Just a thought for viewers who read the books first

[Mirefox]

1 hour ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

But that is not what is happening, people are peddling hate. It is sad to see. I love these books, the characters have been my friends since before I was an adult. I personally find it tragic that WoT is used as vehicle to attack people based on their world views. None of your points in any way contradict my assertion that we should be able to discuss the books and the show with respect for each other and respect for the author and the showrunners, even when we disagree with them. 

 

This is not what I am seeing, not even on these forums, let alone something like Twitter (damn you WoT, I have never used Twitter until now, only lurking but still, everyone knows where that leads to). I am seeing hostility and hate towards sections of our community, and it deeply saddens me. Obviously, I am not making any inroads into your opinion so I'll stop, feel free to message me should you wish to discuss it further - doing so on these forums seems unhelpful. 

 

Edit: and I missed your rant against feminism. Which highlights exactly what I am saying. Your criticism has nothing to do with the show, it is all about your views on feminism that your own words show do not understand and you have demonized it. Through extension, the show is demonic, any changes are demonic, anyone who likes it are demon worshippers. There is no discussion, everything is black and white and of course people are hurling abuse and insults at such demonic people. But they are just people who think differently, and are people that you will not be respectful towards. But please feel free to message me if you want to discuss it further. 

 

You say I rant against feminism when I explicitly praised Jordan's feminist ideals.  I rant against sexism, which is what is presented in the show in the guise of modern feminism and, frankly, true feminists should be against it as well.  Instead of writing a show where men and women are equal but different, both able to obtain tremendous levels of power and influence while both able to make horrible mistakes, the show is clearly overcompensating to elevate one sex over the other.  This is wrong.  This is objective sexism.  I'd be against it if they were elevating men and making women look bad and I'd be against it if they were elevating women and making men look bad.  Either way is very much against the world Jordan crafted, and this defining characteristic on how he approached the sexes was foundational to the depth of the world he created and once of the reasons WoT is so massively popular amongst all demographics.  The fact that we are even having an argument here demonstrates how divisive the showrunner has made the show (again, on purpose as he's admitted).  It is a shame and should be condemned by everyone yet so many seem willing to bend over backwards to defend completely unnecessary change.  The blueprint was right there in front of them for a very feminist, very egalitarian story filled with characters with both strengths and flaws but Amazon/Rafe/whoever thought they could do better.

[SinisterDeath]

17 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

I will go ahead and grant you that Shakespeare is, in general, a good counter argument.  That said, there is a difference in that you are talking about a couple-hundred year old play that has been adapted so many times that any initial changes are wearing off.  WoT is much more modern and this is the first official adaptation we've seen, which is changing things right off the bat.

 

Further, I'm fine with superficial changes as long as they make sense.  Hamlet with a female lead is fine if they stick to the same story and themes.  Heck, Hamlet with a lion lead is fine if they stick with the same story and themes.

 

You've got me a little outside my area of knowledge with Shakespeare, though, so I can't say too much about it.  For the record, though, I was fine with the overly-stylized Leonardo DiCaprio version and think (to my recollection at least) that is was an acceptable adaptation, being that it made plenty of changes but stuck with the overall characterization and plot.

West Side Story = Romeo and Juliet.

[notpropaganda73]

19 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

I will go ahead and grant you that Shakespeare is, in general, a good counter argument.  That said, there is a difference in that you are talking about a couple-hundred year old play that has been adapted so many times that any initial changes are wearing off.  WoT is much more modern and this is the first official adaptation we've seen, which is changing things right off the bat.

 

Further, I'm fine with superficial changes as long as they make sense.  Hamlet with a female lead is fine if they stick to the same story and themes.  Heck, Hamlet with a lion lead is fine if they stick with the same story and themes.

 

You've got me a little outside my area of knowledge with Shakespeare, though, so I can't say too much about it.  For the record, though, I was fine with the overly-stylized Leonardo DiCaprio version and think (to my recollection at least) that is was an acceptable adaptation, being that it made plenty of changes but stuck with the overall characterization and plot.

 

I was being a little flippant/facetious, apologies - but also thanks for a well thought out response! 

 

I do think theatre as a medium just lends itself more to those creative adaptations that are a huge departure in many ways - I once saw a production of Macbeth that was set in an asylum for the mentally ill, and Alan Cumming played every character. However on the flipside, Samuel Beckett was notorious for productions of his plays having to be exactly has he staged them with little to no changes, and his estate has carried on that legacy - as far as I know you still can't stage a production of Waiting for Godot with a female cast for example (this may have changed in the past couple of years I'm not sure). 

 

I totally acknowledge that it is harder with film and television to make those sorts of changes. But as you say, so long as the overall characterisation and plot is intact, what does it matter? Then we get into discussions about what has been changed in the WoT show so far and whether those things are fundamental to the overall story from the book. 

[Elder_Haman]

29 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

Ah yes, the old "you can't critique unless you've done it better argument."  I presume that's how you work with everything, right?  You can't critique a restaurant unless you've made the food yourself?  You can't critique a politician unless you've written legislation yourself?

Critiquing is not the same as ad hominem. You're a smart person. You know this.

 

31 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

I can pick out dozens of logical inconsistencies in any given episode of this show

So can I. For just about any show you give me. What does this prove?

 

32 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

I can quote lines that show that the writers do not understand their own story.

Then do that. And let's have a conversation about it. But I guarantee you that every example of "amateurish" writing that you give me, I can find an example of the same sort of "amateurism" in other popular television.

 

The problem is that complete adherence to the source material is your lodestone. You are bound to be disappointed. For example, you acknowledged liking the actor who plays Masema in The Last Kingdom. Was that show "amateurish" by your standards? How well does it match the source material? 

[Kaleb]

12 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

the show is clearly overcompensating to elevate one sex over the other.  This is wrong.  This is objective sexism.

I see this point over and over from many people, but I don't know how to react other than "facts not in evidence." How are they elevating women over men? The only significant depowering in the show compared to the books that I can think of is that Rand didn't have the TEOTW climax, and I honestly don't miss it because it's a ridiculous overpowered scene that we have to just chalk up to ta'veren and prophecy in the books. In the show we're seeing lots of strong men dealing with their struggles the same way we're seeing strong women dealing with theirs. If we don't see the boys step up significantly and claim some more of their power by the end of this season and into S3, I guess I might start to be sympathetic to this claim. Especially if the girls do get all the hero moments. But the boys (and girls!) of Emond's Field are all still bumbling around and well short of figuring out their roles despite their massive potential at this point in the books.

[SinisterDeath]

20 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

A very expected and fallacious response.

If it was expected that probably means you're trollin'.
 

20 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

You call me out as the one with the agenda.

Because you're using politically charged language in all of your posts. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see it.

 

21 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

The logic is astounding.

Yes. It takes a huge logic brain to see that a person from one political spectrum is mad that someone of an opposing political spectrum is the lead writer for their favorite fantasy book series, and is now on a web forum dedicated to those books talking about that show and how it doesn't conform to their political spectrum trying to assert their agenda aura onto everyone else.

[Mirefox]

1 minute ago, SinisterDeath said:

If it was expected that probably means you're trollin'.
 

Because you're using politically charged language in all of your posts. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see it.

 

Yes. It takes a huge logic brain to see that a person from one political spectrum is mad that someone of an opposing political spectrum is the lead writer for their favorite fantasy book series, and is now on a web forum dedicated to those books talking about that show and how it doesn't conform to their political spectrum trying to assert their agenda aura onto everyone else.

I couldn’t care less where Rafe Judkins is on the political spectrum.  I care that he is fundamentally changing a story and characters to match an agenda which, for the 100th time, he has admitted to.  And if my language is politically charged, perhaps it is as a result of a show becoming politically charged where it shouldn’t.

[Elder_Haman]

2 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

 I care that he is fundamentally changing a story and characters to match an agenda

He is leaning into the matriarchal aspects of a series that has a matriarchal edge to it. Why is that so bothersome? If he is "injecting his politics" into the story, I appreciate that he's at least trying to be subtle about it.

 

I have watched plenty of TV shows that are nothing but poorly disguised political polemics. They are literally everywhere. Wheel of Time is not that. The only way it becomes that is if you're emotionally invested in finding it.

[Mirefox]

1 minute ago, Elder_Haman said:

He is leaning into the matriarchal aspects of a series that has a matriarchal edge to it. Why is that so bothersome? If he is "injecting his politics" into the story, I appreciate that he's at least trying to be subtle about it.

 

I have watched plenty of TV shows that are nothing but poorly disguised political polemics. They are literally everywhere. Wheel of Time is not that. The only way it becomes that is if you're emotionally invested in finding it.

Leaning into matriarchy?  Tell me one male character that hasn’t been lessened in a way this series.  Now tell my one female character that has been lessened.  They’ve all risen above what they’ve been capable of at this point in the books.  Heck, they were given Tarwin’s gap.  The only female that has been lessened, I suppose, is Moiraine, but other than being stilled/shielded she can do everything from kill a fade with a dagger to track Rand to get the drop on a Forsaken.  And in any scene with a man and a woman, who gets to be the badass?  Every. Scene.

 

Lean into the matriarch a bit, I guess.  But this show is sexist in its overcompensation.

[Mirefox]

6 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

He is leaning into the matriarchal aspects of a series that has a matriarchal edge to it. Why is that so bothersome? If he is "injecting his politics" into the story, I appreciate that he's at least trying to be subtle about it.

 

I have watched plenty of TV shows that are nothing but poorly disguised political polemics. They are literally everywhere. Wheel of Time is not that. The only way it becomes that is if you're emotionally invested in finding it.

The very first lines of the show: “The world is broken.  Many many years ago men who were born with great power believed they could cage darkness itself.  The arrogance…and the women were left to pick up the pieces.”

 

Before the 3 minute mark:  “This power was meant for women, and women alone,  and when you touch it you make it filthy.”

 

One doesn’t have to be emotionally invested in finding philosophical changes to this story to be slapped in the face by them from the very first moments.

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, Mirefox said:

Leaning into matriarchy?  Tell me one male character that hasn’t been lessened in a way this series.  Now tell my one female character that has been lessened.  They’ve all risen above what they’ve been capable of at this point in the books.  Heck, they were given Tarwin’s gap.  The only female that has been lessened, I suppose, is Moiraine, but other than being stilled/shielded she can do everything from kill a fade with a dagger to track Rand to get the drop on a Forsaken.  And in any scene with a man and a woman, who gets to be the badass?  Every. Scene.

 

Lean into the matriarch a bit, I guess.  But this show is sexist in its overcompensation.

Rand hasn't been "lessened". Perrin hasn't been "lessened". Mat hasn't been "lessened".

 

Rand is, at this point in the show, the same person he was at this point in the books. Confused, naive, hating the idea of being able to channel, and soon to be in Falme.

 

Perrin is, at this point in the show, the same person he was at this point in the books. Cautious to the point of seeming slow, brooding, afraid of losing control and unclear about what being a wolf-brother means. And soon to be in Falme.
 

Mat has been changed somewhat, but I don't think "lessened". It's just that (as I've said elsewhere), they've inverted his morality. In the books, he is always loyal to his friends, despite the fact that he really doesn't want to be. In the show, he isn't loyal even though he really wishes he was. (And, in the books, Mat really doesn't do anything until after Rhuidean anyway - plenty of room for growth.)

 

The only character I find that criticism valid for is Lan. I agree that they haven't allowed Lan to be the badass he was in the books, to his detriment.

[Mirefox]

23 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Critiquing is not the same as ad hominem. You're a smart person. You know this.

 

So can I. For just about any show you give me. What does this prove?

 

Then do that. And let's have a conversation about it. But I guarantee you that every example of "amateurish" writing that you give me, I can find an example of the same sort of "amateurism" in other popular television.

 

The problem is that complete adherence to the source material is your lodestone. You are bound to be disappointed. For example, you acknowledged liking the actor who plays Masema in The Last Kingdom. Was that show "amateurish" by your standards? How well does it match the source material? 

In the introduction to episode 1, Moiraine calls Lews Therin The Dragon.  Great!  Nailed it.  So why in episode 8 does LT get called The Dragon Reborn by his contemporary?  Why does Moirane call him The Dragon Reborn in S2E5?  This is amateurish.  This is a complete misunderstanding of the very basics of the source material.

 

And go ahead and compare it with other shows.  There are plenty of other garbage shows out there and I’m happy to be critical of them.  I can’t speak much about The Last Kingdom because it was my “turn my brain off while I’m on the treadmill” show and I haven’t read the books for ages.

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, Mirefox said:

The very first lines of the show: “The world is broken.  Many many years ago men who were born with great power believed they could cage darkness itself.  The arrogance…and the women were left to pick up the pieces.”

 

Before the 3 minute mark:  “This power was meant for women, and women alone,  and when you touch it you make it filthy.”

 

One doesn’t have to be emotionally invested in finding philosophical changes to this story to be slapped in the face by them from the very first moments.

Unreliable narrators exist. Every word out of a character's mouth does not reflect truth. 

Moiraine believes that the breaking was caused by men's arrogance. But as the cold open for S1E8 showed, it was also caused by women's reluctance to believe that LTT's plan was worthwhile. So Moiraine's view is not entirely wrong, nor is it entirely right.

 

Liandrin probably believes that she is superior to everyone else. She certainly has acted that way in the show, hasn't she?

 

Despite your deep desire to make these into fundamental changes in the lore, they just aren't.

[SinisterDeath]

13 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

The very first lines of the show: “The world is broken.  Many many years ago men who were born with great power believed they could cage darkness itself.  The arrogance…and the women were left to pick up the pieces.”

From an Aes Sedai, a Female led organization that believes it runs the world. That it knows everything. That is so arrogant it can't even see it's own hypocrisy when talking about arrogant men...

 

13 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

Before the 3 minute mark:  “This power was meant for women, and women alone,  and when you touch it you make it filthy.”

Spoken by a member of the Red Ajah. An Ajah that RJ wrote like they were militant Feminists out to castrate all males.

 

13 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

One doesn’t have to be emotionally invested in finding philosophical changes to this story to be slapped in the face by them from the very first moments.

Sounds like you were emotionally invested in the power fantasy of a red headed sheep herder that you forgot there were other characters in the story...
 

7 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

In the introduction to episode 1, Moiraine calls Lews Therin The Dragon.  Great!  Nailed it.  So why in episode 8 does LT get called The Dragon Reborn by his contemporary?  Why does Moirane call him The Dragon Reborn in S2E5?  This is amateurish.  This is a complete misunderstanding of the very basics of the source material.

I will give you that this was a mistaken on the show. My only guess is that this was either a mistake in the script, or Rosamund Pike messed up her line and they didn't fix it in post.

 

I wonder if they'll go back and fix that scene like they fixed Egwene' looking at Nynaeve's ring?

[Elder_Haman]

3 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

Moiraine calls Lews Therin The Dragon.  Great!  Nailed it.  So why in episode 8 does LT get called The Dragon Reborn by his contemporary?  Why does Moirane call him The Dragon Reborn in S2E5?

Are these titles mutually exclusive in your mind? 

The titles apply, given RJ's established lore about the nature of the Ages. The change is simply that the people of the world also know about and believe in these cycles, to an extent. It's religiosity. Jesus is known interchangeably in the Bible both as the Son of God and the Son of Man. Same here. LTT is both the Dragon and the Dragon Reborn. It's a minor linguistic change.  

[Mirefox]

5 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Rand hasn't been "lessened". Perrin hasn't been "lessened". Mat hasn't been "lessened".

 

Rand is, at this point in the show, the same person he was at this point in the books. Confused, naive, hating the idea of being able to channel, and soon to be in Falme.

 

Perrin is, at this point in the show, the same person he was at this point in the books. Cautious to the point of seeming slow, brooding, afraid of losing control and unclear about what being a wolf-brother means. And soon to be in Falme.
 

Mat has been changed somewhat, but I don't think "lessened". It's just that (as I've said elsewhere), they've inverted his morality. In the books, he is always loyal to his friends, despite the fact that he really doesn't want to be. In the show, he isn't loyal even though he really wishes he was. (And, in the books, Mat really doesn't do anything until after Rhuidean anyway - plenty of room for growth.)

 

The only character I find that criticism valid for is Lan. I agree that they haven't allowed Lan to be the badass he was in the books, to his detriment.

In the books, Rand faced being the Dragon Reborn by saving Shinear (in an admittedly deus ex machina moment that they’ve not given to the girls), training to be a swordsman with the aforementioned badass lan, facing the Amyrlin, going on a quest to save his friend, and resisting Selene’s temptations.  In the show he’s just kind of along for the ride and gets big moments like running away from a barmaid with a sword and…..what?

 

Perrin struggles with violence and his strength because he killed a whitecloak imnthe books.  He firmly rejects the way of the leaf and knows that strength is called for but is reluctant to use it.  In the show, he’s a wife killer who watches as everyone around him gets hurt or dies.  He’s nothing but a walking internal monologue.  They can redeem him, sure, but to this point he’s been very weak.

 

Mat is a travesty.  In the books he was a roguish scoundrel who would maybe steal a pie.  Here he’s the thief son on a horrible man who steals from the girls of the town and likes to drink.  Imagine if they did something like that to Eg.

[Mirefox]

4 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

From an Aes Sedai, a Female led organization that believes it runs the world. That it knows everything. That is so arrogant it can't even see it's own hypocrisy when talking about arrogant men...

 

Spoken by a member of the Red Ajah. An Ajah that RJ wrote like they were militant Feminists out to castrate all males.

 

Sounds like you were emotionally invested in the power fantasy of a red headed sheep herder that you forgot there were other characters in the story...
 

I will give you that this was a mistaken on the show. My only guess is that this was either a mistake in the script, or Rosamund Pike messed up her line and they didn't fix it in post.

 

I wonder if they'll go back and fix that scene like they fixed Egwene' looking at Nynaeve's ring?

Ok, going chronologically and still at the beginning of E1, Moiraine says there are rumors of 4 taveren in the Two Rivers.  Good writing?  Where did these rumors come from?  Who else knows these rumors?  Why isn’t thhis a bigger deal for anyone, Moiraine included?

 

Next scene, the Women’a Circle has a ritual for women in the Two Rivers that come of age.  That’s nice.  They braid their hair.  That’s nice.  Then they push them off a cliff into a raging river with no banks and hope they survive.  Come gain?  So this small rural town has a tradition that is likely to kill some girls when they come of age?  Is this good writing or is it so they can try to shoehorn in a metaphor?

 

 

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, Mirefox said:

In the books, Rand faced being the Dragon Reborn by saving Shinear (in an admittedly deus ex machina moment that they’ve not given to the girls), training to be a swordsman with the aforementioned badass lan, facing the Amyrlin, going on a quest to save his friend, and resisting Selene’s temptations.  In the show he’s just kind of along for the ride and gets big moments like running away from a barmaid with a sword and…..what?

In the show, he kept Mat going while he was poisoned by the dagger leading them both to Tar Valon, he saved Egwene from trollocs in the ways, faced Ishamael in the dreamworld at the Eye and made the 'correct' choice to reject the false visions. He faced down a fade and burned it to ashes with the power. 

 

He will be meeting with the Amyrlin soon (given what we've seen from the trailer) and will soon face down Turak and have a "battle in the skies" over Falme. He has been bold and heroic at points and sensitive and kind. All just like Rand in the books.

7 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

Perrin struggles with violence and his strength because he killed a whitecloak imnthe books.  He firmly rejects the way of the leaf and knows that strength is called for but is reluctant to use it.  In the show, he’s a wife killer who watches as everyone around him gets hurt or dies.  He’s nothing but a walking internal monologue.  They can redeem him, sure, but to this point he’s been very weak.

Perrin struggles with violence and his strength because he killed his wife in the show. He is conflicted about the way of the leaf, understanding instinctually that violence is sometimes called for and part of nature (dialogue with Aram about the Tinker's dogs) but struggling over his trauma at killing his wife. He has been "weak" in that he hasn't been able to find the resolve to join the battle. But he has been strong in caring selflessly for Egwene. Strong in agreeing to die for her in Valda's tent. And as he spends more time with the wolves, he is beginning to grow into his power. All just like Perrin in the books.

10 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

Mat is a travesty.  In the books he was a roguish scoundrel who would maybe steal a pie.  Here he’s the thief son on a horrible man who steals from the girls of the town and likes to drink.  Imagine if they did something like that to Eg.

Mat is a travesty because of who his dad is? He's different, sure. But he's not a travesty. He has a journey to go through to make it to the Mat who leads the Band. In the books, he had to overcome the dagger and its influence. Here, the evil he has to overcome is more personal. 

 

[Skipp]

1 hour ago, notpropaganda73 said:

So an "established IP" has to be adapted with no changes to it's story because it's established? Works can't be changed or updated, seen through a new light to bring it to a different audience, or make the current audience re-examine the material in a different way? Somebody please tell the 1000s of productions of Hamlet with a female lead. 

 

Perfect example of this is Starship Troopers.

[Elder_Haman]

4 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

Then they push them off a cliff into a raging river with no banks and hope they survive.

No. They take them to a specific location where they know that you can jump into the water and survive if you are calm and collected. Probably because there is a training period (like Catholic confirmation classes) where you learn about the importance of stillness, etc. 

[SinisterDeath]

4 minutes ago, Skipp said:

Perfect example of this is Starship Troopers.

[Skipp]

19 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

From an Aes Sedai, a Female led organization that believes it runs the world. That it knows everything. That is so arrogant it can't even see it's own hypocrisy when talking about arrogant men...

 

Not to mention it perfectly mirrors what Moiraine and Suian plan in Episode 6.  They believe they have the one and only solution.  They send Moiraine and the Dragon Reborn to the eye not only was it a trap they release Ishy fully into the world.  I would call that arrogance.

[Mirefox]

12 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

No. They take them to a specific location where they know that you can jump into the water and survive if you are calm and collected. Probably because there is a training period (like Catholic confirmation classes) where you learn about the importance of stillness, etc. 

Stop blanket defending the nonsense!  Rivers without banks are not safe!  Rivers are fickle; they change constantly based on the season and rainfall.  If we are indeed accepting that this ritual makes sense then we are accepting that the possibility of killing a woman is acceptable in this community.  And if you have make up your own backstory - that these women supposedly train in cliff jumping or whatever - to explain a scene that the writers added on their own, then it is poor writing.  If the scene is necessary, why not have Nyn tell her to remember their training?  On top of that, Eg sure seems surprised, for someone who you’ve supposed has been preparing.

 

It is bad writing.  

[Mirefox]

14 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

It’s been 30 years since I’ve read it and I’ve never seen the movie but I’ve heard it butchers the book, right?

[Ralph]

https://northernnatalnews.co.za/242708/four-drown-ngagane-river-ritual-ceremony?amp

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/12/barbaramcmahon