Why not follow the books more closely?

[Samt]

1 hour ago, Kaleb said:

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.

Gatekeeping aside, this argument feels a bit like, "Hitler made the trains run on time." It's no doubt that the show has increased the reach and engagement of WoT books and IP in general.  But a faithful adaptation would have done that, too.  Just like the holocaust didn't make the trains run on time.    

[Kaleb]

10 minutes ago, Samt said:

Gatekeeping aside, this argument feels a bit like, "Hitler made the trains run on time." It's no doubt that the show has increased the reach and engagement of WoT books and IP in general.  But a faithful adaptation would have done that, too.  Just like the holocaust didn't make the trains run on time.    

Reductio ad hitlerum, really? Godwin's Law now in play!

 

[WheelofJuke]

On 4/6/2024 at 7:13 PM, Elder_Haman said:

I find Perrin very true to his book personality. Mat is certainly further away from where he is in the books but, (a) he hasn’t had much screen time; and (b) Mat wasn’t very well formed by this point in the books either. 

What?! By this point in the books, Mat is established as a masterful quarterstaff user, an avid gambler and carouser, has his arc with the dagger and humorous post-healing eating sequence, is persuaded to "escape" Tar Valon, et al. 

He's not full-on Mat yet, but he's still Mat. Definitely an established character by this point in the books. Sorry. 

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, WheelofJuke said:

What?! By this point in the books, Mat is established as a masterful quarterstaff user, an avid gambler and carouser, has his arc with the dagger and humorous post-healing eating sequence, is persuaded to "escape" Tar Valon, et al. 

He's not full-on Mat yet, but he's still Mat. Definitely an established character by this point in the books. Sorry. 

I'm not saying he wasn't an 'established character', I'm saying that his personality wasn't fully formed by this point in the books. RJ was still trying to figure out what to do with him.

 

To your point about where he was 'by this point in the books': We have seen him being an avid gambler and carouser. And we've seen him go through some of his arc with the dagger. He 'escaped' Tar Valon here too. So all we are missing is 'masterful quarterstaff user' and 'humorous post-healing eating sequence'. So it doesn't seem like we're too far off. And that's before acknowledging that we lost 3 episodes of Mat content when Barney Harris left the show.

[WheelofJuke]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I'm not saying he wasn't an 'established character', I'm saying that his personality wasn't fully formed by this point in the books. RJ was still trying to figure out what to do with him.

 

To your point about where he was 'by this point in the books': We have seen him being an avid gambler and carouser. And we've seen him go through some of his arc with the dagger. He 'escaped' Tar Valon here too. So all we are missing is 'masterful quarterstaff user' and 'humorous post-healing eating sequence'. So it doesn't seem like we're too far off. And that's before acknowledging that we lost 3 episodes of Mat content when Barney Harris left the show.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. 😉

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, WheelofJuke said:

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. 😉

About which part?

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

Example of gatekeeping. 

[WheelofJuke]

11 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

About which part?

"(b) Mat wasn’t very well formed by this point in the books either. "

I respectfully disagree with the above statement, and your follow up comment did not sway me. 🙂

[Elder_Haman]

28 minutes ago, WheelofJuke said:

"(b) Mat wasn’t very well formed by this point in the books either. "

I respectfully disagree with the above statement,

but...

51 minutes ago, WheelofJuke said:

He's not full-on Mat yet

...you did agree?

 

 

[Samt]

3 hours ago, Kaleb said:

Reductio ad hitlerum, really? Godwin's Law now in play!

 

Glad liked it.

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

16 hours ago, Samt said:

20 hours ago, Kaleb said:

Reductio ad hitlerum, really? Godwin's Law now in play!

 

Glad liked it.

It was not even accurate Reductio ad hitlerum. Mussolini made the Italian trains run on time (or more accurately he was just credited with doing so and actually failed), the German trains already did so.

[Samt]

4 hours ago, bringbackthomsmoustache said:

It was not even accurate Reductio ad hitlerum. Mussolini made the Italian trains run on time (or more accurately he was just credited with doing so and actually failed), the German trains already did so.

You mean sort of like how literally any WoT show would have increased the exposure of the WoT IP?  So you're saying it was actually a good analogy.

[bringbackthomsmoustache]

9 hours ago, Samt said:

You mean sort of like how literally any WoT show would have increased the exposure of the WoT IP?  So you're saying it was actually a good analogy.

No I was merely pedantically pointing out the inaccuracy of comparing any argument to "Hitler made the trains run on time." since Hitler was not famed for making the trains run on time at all.   My comment had no intended relevance to the argument in progress, it was merely pedantry for its own sake - and what better purpose could it have had.

 

For avoidance of doubt this comment also has no wider relevance.  

[henrywho]

On 4/16/2024 at 7:37 AM, Elder_Haman said:

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

Wow it is clearly you who does not know what they are on about here.

Of course there is a written agreement, regardless of the form it takes. What you think they just shook hands do you?

On 4/16/2024 at 7:37 AM, Elder_Haman said:

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

 

Again wrong, I thought you knew what the suit was about. It was regards whether or not she new about the production or not. She said she did not they said of course you did.

The fact that the production was utter garbage did not come in to it. ( read my reply above again after this and tell me there was no contract).

 

 

[Elder_Haman]

3 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Of course there is a written agreement,

You are claiming that there is a written agreement that she not say anything bad about the series. I am asking you to prove that. Obviously there is a written agreement between Harriet (or whatever corporate entity represents her) and Amazon. That is a far different thing from a contract that restricts her ability to offer her opinion.

 

5 minutes ago, henrywho said:

It was regards whether or not she new about the production or not.

I don't understand what point you think you're making. She was unafraid to protect the IP when she felt it needed protecting. Clearly, she did not feel any trepidation about handing the reins over to Amazon. Do you honestly believe she didn't have any idea what direction the show intended to go before doing that? The sheer audacity to think that you can speak to her personal feelings boggles the mind. 

[henrywho]

7 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

You are claiming that there is a written agreement that she not say anything bad about the series.

At no stage did I say that. READ what is written.

 

7 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

I don't understand what point you think you're making. She was unafraid to protect the IP when she felt it needed protecting. Clearly, she did not feel any trepidation about handing the reins over to Amazon. Do you honestly believe she didn't have any idea what direction the show intended to go before doing that? The sheer audacity to think that you can speak to her personal feelings boggles the mind. 

Again READ what is written and refresh what you think you know about the suit in 2015. You are clearly confused about it.

[Elder_Haman]

6 hours ago, henrywho said:

At no stage did I say that. READ what is written.

You heavily implied it. I pointed out that Harriet’s involvement in the series suggests that she doesn’t find it to be some sort of abomination that insults her husband’s legacy.
 

You responded that her public comments were tepid and then brought up her contractual obligations to Amazon. What difference does the existence of those obligations make to your argument if not to imply that they preclude her from making negative statements about the show?

 

Why talk about how difficult it would be to get her name removed from the project if not to imply that she is forbidden to do so by way of contract?

[henrywho]

18 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

You heavily implied it. I pointed out that Harriet’s involvement in the series suggests that she doesn’t find it to be some sort of abomination that insults her husband’s legacy.
 

You responded that her public comments were tepid and then brought up her contractual obligations to Amazon. What difference does the existence of those obligations make to your argument if not to imply that they preclude her from making negative statements about the show?

 

Why talk about how difficult it would be to get her name removed from the project if not to imply that she is forbidden to do so by way of contract?

You need to go back and slowly read the original posts. Keep them in context and then read my responses.

Don't try and read between my lines, there is nothing there, I type upfront nothing hidden. Slow down, preferably stop, the knee jerk reactions. read only what I type, don't put words or thoughts that are not there in my mouth/typing. I'm reading what you are typing and responding to that. Please do the same for me.

[Elder_Haman]

3 hours ago, henrywho said:

You need to go back and slowly read the original posts. Keep them in context and then read my responses.

Don't try and read between my lines, there is nothing there, I type upfront nothing hidden. Slow down, preferably stop, the knee jerk reactions. read only what I type, don't put words or thoughts that are not there in my mouth/typing. I'm reading what you are typing and responding to that. Please do the same for me.

I read what you typed. Words have no meaning if they are devoid of context. I’m not going to play the motte and bailey game where you come out making an argument that heavily implies something, then retreat to “but I didn’t actually say that” when you’re called out on the implication. 
 

If you weren’t trying to argue that Harriet is contractually bound to refrain from criticizing the show, fine. Then your posts are meaningless observations, irrelevant to the conversation at hand. You can’t have it both ways. 

[Jaccsen]

On 4/16/2024 at 1:20 PM, Kaleb said:

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.

Are you implying that this show has a lot of buzz? It does not. There may be a subset that watches it when they need streaming content to burn but the show is not driving traffic.

 

There are a handful of media articles. There was a lot of bot-driven social media posts when season 2 dropped; however, there is not a sustained WoT stream of social media traffic. 

 

I looked for information about increased book sales. I saw one article that said "The Wheel of Time (Finally) crosses 100 million sales." That is not a ringing endorsement of millions of new fans chasing the series. There was a spike in interest leading up to the show and then Sanderson broke the internet via Kickstarter.

 

Quote

According to the publishers, sales of The Wheel of Time have accelerated significantly, in the lead-up to the release of the Amazon television series in late 2021. The books have sold a cumulative 5 million copies globally since the end of 2020. As well as the TV series, sales have possibly been pushed by the crossover with Brandon Sanderson's enthusiastic and significantly large fanbase (Sanderson's own sales have reportedly recently crossed 30 million) - Sanderson cowrote the last three books in the series after Robert Jordan's passing in 2007 - and possibly the expansion of overseas markets, such as in India and Brazil where the television series apparently attracted significant interest.

 

Let's also look as merchandise.

 

I cannot even find decent WoT merchandise since Amazon took over. You sure cannot find it on Amazon. If the show was doing well, then you would see a lot of merchandise. There is less now than when we still had Ta'Veren Tees. 

 

WoT (TV) is not even serving the existing fanbase and it is certainly not driving the creation of a new fanbase.

 

I would argue that the show is highly derivative of existing "modern" tropes in TV. It is fairly lazy writing and design by committee to make sure it meets certain goals and to be as inoffensive to the social media mob as possible.

 

I wish we'd see a rabid new fanbase. I do not see one happening and it looks more like Star Wars and DC. An aging fanbase, divided, and slowly dying off.

[henrywho]

On 4/20/2024 at 11:13 PM, Elder_Haman said:

I read what you typed. Words have no meaning if they are devoid of context. I’m not going to play the motte and bailey game where you come out making an argument that heavily implies something, then retreat to “but I didn’t actually say that” when you’re called out on the implication.

If you weren’t trying to argue that Harriet is contractually bound to refrain from criticizing the show, fine. Then your posts are meaningless observations, irrelevant to the conversation at hand. You can’t have it both ways. 

It's not me trying to have it both ways. You are not reading or not understanding. I really don't feel like dumbing it down this far.

In fact I don't have time now I'm back at work. I'll do it later, maybe.

 

Oh WTF is "the motte and bailey game" ?????

[Elder_Haman]

6 hours ago, henrywho said:

You are not reading or not understanding.

I am reading. In context. 
By all means, explain how your comments about Harriet’s contract has anything to do with the conversation unless you’re trying to say that it prevents her from offering criticism. 
 

As for the motte and bailey style of argument, look it up. 

[Jaccsen]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:09 AM, Elder_Haman said:

I am reading. In context. 
By all means, explain how your comments about Harriet’s contract has anything to do with the conversation unless you’re trying to say that it prevents her from offering criticism. 

 

To be fair, I think that is the implication and most contracts do carry those types of clauses to prevent people from damaging the product. 

[Elder_Haman]

45 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

 

To be fair, I think that is the implication and most contracts do carry those types of clauses to prevent people from damaging the product. 

So Harriet has that in her contract, but Brandon does not? 

[Skipp]

3 hours ago, Jaccsen said:

 

To be fair, I think that is the implication and most contracts do carry those types of clauses to prevent people from damaging the product. 

The unfortunate thing about that implication is that the only negative things the person in question says can be truthful.  Anything positive or neutral becomes contractually obligated.