's opinion sits above others.

 

Throwing something in at the beginning, middle, or end of one's argument to convey they are merely proffering their opinion is not pointless per se, but I can see the repetitive nature of such statements. So, is IMO (or any variant of this that conveys the same intent) necessary? I'd say no. Helpful? I'd say yes. (Weird? Well...I admit I'm a weirdo. )

 

When tone and implications can be difficult to discern through text and internet shenanigans, clarification is very nice to have.

 

 

[Deviations]

3 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

I love how people armchair produce without being able to present a viable alternative script, shooting plan, an idea of what it will all cost and how you will get all the actors to set on the days you need them to make Your version of the story. It is so easy to sit there and complain but seems a lot harder to actually out the work in to plan out, in detail, script by script what you would do instead, where and how you would shoot it and how you would book those days.

That's life.  That's business.  Every business faces tough choices and 'impossible' situations.  Great organizations overcome them and provide great products instead of mediocre products.

 

There's an iPad development story out there about Steve Jobs telling his team they needed to make the iPad smaller/thinner.  They said it couldn't be done.  There was no more space to take out.  He threw the prototype in a tub of water and they watched the bubbles stream out.  They figured out a way to make it smaller.........

 

 

I love the condescension on this site.  Do you think I don't understand that there are challenges?  That's why these people make extremely high salaries.  I don't begrudge them that but I do think they should earn them.

[Andra]

3 hours ago, expat said:

You are mistaking opinion and fact here. 

How, precisely am I doing that?

I said they could have selected from a number of different options, and ended up with the one they did by choice.

 

In what way is that an opinion, rather than a fact?

If I am wrong about some part of that, please point it out.  I will be happy to consider it.

 

---

Incidentally, if you want to quote someone in order to reply to something they said, please use the quote function so that they get notified that you have done so.  Otherwise it can end up looking like you're trying to avoid giving them a chance to respond.

[William Seahill]

How did the show hold up for me?  I can’t wait to see what happens next season.  At the same time, while it’s good that Rafe brought WoT to a broader audience, he’s going to need to follow the source material a little more closely in order to reach longtime book fans and keep them engaged (without driving away that broader audience).  

I’m halfway through EotW, and noticing narrative differences between it and s1.  (For example, Rand and Mat meeting Thom in EF, and not in some mining town after escaping SL.)

[Juan Farstrider]

1 hour ago, William Seahill said:

How did the show hold up for me?  I can’t wait to see what happens next season.  At the same time, while it’s good that Rafe brought WoT to a broader audience, he’s going to need to follow the source material a little more closely in order to reach longtime book fans and keep them engaged (without driving away that broader audience).  

I’m halfway through EotW, and noticing narrative differences between it and s1.  (For example, Rand and Mat meeting Thom in EF, and not in some mining town after escaping SL.)

That's not the order that kind of thing is ever done though. It is like driving out of your drive way to pick up your drinking buddies for a night on the town, and then circling back to pick up the kids at home to take them to school. The people most likely to start the show from the beginning are not just readers of the books, but lovers of the books. They loved what was in the books, not weird funeral rituals they literally admit had to go find elsewhere from examples in the real world, not all the other stuff Rafe made up. 

I don't think the creators are doing what you think they are doing. I think they have ideas they have not sold as their own original programs or movies and they are using the opportunity to work on a show, any show, to write the show they want to write. It is a bait and switch. Oh, you wanted wheel of time? You're getting their stories inserted into the roughest outline of Jordan's story, using Jordan's characters and Jordan's places. 

[William Seahill]

28 minutes ago, Juan Farstrider said:

That's not the order that kind of thing is ever done though. It is like driving out of your drive way to pick up your drinking buddies for a night on the town, and then circling back to pick up the kids at home to take them to school. The people most likely to start the show from the beginning are not just readers of the books, but lovers of the books. They loved what was in the books, not weird funeral rituals they literally admit had to go find elsewhere from examples in the real world, not all the other stuff Rafe made up. 

I don't think the creators are doing what you think they are doing. I think they have ideas they have not sold as their own original programs or movies and they are using the opportunity to work on a show, any show, to write the show they want to write. It is a bait and switch. Oh, you wanted wheel of time? You're getting their stories inserted into the roughest outline of Jordan's story, using Jordan's characters and Jordan's places. 

So you want a show that follows the books word for word, sentence for sentence?  I’m getting the feeling that you didn’t like the show as it exists.  That’s fine, but any given adaptation that follows its source material one hundred percent, will likely be boring for most people save longtime fans of the material being adapted.  I think tv adaptions should try to get as many people interested in the story as possible. 

Edited March 16, 2022 by William Seahill

[Juan Farstrider]

6 hours ago, William Seahill said:

So you want a show that follows the books word for word, sentence for sentence?

I like you type a statement but put a question mark at the end. Believe what you want. Good luck finding where I ever said that though. Seems odd, or selective anyway, that you chose that to address and not the other ideas I brought up about audience building or what they writers are doing. you think they'll somehow get closer to the books. I don't think that is actually possible, not without really messing with the flow and the (I hesitate to even say it in the context of the show) continuity. 

I did not like the show. At first I more than hopeful. The first episode did not really bother me. Aging the kids up was a choice, but sexualizing Rand and Egwene is going to pull the rug out from under things that would otherwise happen later. So, they made a bigger change to the story than just aging them up and advancing their relationship. Perrin being married widowed also pulls the rug out of a lot that is yet to come. Does it set up ONE way to explain his rage/hesitancy about violence? Yes, but there are many ways to do that, his size and strength are one such way as that is a big part of it in the books. Trepidation over the wolf thing and wanting to retain his humanity is also good enough. But, it also makes you question why are Rand and Egwene not married already if Perrin is married to his second choice? The change just creates more problems than it fixes. The whole Rand/Perrin/Matt understand women better than Matt/Perrin/Rand thing has been removed, but it was kinda hokey anyway. And Faile gets to be jealous over a dead woman, so that's something that might help people-- if that is seen as a reasonable choice. Her jealousy bothers some readers. It also undercuts the way Rand will be lead around like a 14 year old boy by what we're repeatedly told is the hottest woman EV-AH!. So, that's episode one. It went down hill from there, gradually but with amazing acceleration.

I think the show was lame and not worth the time I gave it. By episode five I watched it when it was convenient. By the last episode, I had to talk myself into finishing the season. After giving up on trying to get it play in English lol, I finished it, and I'm be done with it. The show has been cancelled after one season, on my devices. Too many episodes had me saying "what the hell am I watching.

Some cool action sequences, some lame. Logain was great, and his realization that he can't be the Dragon, because Nynaeve blew his mind, was cool. He's a great actor. There was some great acting, some not so great. But as great as I found Logain (and that is very changed from the books, so your initial theory about why I didn't like it (which ignores what I actually said, thank you) needs some retro-fitting) the amping of Nynaeve, the lack of a need for training for all of it, is dreadful and pathetic writing and planning. What is the magic system? With magic you can do anything? May as well be. Some great editing (something you're not supposed to notice unless you seen bad editing or like know just enough about production to notice it), ridiculously bad writing. "She has a tell" ? Nah. That might be the worst line of series. Nynaeve's braid tug was nicely done by the actor. Great gesture work, an often overlooked part of acting, on her part. 

But, my comment was mostly about how you do not go get new fans and then hope to bring in the book readers by swinging back to the books after ignoring them to tell a different story. One reason to stay as true to the source as possible early on is to keep as much of your initial target audience as possible-- readers of a loved, but also not loved by some, niche book series in a niche genre. GoT may have opened the doors for this kind of thing, bringing to TV something less famous than LoTR while still following in Peter Jackson's success, but initial audiences for an established product will be the existing fans of that established product. GoT grew from word of mouth coming from the mouths of happy fans of the books series. What you described, if that is what Rafe is doing, reversed that process: going after new audiences at the decided expense of established ones gets it backwards. But I don't think they are doing that.  

I think he and the writers are doing what I said I think they are doing: wrapping their ideas and their stories in as little of Jordan's story as needed, telling their stories using his landscape and his characters. I won't know for sure though as the show has been cancelled, on my devices anyway. 

[CaddySedai]

closing the poll since it was for 5 episodes in and it no longer applies. The topic however remains worthwhile and active ?

[zacz1987]

4 hours ago, Juan Farstrider said:

Aging the kids up was a choice, but sexualizing Rand and Egwene is going to pull the rug out from under things that would otherwise happen later.

What makes me laugh is the producers and the fans keep mentioning that they aged the Emond's Fielder's up but it really is only Egwene who has been aged up. The boys and Nynaeve are still the same age they are in the books they have just made them less 'Naive' and more 'experienced'.

 

Removing the naivity of growing up in an isolated village with little outside contact does effect the way the Emond's fielder act and react with things which means the plots cannot play out the same way and still make sense. 

[William Seahill]

14 hours ago, Juan Farstrider said:

One reason to stay as true to the source as possible early on is to keep as much of your initial target audience as possible-- readers of a loved, but also not loved by some, niche book series in a niche genre.

So, gatekeeping via the screen adaptation? Interesting. I’m sorry, but screen adaptations, whether film or television, should cater to anyone and everyone who might be interested, not just to the most hardcore, longtime fans.

 

I’m fine with the narrative differences between the book and season one, as long as season two stays closer to the source material. (Even if it doesn’t, I’ll still watch it.)  

 

Ultimately, we’re each looking for different things in screen adaptations. Where I want an interesting story that brings the world of the source material to life, you want a true-to-the-source retelling.

Edited March 17, 2022 by William Seahill
Formatting, Clarity

[Juan Farstrider]

On 3/17/2022 at 12:01 PM, William Seahill said:

So, gatekeeping via the screen adaptation? Interesting. I’m sorry, but screen adaptations, whether film or television, should cater to anyone and everyone who might be interested, not just to the most hardcore, longtime fans.

 

I’m fine with the narrative differences between the book and season one, as long as season two stays closer to the source material. (Even if it doesn’t, I’ll still watch it.)  

 

Ultimately, we’re each looking for different things in screen adaptations. Where I want an interesting story that brings the world of the source material to life, you want a true-to-the-source retelling.

If that's what you call "gate keeping" then I hope you have no gates to keep. Is this the new manner of discourse in the world, where you intentionally mischaracterize what people say? I did not say I wanted a sentence by sentence enactment of the books on the TV, but that is how you started your previous reply to me because that's an easy strawman to argue against. Congratulations on reading your own mind and not my words. I pointed out that I loved the Logain story line in the TV show, I think it was the best thing they did. But keep thinking I'm so narrow visioned that I can't see anything that isn't a word for word replication of what was already written. 

But here, rather than address what I'm saying that your idea, that somehow you make a show that strays from the source material to get a new audience (for a show that before it airs as by definition no audience at all and the people who are most interested in it have been hoping for a show adapted from the books they loved, that's the biggest potential initial audience possible for the show) and that maybe in next season it will return somehow to the source material to win over what should be their initial and most enthusiastic audience, gets how this is generally and successfully done backwards. Rather than address that, you decide that accusing me of "gate keeping" is a reasonable response. 

Do you think I'm saying "no one who has read the books should watch the show, or watch the show yet, or that they would not like the books or a good TV adaptation of the books? Please find where I said that, because I say a lot of things and maybe I missed where I said something so stupid and something that only maybe your own strawman or voodoo doll of me would say. I think anyone who reads the books could love them, and anyone who watches a show that was a faithful adaptation of the books could love it. Not if they are more worried about things that are not in the books, or if they are more worried about making the books look like other things they've seen, or if they are more worried about some set of criteria they are bringing from their own lives or their own sense of priorities are, that would be "gate keeping" but the gate is their's where stands on one side Robert Jordan's mind, his imagination, his  heart, his story and the world he created,  and on the other side stand with arms folded their mind, their imagination, and their hearts. 

In all seriousness, William, I find your portray of me to be unreal, and I suspect you are very much unreal too. Good luck dude! Love the show. Keep reading the books though, as you already see they are really something else. Once you get lost in Randland you will always find a home there. Maybe it's partly how many books there are and how big they often are, but it's also a tribute to his writing that you will dream yourself in that world. Weird fun dreams. That's partly why I had to stop watching the show: I hate nightmares. Good luck dude. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Juan Farstrider
spelen n punktyouashun

[Juan Farstrider]

On 3/17/2022 at 9:54 AM, zacz1987 said:

What makes me laugh is the producers and the fans keep mentioning that they aged the Emond's Fielder's up but it really is only Egwene who has been aged up. The boys and Nynaeve are still the same age they are in the books they have just made them less 'Naive' and more 'experienced'.

 

Removing the naivity of growing up in an isolated village with little outside contact does effect the way the Emond's fielder act and react with things which means the plots cannot play out the same way and still make sense. 

If "aging up" is not the right phrase, then regardless of what the right phrase is, it describes the apprentice blacksmith transformed into the actual blacksmith, and him being married widowed to his second choice. It creates a problem in that the girl woman he loves is with another man but not married, and one must expect that Rand would have married Egwene already. 

This more correct phrase would also have to account for the giddiness over fireworks and a gleeman and everything that they were looking forward to on that fateful night, as well as the immature pranks they still get into, and Rand being essentially a 14 year old boy around Selene. 

It might have to also account for the problems such a choice made by the writers when it comes to those aspects of the characters-- unless we are not, as I suspect, looking at Jordan's characters at all but instead looking at a hybrid at best of original characters created by the writers in the guise of Jordan's characters, telling a story that is as much of those writer's story as they can get in while following the general drift of Rand and his plucky pals/rivals/mentors/enemies to ... well one might assume the final battle but really who knows. 

[William Seahill]

7 hours ago, Juan Farstrider said:

If that's what you call "gate keeping" then I hope you have no gates to keep. Is this the new manner of discourse in the world, where you intentionally mischaracterize what people say? I did not say I wanted a sentence by sentence enactment of the books on the TV, but that is how you started your previous reply to me because that's an easy strawman to argue against. Congratulations on reading your own mind and not my words. I pointed out that I loved the Logain story line in the TV show, I think it was the best thing they did. But keep thinking I'm so narrow visioned that I can't see anything that isn't a word for word replication of what was already written. 

But here, rather than address what I'm saying that your idea, that somehow you make a show that strays from the source material to get a new audience (for a show that before it airs as by definition no audience at all and the people who are most interested in it have been hoping for a show adapted from the books they loved, that's the biggest potential initial audience possible for the show) and that maybe in next season it will return somehow to the source material to win over what should be their initial and most enthusiastic audience, gets how this is generally and successfully done backwards. Rather than address that, you decide that accusing me of "gate keeping" is a reasonable response. 

Do you think I'm saying "no one who has read the books should watch the show, or watch the show yet, or that they would not like the books or a good TV adaptation of the books? Please find where I said that, because I say a lot of things and maybe I missed where I said something so stupid and something that only maybe your own strawman or voodoo doll of me would say. I think anyone who reads the books could love them, and anyone who watches a show that was a faithful adaptation of the books could love it. Not if they are more worried about things that are not in the books, or if they are more worried about making the books look like other things they've seen, or if they are more worried about some set of criteria they are bringing from their own lives or their own sense of priorities are, that would be "gate keeping" but the gate is their's where stands on one side Robert Jordan's mind, his imagination, his  heart, his story and the world he created,  and on the other side stand with arms folded their mind, their imagination, and their hearts. 

In all seriousness, William, I find your portray of me to be unreal, and I suspect you are very much unreal too. Good luck dude! Love the show. Keep reading the books though, as you already see they are really something else. Once you get lost in Randland you will always find a home there. Maybe it's partly how many books there are and how big they often are, but it's also a tribute to his writing that you will dream yourself in that world. Weird fun dreams. That's partly why I had to stop watching the show: I hate nightmares. Good luck dude. 

You’re saying that the show should only be aimed at “true fans”.  That’s how your posts read.  

[Andra]

32 minutes ago, William Seahill said:

You’re saying that the show should only be aimed at “true fans”.  That’s how your posts read.  

I'm sorry, but his posts don't read like that at all to me.

I have no idea why you read them that way.

 

His point was only to address your hope that after spending the first season trashing the source material, the show would change course and adhere more closely to the books.  By pointing out that it's completely backwards of what's typically done.

Typically, as demonstrated recently with Game of Thrones or Harry Potter, the early selections stick the closest to the source, in order to draw in the built-in fan base of readers.  Only after that fan base expands to non-readers do the adaptations deviate significantly from the source.

 

No one has ever claimed that no deviation from the source material is acceptable to readers, or that the show should only be aimed at them.