Season 1 Discussion (Full Book Spoilers) v2.1

[EmreY]

14 minutes ago, ilovezam said:

I mean if Peter Jackson originally planned to do something incredibly, hilariously stupid, I'll be roasting him for it too, even though I adore the final product.

 

Tolkien's first drafts, not PJ's.

[ilovezam]

16 minutes ago, EmreY said:

Tolkien's first drafts, not PJ's.

Well, same thing. I'll be laughing my ass off if I read an original draft and it emphasized a raunchy sex scene with Tom Bombadil while he sings to emphasize his jolly nature or something.

 

[WhiteVeils]

1 hour ago, RhienneAgain said:

Yeah, I have to say reading that segment of the leaked script made me uncomfortable. Why no an emphasis on both partners' pleasure?

In the sex scene with Mat, I don't think there was supposed to be any pleasure for Mat due to the nature/reason for that particular sex.  For the other, it I'm sure was more neutral, but it could be considered "birthday sex" where Rand is trying to make it extra special for Egwene so is focusing especially on her. However there is an observation made in filmmaking circles that most sex scenes are written to focus on/appease male pleasure so it may have been intended to counter that cultural tendency. That said, I liked that the scenes were removed for the most part.  They aren't necessary and thought they leave Mat's relationship with theft more undefined and generally considered worse, that's fine.

[Cauthonfan4]

38 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

They aren't necessary and thought they leave Mat's relationship with theft more undefined and generally considered worse, that's fine

Making mat a thief is a change for thd worse. Better to have left his story arc alone. Rafe completely missed the mark.

[notpropaganda73]

1 hour ago, ilovezam said:

I read another user's take from here and he thought it was necessary as a counterpoint to how GoT's sex scenes were demeaning to women.

It is... kinda weird

 

Is this in response to my take on it? Because that's not what I meant. 

 

I can understand screenwriters feeling like they have to put a note like that in, because studios are used to a different kind of sex scene and particularly in fantasy, in episode 1, if you want to emphasise that this is not Game of Thrones, I can understand why they would feel the need to emphasise that. 

 

I repeat: I cringed reading the note in the leaked script and I'm glad that's not the direction they went down. I'm just trying to put out a reason why the note was there outside of "lol Rafe hates men" or whatever. 

[ilovezam]

14 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

I can understand screenwriters feeling like they have to put a note like that in, because studios are used to a different kind of sex scene and particularly in fantasy, in episode 1, if you want to emphasise that this is not Game of Thrones, I can understand why they would feel the need to emphasise that. 

So... you're saying that you can see why they think it's necessary counterpoint to GoT's demeaning sex scenes to highlight that they aren't Game of Thrones? Apologies if your take was misrepresented, but thus far your clarification does sound pretty much like a word-for-word paraphrase from my summary ?

 

Think is this honestly an insanely huge reach. A big part of the yucky sex scenes like those with Dany and Drago were shot in a way to emphasize that it wasn't consensual for Dany, since she was literally sold to the Dothraki. Then there's a bunch that are fully consensual, like those with Jon Snow, Missendei, Arya/Gendry, whatever, that were not demeaning to women in the least bit.

 

If you wanted to be clear that Rand and Egwene were in a healthy and normal sexual relationship, the note would ask for emphasis that they're both enjoying themselves and fully willing participants, like normal couples behave - the second type of GoT sex scenes, not the first type, if you will.

 

Shooting two sex scenes back to back that both heavily emphasize the woman being strong and in control was pretty transparently an attempt to depict powerful women, which is in fact a perfectly reasonable thing to want to depict. It's just that the way Rafe wanted to go about showing it is really, really, really, really, really dumb (not to mention demeaning to those who enjoy kinky sex ?), and thankfully he took it out of the episode.

 

[notpropaganda73]

Ha, yeah I'm not explaining myself well at all. What I was responding to was you saying that I thought it was necessary - I don't think it was necessary at all and agree with you that just emphasising that it's enjoyable for both parties would work. What I was trying to say is that I can just understand the impulse to differentiate - but I agree with you in general on the writing being ham-fisted and unsubtle at it's worst anyway. 

 

 

[DaddyFinn]

40 minutes ago, ilovezam said:

If you wanted to be clear that Rand and Egwene were in a healthy and normal sexual relationship, the note would ask for emphasis that they're both enjoying themselves and fully willing participants, like normal couples behave - the second type of GoT sex scenes, not the first type, if you will.

Well.. Sometimes it's nice to fully focus on my partner or vice versa. That's a part of a healthy sexual relationship.

[Cauthonfan4]

6 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

Well.. Sometimes it's nice to fully focus on my partner or vice versa. That's a part of a healthy sexual relationship

So then have 1 scene where the focal point is one sex and one scene where thd focal point is the other. Keeps things in balance. You know. What the story is all about?

 

But that clearly seems to be hard for the showrunners to do 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Cauthonfan4

[DaddyFinn]

1 minute ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

But that clearly seems to be hard for the showrunners to do 

Is there anything they can't do wrong? It seems not.

[Cauthonfan4]

5 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

Is there anything they can't do wrong? It seems not.

They have had good moments but a lot of the changes make zero sense and are going to cause problems later down the road.

 

For example. What do you do with Nynaeve at this point that wouldn't be character regression?

Same with moiraine.

 

By changing how ef is portrayed you have already reduced the EF5 from a character development point as is.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Cauthonfan4

[ilovezam]

12 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

Well.. Sometimes it's nice to fully focus on my partner or vice versa. That's a part of a healthy sexual relationship.

We're not talking about the participants focusing on their partners though. We're talking of a show featuring couples having sex and making a point for the crew to heavily emphasize female pleasure while being strong and in control.

[Cauthonfan4]

1 minute ago, ilovezam said:

We're talking of a show featuring couples having sex and making a point for the crew to heavily emphasize female pleasure while being strong and in control

Thank God it didn't go through.

[Gothic Flame]

Pic floating around of a rewrite of the cast introductions from 2019;

Says loads...

[Guest Cranglevoid]

9 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

Pic floating around of a rewrite of the cast introductions from 2019;

 

Says loads...

Wow, did they seriously write "shown" instead of "shone"?

[DaddyFinn]

11 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

Pic floating around of a rewrite of the cast introductions from 2019;

Says loads...

Says loads of crap of the individual who made that. Nothing more.

Edited January 17, 2022 by DaddyFinn

[EmreY]

3 hours ago, ilovezam said:

Well, same thing. I'll be laughing my ass off if I read an original draft and it emphasized a raunchy sex scene with Tom Bombadil while he sings to emphasize his jolly nature or something.

 

 

Yes, but the point is not that it would be amusing - it probably would! - but we wouldn't be dissecting it the way people are doing so here for things that no longer have any relevance, and saying that Tolkien had obviously gone of his rocker, how could he even imagine such a thing, I knew that he was a bad writer, this really breaks the Lord of the Rings for me, etc.

 

As people are for things that are long dead and forgotten about the TV series.

 

 

[ilovezam]

2 minutes ago, EmreY said:

 

Yes, but the point is not that it would be amusing - it probably would! - but we wouldn't be dissecting it the way people are doing so here for things that no longer have any relevance, and saying that Tolkien had obviously gone of his rocker, how could he even imagine such a thing, I knew that he was a bad writer, this really breaks the Lord of the Rings for me, etc.

 

As people are for things that are long dead and forgotten about the TV series.

I think if you're adapting a beloved series of novels, your antics will be viewed with much more scrutiny. If Tolkien had wrote that rubbish it is his own invention he might have ruined, but if Tolkien had wrote that as an insert meant to improve on someone else's work, hell would break loose.

[WoTwasThat]

I tried to start a new thread on this, but it wasn’t approved. When I used the report function to ask why the thread wasn’t showing up, here is the explanation I got from @JenniferL….

 

Quote

Not every thread is going to be approved, especially when it we already have several similar threads. Next time you have a question, please pm a moderator that’s not me and ask instead of using the report function. All you’ve done now is annoy us.

 

Ok. So I guess I’ll put the content here and sorry if this is the wrong place - I was trying to ask this question somewhere it wouldn’t annoy the folks who like the show….

 

I know some folks are still on board the Rafe Train. Happy for you. My question is for everyone else: what was your breaking point?

 

For me, there were warning bells before the show even aired from some of Rafe’s interviews. But I went into it with an open mind and I actually liked the first episode. I liked the actors and the scenery. At that point, I felt like “ok, they’re doing what they need to do and it’s ok so far.” Even though they were teeing up this “who is the Dragon” thing and making it gender-inclusive, I was willing to swallow that because I was assured that Rand would be revealed by the end of the season. 
 

Epis 2 and 3 went downhill with the dialogue, and they botched Shadar Logoth, and they still weren’t discussing the saidar/saidin dichotomy, but I was still like “ok, not great, but they’re still hitting the broad strokes and eventually it’ll hit its stride.”

 

Things improved with Epi 4 and bringing Logain’s backstory to the foreground - the biggest change I agree with. I was also ok with Epi 5. Even though it did little to advance the plot my basic feeling was “ok, but the Steppin arc was still an interesting little side-story and they’ve still got THREE HOURS to wrap up the book. No reason to panic.”

 

My concerns started to ramp up a little with Episode 6. At least they were headed into the Ways be the end of the episode - still two hours left to basically do The Ways, Fal Dara, the Eye, and TG. But time was running short. And this is where Moraine’s “plan” emerged “to take the Dragon Reborn to the Dark One’s Prison” and I was like “wait, wut?” Concern definitely rising.

 

And then came Episode 7. For me, this is where the wheels really came off. I found myself hating virtually every scene. Not only was everything almost totally different from the book, every change was for the worse. Nynaeve in The Ways, that “which one of us is the Dragon” and “love triangle” scene that was so incredibly stupid and went for what seemed like 10 minutes, the Lan brings a girl to dinner scene, the Lan and Nynaeve hookup, the Nynaeve walk of shame, the most incredibly underwhelming “reveal” of the Dragon Reborn, and then Rand and Mo headed into the Blight alone “to face the Dark One.”

 

Episode 7 was definitely my “oh ____” moment for the show. I’d been holding out hope up until then, but that episode sealed the deal for me. What was yours?

[EmreY]

@WoTwasThatI really liked Episode 7.  I did, honestly.  Probably my second favourite of the series.

 

 

3 hours ago, ilovezam said:

I think if you're adapting a beloved series of novels, your antics will be viewed with much more scrutiny. If Tolkien had wrote that rubbish it is his own invention he might have ruined, but if Tolkien had wrote that as an insert meant to improve on someone else's work, hell would break loose.

 

Except, I hate to repeat this, we were discussing a script that was discarded.  Didn't see the light of day.  Was not used. 

 

This conversation, summarised:

 

A : Look, Rafe is holding his copy of WOT upside down in this clip.

B : I knew it.  Confirmation that he can't even read.

C : No, he can, but it's just to rub it into our faces that he means to turn everything upside down.

A+B+C : Yes, this is proof that he is the Anti-Jordan Incarnate!

D : Are you sure?  He probably had to hold it the right way up to begin to read it so that he could make any changes if he...

A : That he should even think about reading it upside down is heresy!

B : In fact, it was a trial balloon.  He wanted everyone to read it upside down.

D : But he must at some point have read it rightside up?

C : No, even holding the book upside down once is categorical truth, undeniable fact that he means to butcher my beloved series.

 

There's a saying where I come from, like pounding water in a pestle, which adequately describes this discussion.

 

[Yojimbo]

8 minutes ago, EmreY said:

@WoTwasThatI really liked Episode 7.  I did, honestly.  Probably my second favourite of the series.

 

 

 

Except, I hate to repeat this, we were discussing a script that was discarded.  Didn't see the light of day.  Was not used. 

 

 

While this is true, it can also be argued that it speaks to state of mind.  As a writer, just because you discard something because it might be too ham-fisted or would be rejected but the audience (or your editors or publishers) as junk (called "killing your babies" by Stephen King) it doesn't mean your second, or third draft (or subsequent chapters) won't still be influenced by that original one.

[ilovezam]

21 minutes ago, EmreY said:

Except, I hate to repeat this, we were discussing a script that was discarded.  Didn't see the light of day.  Was not used. 

Can't really agree there.

 

I'm thinking if:

 

1. Peter Jackson had an original screenplay of the movies that is entirely dreadful and discarded.

2. The movies that were released turned out to be generally poor.

3. The original screenplay parallels some of the weakest aspects of the movies that did get released.

 

then it would absolutely be discussed. 

 

In this case, I think the script informs us, at minimum, of several things:

• Tam was always meant to lose to one Trolloc, nothing to do with COVID like many used to believe.
• Love triangle was always present, and in fact was going to be amped up to 11, nothing to do with Barney Harris leaving.
• Overall heavy-handedness in injecting girl power stuff. Subjective, of course, but worth discussion. Why not?

 

Your summary is confusing, and I'm not sure what's the overall point you're attempting to make. No one is assuming that Rafe intended to ruin the books. I absolutely believe he thinks he's making it better with his "feminist updates", but they are done poorly despite his best intentions.

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by ilovezam

[Deviations]

1 hour ago, WoTwasThat said:

I know some folks are still on board the Rafe Train. Happy for you. My question is for everyone else: what was your breaking point?

The warder episode with Lan tearing his shirt open.  I was in 'WTF?' territory right at the beginning of the first episode when Moraine put pants on and angry by the end of the episode.  So many changes that didn't make sense to me.  I was told, don't worry.  It will make sense later, it was for budget, it was for time available, etc.

 

The warder episode was the deal breaker.  They spent an episode on a topic that did not need to be developed at that point in the story at the expense of Rand, Perrin, and Mat.  Couple that with drastic changes to Lan and it jumped the shark for me.

[EmreY]

6 minutes ago, Yojimbo said:

While this is true, it can also be argued that it speaks to state of mind.  As a writer, just because you discard something because it might be too ham-fisted or would be rejected but the audience (or your editors or publishers) as junk (called "killing your babies" by Stephen King) it doesn't mean your second, or third draft (or subsequent chapters) won't still be influenced by that original one.

 

I've written a lot of things over the years where my first draft doesn't look anything like the final version.  I'd go so far as to bet that everyone has.

 

I grant the evidence is in favour of your more nuanced approach, but it very circumstantial indeed. 

 

Also, how much does Judkins write for the series?

[EmreY]

Just now, Deviations said:

The warder episode with Lan tearing his shirt open.  I was in 'WTF?' territory right at the beginning of the first episode when Moraine put pants on and angry by the end of the episode.  So many changes that didn't make sense to me.  I was told, don't worry.  It will make sense later, it was for budget, it was for time available, etc.

 

If we were living in some alternate universe and I were Judkins, I would reply that it is absolutely necessary to hammer this point home.