New user, came to vent.

[Chivalry]

9 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

Okay, fair. But would you agree that the overall quality of the show has improved from S1 to S2? Better CGI, better writing, stronger acting, etc.?

I think the CGI is better, I think the acting is fine (I like most of the actors). I still think the writing has been very inconsistent. I doubt the show will be winning any writing awards...with the exception of Episode 6, perhaps. That was a difficult episode to watch, but a moment where the show captured the horror of the Damane/Sul'dam relationship better than even the books.

 

So I'd say S2 has been an improvement over S1, but I'm waiting on Episode 8. I need the writers to demonstrate they can end a season properly.

[Robbin Poh]

19 hours ago, Mirefox said:

I’m sorry, what?  I can’t take posts like this seriously.  If you like the show, great, but let’s not pretend that the characters are all the same.  I mean, have you seen Lan?

 

The characters may end up at the same geographical location as they are in the books but they are not all the same characters.

Stop pretending you decide the gold standard for what characters should be. You are just another reader, more specifically, one who didn't pay enough attention and forgot too much.

[CaddySedai]

[grayavatar]

No S2 is not an improvement on season 1. Are we trying to compare which turd is shinier here?

 

None of the characters are the same as in the books.

Though I did like Verin and Elayne. They were not the characters from the books, Verin should be ignorant of her surroundings and less social. Elayne should be more stuck up and smug but still polite and diplomatic.

 

Moiraine bothers me the most. She should be serious and focused on her mission but remember she danced with the boys in Baerlon? That is who Moiraine really is. Compassionate but unrelenting. Instead we got to spend way too much time with her family and we discovered she was also aged up. The rest of the cast was aged up a few years, but Moiraine was aged up about 60 years. Her attitude however seemed spoiled and childish in this season.

 

Lan is a soppy mess

 

Aviendha talks too much and smiles too much.

 

Did you see the bit where Alanna's warders where instructing Sheriam on how to deal with novices!

 

Siuan Sanche is dumb and not the person is has a single focus all her life. She should be willing to do whatever it takes to achieve her goal. Now she is wishy-washy flip-flopping indecisive.

 

Lanfear prancing through the streets setting fires to buildings? Languishing in Ishamaels bed?

 

Who is Rand. We can barely tell who one of the main characters is. He is just there most of the time, usually on his knees. When he met Elayne he actually looked bored.

 

Mat also spent a lot of time on the floor usually under duress. Mat should be a free spirit who is only constrained by his own morals.

 

Perrin also spent time as a prisoner. I'm seeing a theme here. The best thing about Perrin this season was Hopper.

 

Hurin is Elyas and vice versa, the end result is nothing like either of them.

 

Renna has too much dialogue but I liked the actress. I think she should have been cast as Nynaeve.

 

Ishamael was cuddly.

[Elder_Haman]

6 hours ago, grayavatar said:

No S2 is not an improvement on season 1.

What is your metric for what constitutes an improvement?

 

I would say that in the area it matters most -- viewership numbers -- it's still too early to tell. We will have an apples to apples comparison once the numbers grab all of season 2.

 

In the area it matters second most -- audience reception -- it is clearly an improvement. Audience score on rotten tomatoes went from 60% fresh after season 1 to 82% fresh for season 2. I would not be surprised to get some Emmy nominations out of this season (Rosamund Pike, Natasha O'Keefe, and Madeleine Madden are all contenders for Best Actress/Supporting Actress) 

 

Whether it is an improvement in terms of the way the story of the Wheel of Time is told is, of course, an entirely subjective thing. I can see why the changes aren't your thing though.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Elder_Haman

[grayavatar]

My metric is my experience watching the show. It was slow and boring, also illogical, inconsistent, cringy and ridiculous. Season 2 was even more so. Long overly dramatic emotional scenes about nonsense took up most of the season when it should have had a much faster pace. It was a drama when it should have been an adventure.

 

Also I don't put much stock in sites like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB ratings and neither should you.

Edited October 7, 2023 by grayavatar

[Elder_Haman]

6 minutes ago, grayavatar said:

My metric is my experience watching the show. It was slow and boring, also illogical, inconsistent, cringy and ridiculous. Season 2 was even more so. Long overly dramatic emotional scenes about nonsense took up most of the season when it should have had a much faster pace. It was a drama when it should have been an adventure.

 

Also I don't put much stock in sites like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB ratings and neither should you.

Okay. But the numbers are what they are and quite a few people enjoy the show. I quite like the fact that it is a drama. Dramas are sustainable as tv shows, adventures really aren’t. 

[Mirefox]

3 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

What is your metric for what constitutes an improvement?

 

I would say that in the area it matters most -- viewership numbers -- it's still too early to tell. We will have an apples to apples comparison once the numbers grab all of season 2.

 

In the area it matters second most -- audience reception -- it is clearly an improvement. Audience score on rotten tomatoes went from 60% fresh after season 1 to 82% fresh for season 2. I would not be surprised to get some Emmy nominations out of this season (Rosamund Pike, Natasha O'Keefe, and Madeleine Madden are all contenders for Best Actress/Supporting Actress) 

 

Whether it is an improvement in terms of the way the story of the Wheel of Time is told is, of course, an entirely subjective thing. I can see why the changes aren't your thing though.

Audience score went from 60% fresh after season 1 to 82% fresh after season 2 because only 20% of the audience bothered to stick around and rate season 2.  I think the fact that audience scores for season 1 are out of 5,000+ reviews while season 2 is only 1,000 is way more damning to the popularity of the show than it is positive.  
 

IMDB is the same story.  Season 1 ratings per episode range from 7k-12k reviews; season 2 ranges from 1.9-3.2k reviews per episode.  The 3.2k reviews was for episode 1 and they go down from there.

 

Going further in to it, audience scores on Metacritic are 6.4 with with 466 reviews for season 1 and 6.1 with 74 review for season 2.

 

Even on Amazon itself there are 31.5k reviews for season 1 and 1.5k for season 2.

 

I don’t think audience reviews are the argument that you want to make right now.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Mirefox

[RitualM]

20 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

Audience score went from 60% fresh after season 1 to 82% fresh after season 2 because only 20% of the audience bothered to stick around and rate season 2.  I think the fact that audience scores for season 1 are out of 5,000+ reviews while season 2 is only 1,000 is way more damning to the popularity of the show than it is positive.  
 

IMDB is the same story.  Season 1 ratings per episode range from 7k-12k reviews; season 2 ranges from 1.9-3.2k reviews per episode.  The 3.2k reviews was for episode 1 and they go down from there.

 

Going further in to it, audience scores on Metacritic are 6.4 with with 466 reviews for season 1 and 6.1 with 74 review for season 2.

 

I don’t think audience reviews are the argument that you want to make right now.

Anyone basing their opinions of the show off viewer ratings is incapable of forming their own opinions and should be ignored.

[Mirefox]

1 minute ago, RitualM said:

Anyone basing their opinions of the show off viewer ratings is incapable of forming their own opinions and should be ignored.

Nobody here is basing their opinions of the show on audience numbers.  @Elder_Haman said that audience numbers show that the show has improved.  I pointed out that there is more to interpreting the scores than simply the aggregate review number.  

[Elder_Haman]

2 hours ago, Mirefox said:

Audience score went from 60% fresh after season 1 to 82% fresh after season 2 because only 20% of the audience bothered to stick around and rate season 2.  I think the fact that audience scores for season 1 are out of 5,000+ reviews while season 2 is only 1,000 is way more damning to the popularity of the show than it is positive.  
 

IMDB is the same story.  Season 1 ratings per episode range from 7k-12k reviews; season 2 ranges from 1.9-3.2k reviews per episode.  The 3.2k reviews was for episode 1 and they go down from there.

 

Going further in to it, audience scores on Metacritic are 6.4 with with 466 reviews for season 1 and 6.1 with 74 review for season 2.

 

Even on Amazon itself there are 31.5k reviews for season 1 and 1.5k for season 2.

 

I don’t think audience reviews are the argument that you want to make right now.

Maybe. I understand what you’re saying about the number of reviews. That’s more related to viewership numbers though, which I said is still an open question. Remember season 1 has had an extra 24 months to accumulate reviews. 

 

I still think that the consensus opinion is that season one was better than season two. By that metric, season 2 was an improvement. 
 

 

[grayavatar]

You have to keep in mind that many of the people who vote are family and friends of the cast and crew. Many who no longer care about the show don't vote and so ratings submitted by people close to the show become more potent.

[Elder_Haman]

5 minutes ago, grayavatar said:

You have to keep in mind that many of the people who vote are family and friends of the cast and crew. Many who no longer care about the show don't vote and so ratings submitted by people close to the show become more potent.

Yeah, I just don’t buy that a 22% improvement in the audience score is attributable to friends and family of the cast and crew. 

[Mirefox]

19 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Yeah, I just don’t buy that a 22% improvement in the audience score is attributable to friends and family of the cast and crew. 

I don’t, either, but as I cautioned earlier, I’d stay away from the audience scores argument.  Statistically, what is shows right now is that only the relatively small group of people who rated the show positively in the first season came back to rate the second season and the larger majority who didn’t like it didn’t come back.

 

To make it simple, say you have a movie that 10 people watch.  8 hate it and rate it a 4.  2 love it and rate it a 10.  You’d have a score of 5.2, or 52%.  The 2 who loved it come back for season 2 and rate that a 10 again, 2 people who didn’t like it come back to give it another chance and give it a 6, and 6 hated the show so much that they didn’t bother coming back for season 2.  Season 2 would then have a rating of 8, or 80%.  Based on the percent alone it would seem a massive improvement but the underlying issue is that the original experience was so bad that the second season gets skewed positively since its viewer retention  low primarily those who are predisposed to enjoy it.

 

This is an over-simplification but you certainly have this phenomena with WoT user scores. 

[Elder_Haman]

6 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

I don’t, either, but as I cautioned earlier, I’d stay away from the audience scores argument.  Statistically, what is shows right now is that only the relatively small group of people who rated the show positively in the first season came back to rate the second season and the larger majority who didn’t like it didn’t come back.

 

To make it simple, say you have a movie that 10 people watch.  8 hate it and rate it a 4.  2 love it and rate it a 10.  You’d have a score of 5.2, or 52%.  The 2 who loved it come back for season 2 and rate that a 10 again, 2 people who didn’t like it come back to give it another chance and give it a 6, and 6 hated the show so much that they didn’t bother coming back for season 2.  Season 2 would then have a rating of 8, or 80%.  Based on the percent alone it would seem a massive improvement but the underlying issue is that the original experience was so bad that the second season gets skewed positively since its viewer retention  low primarily those who are predisposed to enjoy it.

 

This is an over-simplification but you certainly have this phenomena with WoT user scores. 

I get the math. But also we do not have equal viewership numbers to compare.

 

[Mirefox]

5 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I get the math. But also we do not have equal viewership numbers to compare.

 

I agree with that, too, but you keep bringing up audience score.  Either it’s a number worth using or not.

 

Not to mention that audience score is likely to go down over time as those who watched and reviewed early are more likely to be returning fans and are predisposed to rate it highly.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Mirefox

[Elder_Haman]

1 hour ago, Mirefox said:

Either it’s a number worth using or not.

It is one of several metrics that indicates that season 2 was received more favorably than season 1. 
 

Is that conclusion something you take issue with? Or can we agree that, by the metrics currently available to us, season two was better than season one?

[RitualM]

1 minute ago, Elder_Haman said:

It is one of several metrics that indicates that season 2 was received more favorably than season 1. 
 

Is that conclusion something you take issue with? Or can we agree that, by the metrics currently available to us, season two was better than season one?

Season 2 was better but that bar was set very very very very very low. 

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, RitualM said:

Season 2 was better

Okay.  That’s my only point. 

[Mirefox]

2 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

It is one of several metrics that indicates that season 2 was received more favorably than season 1. 
 

Is that conclusion something you take issue with? Or can we agree that, by the metrics currently available to us, season two was better than season one?

No, we absolutely cannot agree and I’ve explained why twice.  If that’s the hill you want to die on, fine, but then it is completely legitimate to say that such a large majority or the people who watched season one hated it and didn’t bother watching season 2 so naturally audience reviews skewed up by the small minority who stuck around.  

[Elder_Haman]

 

13 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

No, we absolutely cannot agree and I’ve explained why twice.  If that’s the hill you want to die on, fine, but then it is completely legitimate to say that such a large majority or the people who watched season one hated it and didn’t bother watching season 2 so naturally audience reviews skewed up by the small minority who stuck around.  

So by what metric do you argue that S2 was less well received than S1?

[Mirefox]

Just now, Elder_Haman said:

 

So by what metric do you argue that S2 was less well received than S1?

 

Just now, Elder_Haman said:

 

So by what metric do you argue that S2 was less well received than S1?

I don’t.  I don’t have a clue how season 2 was received compared to season 1 other than the fact that it was likely watched more by people who liked season 2 than didn’t.  I don’t think audience reviews should be used at all at this point because they are skewed.  That’s all I’m trying to tell you.  But you keep wanting to use them as if they prove something.

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, Mirefox said:

But you keep wanting to use them as if they prove something.

No. I’m using them as a metric. They are one piece of evidence which one can point to. Critical reception is another metric. 
 

Each of those metrics has limitations as you have capably demonstrated. 

[Mirefox]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

No. I’m using them as a metric. They are one piece of evidence which one can point to. Critical reception is another metric. 
 

Each of those metrics has limitations as you have capably demonstrated. 

But it is a metric that means statistically nothing.

 

If those numbers are fair game, then I can obviously say that I use as a metric the fact that there are 80% fewer user reviews so clearly nobody cares enough to watch.  Mathematically, it is 100% as valid a statement.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Mirefox

[RitualM]

1 hour ago, Elder_Haman said:

Okay.  That’s my only point. 

Again, I will observe that your expectations are painfully low if all you want is slightly better than bad to be happy.