Why not follow the books more closely?

[henrywho]

4 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Yep. We got it. 

 

Shadow and Bone was just not good. Sorry. It was derivative, boring, poorly scripted and uninteresting. I’m not surprised in the least by its cancellation. And it gave me no desire to read the books. 

Again I disagree, I quite enjoyed it and was looking forward to seeing more. No TV or movie has ever inspired me to seek out the books. Curiosity about the differences brought me to listen to A Song of Ice and Fire. Which brought disappointment when I went looking for an audio book version of book 6 in that series, only to find that the printed version had not even been written yet. Ho hum, pull your finger out George !!!

[henrywho]

Interesting. When I Googled;

"What does Harriet McDougal think of The Wheel of Time TV series" I got;

 

 

What does Harriet McDougal think of The Wheel of Time show?

 

 

My feeling is that television is a different medium from the written word, and what happens on the screen is as different from what happens in the book as swimming is from walking. They're very different.

[henrywho]

I just now found this. What a great lady.

 

 

[Skipp]

17 hours ago, expat said:

 

Off topic - I've never understood why anyone suggests that Henry Cavill is a good actor.  He is the most wooden major actor I've ever seen and wouldn't cast him in anything above a local theater production.  After saying that, he works in Witcher since Geralt is supposed to be a non-emotive, wooden character, the perfect role for him.  

 

Great post and agree with everything except this.  I find Cavill to be a solid actor who is often given wooden roles.  Man from U.N.C.LE while being a ok film does show some of his range

[Elder_Haman]

11 hours ago, henrywho said:

Again I disagree, I quite enjoyed it and was looking forward to seeing more.

I guess not enough folks felt like you did. 

[Elder_Haman]

10 hours ago, henrywho said:

My feeling is that television is a different medium from the written word, and what happens on the screen is as different from what happens in the book as swimming is from walking. They're very different.

But your posts on this topic don’t seem to echo that feeling at all. I’m confused. 

[henrywho]

4 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

But your posts on this topic don’t seem to echo that feeling at all. I’m confused. 

I disagree and would suggest that Harriet had her husbands books in her mind when speaking. Also this is a quote from a 2023 live stream.

 

In 2019 these platitudes were spoken by the show runner;

Showrunner Rafe Judkins has repeatedly praised McDougal's helpful involvement in the series, saying that she's been a "hugely helpful support".^[1] On her involvement in the series, Judkins said:^[2]

 

If you can't see that for what it is then .....

This is while it's being filmed. I haven't found anything from Harriet, directly related to the series, since the completion of season one.

 

Just to clarify Harriet's 2023 quote has no context from the source I garnered it from. We do not know what prompted this quote.

Edited April 13 by henrywho

[henrywho]

As for the YouTube video interview I especially like Harriet's response when asked what she thought was the overall message or her favourite theme or themes from the books.

"Good and Evil always fighting. Always going to rule the world."

[henrywho]

Watching the interview again, the interviewer states she submitted her questions to Harriet before time.

It's not hard to see both of them dance around the TV series. The only direct question, asked in jest and as an after thought, about the TV series was "can you tell us when season 2 is coming out".

 

[Elder_Haman]

56 minutes ago, henrywho said:

If you can't see that for what it is then .....

What is it that I’m supposed to see?

[henrywho]

4 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

What is it that I’m supposed to see?

Hmmm. Simple I thought.

They are platitudes. A tactical response.

Meaningless words to sidetrack an awkward question.

Non specific, diversionary and placating.

[Elder_Haman]

2 hours ago, henrywho said:

Hmmm. Simple I thought.

They are platitudes. A tactical response.

Meaningless words to sidetrack an awkward question.

Non specific, diversionary and placating.

What’s your point?

[henrywho]

14 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

What’s your point?

My point is I find nothing to support claims that Harriet likes what the series has done to the books!

Find me one Harriet quote made after the shows release in 2021 that supports this claim.

You will almost certainly not find one in either direction as it's clear she is being "legally" careful.

Possibly due to the 2015 debacle during which she was sued directly. If she had only good things to say she would be saying them. I've never heard of anyone getting jumped on or sued for saying positive things about someone else's work.

[Elder_Haman]

52 minutes ago, henrywho said:

My point is I find nothing to support claims that Harriet likes what the series has done to the books!

 

Has anyone claimed that? Harriet has publicly endorsed the series, has signed on as a consultant to it. She has given interviews and been on set with the cast and crew. The question is not whether she has been effusive with her praise. No one is arguing that the show is without flaw or that it hasn't made major changes to book canon. Literally no one is arguing that.

 

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all.

 

1 hour ago, henrywho said:

If she had only good things to say she would be saying them.

Or maybe she's just a private person who isn't interested in causing controversy. There are people who simply do not want to garner the kind of attention that impolitic comments draw in fandoms like these.

 

1 hour ago, henrywho said:

I've never heard of anyone getting jumped on ... for saying positive things about someone else's work.

You've got to be kidding me. I don't know what world you live in, but it certainly isn't the real one. Guilt by association is all the rage on both sides of the political aisle these days. 

[Jaccsen]

On 4/13/2024 at 10:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time.

 

This seems overly harsh. Why is gatekeeping a thing these days? I see this term thrown around whenever people complain that they do not enjoy what is happening with a franchise. It happens here and in the Star Wars fandom. 

 

I do not see people complaining about the treatment of WoT as gatekeepers. I want to see MORE WoT fans. I want to see more people enjoy the series.

 

Instead, I see predatory companies like Amazon purposely dividing the fans because, hey, hate watching is still views and clicks. It may damage the brand long term but who cares.

 

It is the same as people demanding that someone explain how they would write something as an argument in order to form a gotcha moment where they can pick it apart.

 

I think a lot of people are tired of being burned by writers and showrunners who believe they can tell the story better or the "we have to update it for modern audiences." The modern audiences trope never works because those audiences would prefer 60 second shorts. At most, they will use the show for memes or soundbites yet they will never be fans. Sure, if a show does not toe the party line, they will campaign on social media but they will not actually watch it.

 

I really wanted to like this show; however, the writers pulled the same "I know better" and "it needed to be updated" and there was "no way it could be adapted without changing things." They chose to spend time on stores and characters that never happened while saying that they had to cut to tell the story.

 

The anger is not just about the adaptation. It is about the constant bait and switch. 

Edited April 15 by Jaccsen

[Elder_Haman]

2 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

This seems overly harsh.

It is the reaction you'll get when you suggest that you can speak for Robert Jordan and put words in Harriet's mouth. 

 

I have zero problem talking about the 'bait and switch' as you call it. It's valid criticism and a subject that is entirely worth discussing. What I despise is when people resort to saying that RJ 'would be rolling over in his grave' or pretending that they can arbitrate what 'deserves' to be called the Wheel of Time. And that is what I'm referring to as gatekeeping in this context.

 

[henrywho]

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

Has anyone claimed that? Harriet has publicly endorsed the series,

 

H: When?

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

has signed on as a consultant to it. She has given interviews and been on set with the cast and crew. The question is not whether she has been effusive with her praise.

 

I wonder if you have any idea how anything works. She signed on like 1000's of others before a single frame was shot. It's gold for the producers to the editor as a consultant. Sucks more book readers.

 

 

No one is arguing that the show is without flaw or that it hasn't made major changes to book canon. Literally no one is arguing that.

 

H: - Agreed, what's your point.

 

 

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all

Wow so naive. I'd day she is contractually bound. What is shown on paper often varies wildly from what a project ultimately winds up being.

 

Dune (1984) can act as an example again here. David Lynch was the director of this movie and left quite a bit of shot footage on the cutting room floor. He was pleased with the released version. Some time later (well after the successful release) the producers re-edited the movie and put a lot of what Lynch had cut back in.

The producers had the gall to call it the directors cut. Lynch had told them he removed those scenes to improve the flow, continuity and watch-ability of the movie. He was so incensed he insisted his name not be included in the credits.

 

If you are unfortunate enough to watch the "Directors Cut" of Dune (1984) you will quickly realise Lynch was right to do so. It's a dreadful version with the smooth flow and pace of the original completely lost.

 

 

 

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

Or maybe she's just a private person who isn't interested in causing controversy. There are people who simply do not want to garner the kind of attention that impolitic comments draw in fandoms like these.

 

Did you watch the interview on you tube. I'm pretty sure you know about the 2015 law suit. The law suit alone negates your argument here.

 

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

 

 

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

Has anyone claimed that? Harriet has publicly endorsed the series, has signed on as a consultant to it. She has given interviews and been on set with the cast and crew. The question is not whether she has been effusive with her praise. No one is arguing that the show is without flaw or that it hasn't made major changes to book canon. Literally no one is arguing that.

 

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all.

 

Or maybe she's just a private person who isn't interested in causing controversy. There are people who simply do not want to garner the kind of attention that impolitic comments draw in fandoms like these.

 

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

 

You've got to be kidding me. I don't know what world you live in, but it certainly isn't the real one. Guilt by association is all the rage on both sides of the political aisle these days. 

Sorry you've lost me with this. How is this relavent to what I said?

 

 

Before anyone jumps in. Harriet, if she wanted to, can not get he name removed from the show as a consultant unless the producers agree. Almost any word spoken from her mouth whilst on set could be argued as her consulting, " I like that costume" would be enough. Legally she did consult so there is no legal argument to force removal of her name. It could be argued that there is a legal requirement her name must be included.

 

I apologise for the formatting of the replay, It's clear I've had issues with this post, it would be great if a person could delete and start again. The software does not appear to support that.

 

[expat]

24 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

It is the same as people demanding that someone explain how they would write something as an argument in order to form a gotcha moment where they can pick it apart.

Hi, are you referring to me?  You understand that my requests for how to film inner monologues are rhetorical statements and not a desire to see proposed screenplays.  It is intended to get beyond content free statements like "writers and showrunners believe they can tell the story better" into actual discussions about how to film them in an interesting way that makes good TV, generates the necessary character development and stays as faithful to the books as possible.  I think this is very hard to do all of them well simultaneously and accept the need to introduce new material, but lots of posters think otherwise.  Fine, lets discuss. But just saying "be closer to the books" is not discussion, it's a way to shut down discussion because it's an appeal to emotion without any accompanying arguments which can be debated. 

 

33 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

Instead, I see predatory companies like Amazon purposely dividing the fans because, hey, hate watching is still views and clicks. It may damage the brand long term but who cares.

What is statement even trying to say?  How is Amazon purposely dividing the fans?  That some fans like it and others don't?  Doesn't that go with the territory?  How about LOTR, is Amazon purposely dividing the fans on that show also?  How do know it's true, do you have an actual argument backing up this statement?

[henrywho]

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all.

 

So wrong it's funny. As I've pointed out I doubt Harriet could get herself removed from the project even if she wanted to. The producers love her name attached to the project and would even if she never did a single seconds work on it.

Can't fault her for joining in in the first place. It's Amazon, they've done good work in the past.

 

Edited April 15 by henrywho
typo

[henrywho]

5 minutes ago, expat said:

What is statement even trying to say?  How is Amazon purposely dividing the fans?  That some fans like it and others don't?  Doesn't that go with the territory?  How about LOTR, is Amazon purposely dividing the fans on that show also?  How do know it's true, do you have an actual argument backing up this statement?

I must question this myself. I would expect the last thing Amazon "wants" to do is divide the fan base.

A large consolidated fan base has the potential to bring more viewers, just what Amazon wants.

[Elder_Haman]

31 minutes ago, henrywho said:

I'd day she is contractually bound

Prove it. You have exactly zero idea whether there is a contract, much less what that contract says.

 

31 minutes ago, henrywho said:

The law suit alone negates your argument here.

It does not. It makes it. She had no problem calling out something she believed was an affront to her husband's work.

 

32 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Harriet, if she wanted to, can not get he name removed from the show as a consultant unless the producers agree.

Prove it. Once again, you have no idea about any contract that Harriet has or doesn't have.

 

35 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Sorry you've lost me with this. How is this relavent to what I said?

On 4/13/2024 at 5:52 PM, henrywho said:

I've never heard of anyone getting jumped on or sued for saying positive things about someone else's work.

You said that you've never heard of anyone getting 'jumped on' for saying 'positive things' about someone else's work. That remarkably obtuse in today's day and age. People are publicly 'jumped on' on a daily basis for merely agreeing with someone who holds an unpopular or controversial opinion.

 

28 minutes ago, henrywho said:

So wrong it's funny. As I've pointed out I doubt Harriet could get herself removed from the project even if she wanted to. The producers love her name attached to the project and would even if she never did a single seconds work on it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Literally none. But go right ahead and continue putting words in her mouth and continue to pretend that you know exactly what Robert Jordan would have thought of the show. 

[Elder_Haman]

51 minutes ago, henrywho said:

it would be great if a person could delete and start again.

I could. But, nah.

[Jaccsen]

12 hours ago, expat said:

What is statement even trying to say?  How is Amazon purposely dividing the fans?  That some fans like it and others don't?  Doesn't that go with the territory?  How about LOTR, is Amazon purposely dividing the fans on that show also?  How do know it's true, do you have an actual argument backing up this statement?

They have done the same with LOTR. There are multiple instances of cast interviews, media stories, and social media that are used to intentionally divide the fans or malign fans that dislike the show. They will create a narrative that dislike of a show is due to hate of race or gender. This narrative is then use to create an internal war within the fanbase and deflect from actual discussion.

 

The tactic has been used as far back as the BSG remake but was deployed in force with Star Wars and it very present with Rings and WoT. It is an actual marketing strategy. Whereby marketing departments use bots, seed media stories, etc.

[Elder_Haman]

2 hours ago, Jaccsen said:

They will create a narrative that dislike of a show is due to hate of race or gender.

I know this is the case with RoP. But I have seen no such thing with WoT. Can you point me to it?

Edited April 16 by Elder_Haman

[Kaleb]

22 hours ago, Jaccsen said:

I think a lot of people are tired of being burned by writers and showrunners who believe they can tell the story better or the "we have to update it for modern audiences." The modern audiences trope never works because those audiences would prefer 60 second shorts. At most, they will use the show for memes or soundbites yet they will never be fans. Sure, if a show does not toe the party line, they will campaign on social media but they will not actually watch it.

This bit is basically the definition of gatekeeping, the equivalent of challenging someone wearing a band t-shirt you don't think they actually listen to to name their top three songs. "Modern audiences" are indeed watching WoT on Prime, and in turn the books are selling more than they have in years. Yes, there's social media content that's part of the pop culture churn with hot takes and takedowns and culture-war rage-bait, but this adaptation is clearly resulting in many show-WoT fans who go on to read the books. Navigating all this hype can definitely be exhausting, but if we want lots of new people to engage with the story, it's one of the most effective ways to hook them.

Edited April 16 by Kaleb