S1E8: The Eye of the World v2

[Guest Testeria]

3 minutes ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

Are Warders treated as tools for sex in the books? (Okay, gotta expand on this because no one has mentioned it. But, like, in episode 4 there's those two gay warders who are lounging by the fire and then their Aes Sedai comes over and is all like, "Time for sex" and they just get up and go to service her. Can you freaking imagine if this scene was gender swapped??? Of course, "problematic" material often only goes one way.)

 

That is funny because after first watching I was sure that Warders ARE comfort boys ? Still I disagree it would be the same as "gender swapped" because it do not happens as much in real world so it would be interesting to see it in fantasy show.

[Guest Testeria]

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

It's interesting that you contrast Lan against that scene specifically.

 

The fight is ridiculous but Cavill looks like death herself when walking to it. Just like when people are hurting Ciri and he arrives in second season. I believe he was talking about this presence, not the fight per se.

[7th age]

32 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

Criticism is pointless if you can't use it as a means to stick a hand in the creative process and arbitrarily decide what is good or bad (for everyone)?

 

Criticism, pointless as it might be in influencing the creative process, is the natural consequence of people doing the analyzing and investigating you and I both want to see. Just a consequence of people being emotionally invested, as well they should be, all part of the balance ?

[Guest Testeria]

 

3 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

However, in later seasons

 

It would not work. If they will change that in later season people would just assume that change it because business people were not happy with the numbers.

 

For recontextualisation it need to be reviled before season finale. Now it is too late, people already have their opinions and they will sink hard for a year. When they show something different with new season people will just assume they are changing REALITY for whatever reason, not just a point of view.

[VooDooNut]

3 minutes ago, 7th age said:

 

Criticism, pointless as it might be in influencing the creative process, is the natural consequence of people doing the analyzing and investigating you and I both want to see. Just a consequence of people being emotionally invested, as well they should be, all part of the balance ?

Honestly, I'm not sure if you are backing up my point or disputing it, but I'm happy to consolidate and reiterate my opinion:

 

• Criticism/Analysis of works of art = good (that's why I'm here, anyway!)
• Expecting the show to change mid-stride because of criticism posted on a community forum = fantastical

[WhiteVeils]

Every single thing that people have labeled misandrist about the series would not be called misogynistic if it happened for a female character.  All the things that make men look stronger than women in a show or movie or book...do they make the show/media/book misogynistic?  Or "realistic"?

[WhiteVeils]

4 minutes ago, Testeria said:

 

 

It would not work. If they will change that in later season people would just assume that change it because business people were not happy with the numbers.

 

For recontextualisation it need to be reviled before season finale. Now it is too late, people already have their opinions and they will sink hard for a year. When they show something different with new season people will just assume they are changing REALITY for whatever reason, not just a point of view.

Entirely depends on how they do it.  However, you are right in one sense.  Part of the reason we see all this extra content... Warder Bonds! Dream World!  Travelling! Circles! Armies of Trollocs blasting away!! is because the show are writing those into the rules of the world this season so when they show up later they don't look like they are changing/escalating reality.
I think major recontextualization began in the last shot of Season 1 with Moiraine and the Cuendillar.  I think it will open Season 2. They've already shown a lot of it.  Recontextualization has nothing to do with peoples opinions of the whole, but how the show portrays/reflects shots. The shots at the beginning, with LTT, don't have any opinion on them yet.  Non-readers don't care if LTT is desperate or not...it's not relevant. Yet.  It just is 'Oh, huh.'  When it /is/ portrayed as desperate, the non-readers get their 'aha' moment.  There wouldn't be any 'aha' moment if it was portrayed as desperate to begin with. It wouldn't have any emotional punch at all.

[Weird_Old_Lady]

21 minutes ago, Testeria said:

 

That is funny because after first watching I was sure that Warders ARE comfort boys ? Still I disagree it would be the same as "gender swapped" because it do not happens as much in real world so it would be interesting to see it in fantasy show.

As long as everyone is a consenting adult what does it matter what one particular realtionship group does with their private bits. It was not shown that all Aes Sedai and Warder relationships work that way.... No and Lans is not like that. Neither was Steppin and Karene. It looks like all of these warders made the adult choice to be where they are. As did Moiraine and Siuan, Nynaeve and Lan.... None of these characters should be demeaned because of these things. It takes all kinds of people, and all kinds of relationships, to make up the world. 

 

Not arguing with you, obviously I hope, just to add to your point.

 

Someone was repeatedly talking about Nynaeve as "the girl" really dismissively the other day and it bothered me. She is an adult woman who clearly made her own choice knowing the risks involved. She is a human being with full agency and free will, her own mind, her own body.... Why does her choice need to make her less than what she is? 

[Gothic Flame]

14 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

Every single thing that people have labeled misandrist about the series would not be called misogynistic if it happened for a female character.  All the things that make men look stronger than women in a show or movie or book...do they make the show/media/book misogynistic?  Or "realistic"?

Oh yea... I can see it now... The "male " Aes Sedai telling his female warder, "on your knees." Do you really think that would play well?

[Weird_Old_Lady]

41 minutes ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

Can you freaking imagine if this scene was gender swapped???

I've seen this scene gender swapped a billion times in my years. It has been forever. This one scene is not misandrist. It is a small step in the right direction. 

 

Damn. Maybe I don't belong here 

[Weird_Old_Lady]

3 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

Oh yea... I can see it now... The "male " Aes Sedai telling his female warder, "on your knees." Do you really think that would play well?

I've seen it a million times. Our culture has been misogynistic for so long that you see a stir of equality and think you are being attacked.

[JeffTheWoodlandElf]

3 minutes ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

It is a small step in the right direction. 

I mean, now we get into the issue of whether or not two wrongs make a right. In my opinion, a "step in the right direction" would be to remove these scenes entirely rather than just start debasing male characters as some sort of retribution for decades of poorly depicted female characters. 

[VooDooNut]

6 minutes ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

I've seen this scene gender swapped a billion times in my years. It has been forever. This one scene is not misandrist. It is a small step in the right direction. 

 

Damn. Maybe I don't belong here 

I agree with your top point. Less gatekeeping for sexuality/sexual/human expression in any medium is generally a good thing.

Edited January 3, 2022 by VooDooNut
edited for clarity

[7th age]

3 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

Every single thing that people have labeled misandrist about the series would not be called misogynistic if it happened for a female character.  All the things that make men look stronger than women in a show or movie or book...do they make the show/media/book misogynistic?  Or "realistic"?

Im not subscribing to every thing people have labeled as such, but maybe some.

Misandrist is too strong a word for to subcribe to either, yet two things seem clear to me.

 

1. Pretty much all of media published pre 1980 is somewhat misogynistic and much of it is untill today, simply because (parts) of the world are like that. How you react to those elements is where the variety of humans comes in. (I have a feminist aquaintance  that absolutly loathes watching James Bond for understandable reasons. Yet I have an equally feminist mother and her friends and they all love the old bond movies...  ) Question is how each of us is primed to react. The point where I think it becomes fair criticism is if people complain due to love of the books and not liking the changes THEY THINK might be due to an agenda. Whats not fair, at least here(thats for sociologist..), is viewing everything under this lens from the start because you yourself have an agenda/are angry at "wokeness". Most here seem to fall into the first catergory, but I definetly have seen the second kind as well in the wider fan community.

 

2. Rafes feminist world view has, for bad OR good, impacted the course of this season(see my post on p.1 that sadly took some time to get approved).

 

[7th age]

28 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

backing up my point or disputing

neither, Im analyzing ?

[Weird_Old_Lady]

1 minute ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

I mean, now we get into the issue of whether or not two wrongs make a right. In my opinion, a "step in the right direction" would be to remove these scenes entirely rather than just start debasing male characters as some sort of retribution for decades of poorly depicted female characters. 

There was no wrong in this situation. A group of consenting adults have a relationship. Yes. That could be reversed and I would be fine with it. Why is it wrong in your opinion?

[Guire]

2 minutes ago, Weird_Old_Lady said:

I've seen it a million times. Our culture has been misogynistic for so long that you see a stir of equality and think you are being attacked.

And this is the issue that permeates this board currently we are not allowed to discuss.  Some people see the show as well deserved comeuppance for cultural oppression.  Other people are sad and angry about characters they have loved a very long time being changed as a sacrifice.  You do belong here but everyone gets a voice even if it's not what you want to hear.

[Weird_Old_Lady]

11 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

Oh yea... I can see it now... The "male " Aes Sedai telling his female warder, "on your knees." Do you really think that would play well?

It really looked to me like a consenting thing. That is fine no matter the genders of anyone involved. Some people like that. It isn't me and I must assume it isn't you, but who are we to take these decisions from these full grown humans who want to do it? Stop controlling people what other people wanna do. It does not hurt you 

[JeffTheWoodlandElf]

25 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

Every single thing that people have labeled misandrist about the series would not be called misogynistic if it happened for a female character.

Mmmmmm... wrong. 

 

The difference is that this is an adaptation of existing source material. 

 

If I was watching an original work and the same scenes that I've called out happened just the way they do in this show, I wouldn't have a problem with them. Honestly, it doesn't bother me when women are treated as objects in media, and I care even less when men are treated as objects. If you're writing an original story, make the women as awesome as you want and the men as useless as you want. Go for it. 

 

But with WoTTV, we have a point of reference. We can look to the original and see that the men have been downgraded across the board. So, yes, standing on its own legs, there's nothing explicitly misandrist about WoTTV. However, when viewed in relation to the original and taking into account that these were intentional decisions made by the writing staff which all seem to march in lock step with a certain ideology, it's hard not to see what's going on. 

 

In short: 

It's not a problem to cut a man's balls off on TV, but it is a problem if that man is Lan, a canonically huge ball-haver. 

 

Hope that clears things up for ya. 

[notpropaganda73]

Just now, Guire said:

And this is the issue that permeates this board currently we are not allowed to discuss.  Some people see the show as well deserved comeuppance for cultural oppression.  Other people are sad and angry about characters they have loved a very long time being changed as a sacrifice.  You do belong here but everyone gets a voice even if it's not what you want to hear.

 

I find it strange that you characterise defence of these scenes as people seeing it as "well deserved comeuppance". It's not about comeuppance, it's just seeing something we don't see very often in mainstream culture. 

 

I find a lot of the arguments about this "men are being torn down!" really boring though, honestly. People go on and on and on about the male characters being bad in the show, and the most boring character on the show so far has been Egwene. But that criticism isn't valid of course, it doesn't suit the narrative ? 

[Weird_Old_Lady]

1 minute ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

Mmmmmm... wrong. 

 

The difference is that this is an adaptation of existing source material. 

 

If I was watching an original work and the same scenes that I've called out happened just the way they do in this show, I wouldn't have a problem with them. Honestly, it doesn't bother me when women are treated as objects in media, and I care even less when men are treated as objects. If you're writing an original story, make the women as awesome as you want and the men as useless as you want. Go for it. 

 

But with WoTTV, we have a point of reference. We can look to the original and see that the men have been downgraded across the board. So, yes, standing on its own legs, there's nothing explicitly misandrist about WoTTV. However, when viewed in relation to the original and taking into account that these were intentional decisions made by the writing staff which all seem to march in lock step with a certain ideology, it's hard not to see what's going on. 

 

In short: 

It's not a problem to cut a man's balls off on TV, but it is a problem if that man is Lan, a canonically huge ball-haver. 

 

Hope that clears things up for ya. 

Wow. I see. Please tell me I am not alone in feeling pretty upset by this.

[notpropaganda73]

5 minutes ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

But with WoTTV, we have a point of reference. We can look to the original and see that the men have been downgraded across the board. So, yes, standing on its own legs, there's nothing explicitly misandrist about WoTTV. However, when viewed in relation to the original and taking into account that these were intentional decisions made by the writing staff which all seem to march in lock step with a certain ideology, it's hard not to see what's going on. 

 

You see what you want to see, frankly. 

[Jaysen Gore]

6 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

Every single thing that people have labeled misandrist about the series would not be called misogynistic if it happened for a female character.  All the things that make men look stronger than women in a show or movie or book...do they make the show/media/book misogynistic?  Or "realistic"?

According to most of the feedback I see, it makes them misogynistic for not including women as equals; "there are more Avengers named Chris than there are women" is a particularly common complaint. As was the one about the lack of women in the LOTR, when it is basically a war story, written at a time when women did not serve in combat. There aren't many women in Saving Private Ryan or Das Boot, either.

 

My complaints about the series in this area aren't about the fact that the women are shown to be stronger than then men, or that they're putting more emphasis on Mo, Nyn and Egwene early. Or even really about any single change in particular. It's about the avalanche of changes - small and large - that decrease at almost every opportunity the ability of the men to show their competence and value. 

 

But that's why in my season wrap up, I completed about the meta story they're telling, not the story itself.  

[Ralph]

I still want to hear from each of the many participants on this forum who are seeing an "agenda" - 

 

Were you concerned about this potential before the show started, due to Rafe's comments about being a feminist and updating certain parts of the gender divide in WOT? 

 

I have asked this several times and not received any response, and I still suspect there is confirmation bias going on over here. 

 

I haven't seen a single change I believe was motivated by trying to downgrade the men. Every change has its reason, which may or may not be justified, but I believe only someone looking for it would see this as an agenda

[Guire]

1 minute ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

I find it strange that you characterise defence of these scenes as people seeing it as "well deserved comeuppance". It's not about comeuppance, it's just seeing something we don't see very often in mainstream culture. 

 

I find a lot of the arguments about this "men are being torn down!" really boring though, honestly. People go on and on and on about the male characters being bad in the show, and the most boring character on the show so far has been Egwene. But that criticism isn't valid of course, it doesn't suit the narrative ? 

In general I think most of the characters are less appealing.  I don't have a narrative other than characters I have loved for 30 are being changed.  I am happy for people who can get joy from these changes.  Saying there is not a pattern in these changes though is just a bit silly.  And most of the positive reviews mention these changes as a large part of the reviewers enjoyment of show.