WoT Season 2 Episode 8: What Was Meant to Be

[Mailman]

5 minutes ago, fra85uk said:

At Dumai Wells, the AS clearly put themselves in danger to be able to fight, i.e. to avoid being bound by the Oaths.

But they were still bound by the oaths they had to feel in enough danger personally before they could be involved in the fight. If it was made clear that they would in no way be targeted they would have been useless.

 

The more interesting question is that of warders, which i think is brought up by Gawyn in the last 2 books about the warders falling outside the oaths. You could force the warders into combat but if you made it clear you had no intention of killing them i again believe that you would be constrained by the oaths.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Mailman

[fra85uk]

2 minutes ago, Mailman said:

But they were still bound by the oaths they had to feel in enough danger personally before they could be involved in the fight. If it was made clear that they would in no way be targeted they would have been useless.

Yes, that was my point 😄

[bluetear111]

I really enjoyed this episode, the best in the whole show so far for me, a much better finale than season 1.

 

However i do have one big bug bear, why did Ishmael just let Rand kill him?  Ishy is one of if not the most powerful forsaken right?

 

This bit just didn't sit right with me.

[Ralph]

1 hour ago, Mailman said:

Its a weapon because she is using it to attack the ships or the Seachan channelers.

 

There is no ulterior motive involved here. She can't have thought you know what the ships are lacking is some fire I'll give them some I'm sure that what they really need is some fire because they are sitting in all that water.

 

She could try and save the train because thats what she is intending to do.

 

Intent is key.

 

so if intending to sink the ships, but no interest in whether that harms the people, how is that different? 

 

or if Siuan blows Lan away, but doesn't care whether that hurts him or not, she is not trying to hurt him, is that a weapon? 

[Scarloc99]

On 10/8/2023 at 10:08 AM, Lightfriendsocialmistress said:

I don’t think I’ve seen this mentioned yet but it’s a long thread so I might have missed it…um, birgitte is definitely one of the heroes!

also is there going to be another hunt for the horn because it looks like it’s taken from mat by one of the heroes 

Just realised this, does this mean no Olver? 

[Scarloc99]

47 minutes ago, bluetear111 said:

I really enjoyed this episode, the best in the whole show so far for me, a much better finale than season 1.

 

However i do have one big bug bear, why did Ishmael just let Rand kill him?  Ishy is one of if not the most powerful forsaken right?

 

This bit just didn't sit right with me.

I think we clearly need to WAFO, Ishy said that they had done this many times before and could do it many times again, he told Suroth that he could just die and come back on the next turning to try again, so he knows his gambit has failed, so it is onto plan 2, Rand thinks he beat him, but there is much worse coming and Ishy knows he will come back in the next turning of the wheel. Now, we know that the Dark Lord in fact punishes Ichy and returns him as Moridin. 

[Scarloc99]

13 hours ago, Mirefox said:

Actors are given extensive training.  Combat training, dialect training, etc.  I read something regarding the show Yellowstone where all the leads went through a week of grueling cowboy training.  Why is it too much to ask the writers to read the book?  Or how about a getaway where they all listen to the audiobook together?

 

I understand that there are 14 books, but it is clear that some writers didn’t even read the first.  That should be a basic job requirement and really shouldn’t be too much to ask.

I mean the first book always had to be changed, thematically it is so very different to the rest of the series, it is written differently, the way the characters are presented in it Robert Jordan actually changes them when he realised he was allowed to write more books. RJ himself has sated that EOTW is an homage to fellowship of the ring, you have all the main charcters, Rand as Frodo, Matt as Sam, Perrin, Egwene and Nyn as the othe rhobbits, Moiraine as Gandalf, Lan as Aragorn, Fain as Gollumn. The story is very Rand centric, it is mainly just them all running across Randland together, it gives you very little lore, very little back story, nothing about Aes Sedai politics. Had Robert Jordan been told, here is a 3 book or longer deal then EOTW would have been different. As it was he had to write a self contained story that had the option of going longer if he got the deal. 


Season 1 had it's issues but as has been said many times by many all the story changes where understandable, even if sometimes the choices made where not what I might have done. 

But I do agree the writers should be reading the books, they are not a hard read, I can get through a book a week easily. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Scarloc99

[Scarloc99]

13 hours ago, Samt said:

I’m not sure that the 1.16 billion number is right. Someone wrote it in another thread.  My point was that 15 million reliable viewers is not some sort of drop in the bucket.  GoT had 10 million viewers at its height.  WoT definitely doesn’t have that level of viewership. 
 

I’m not suggesting that you don’t try to make a show that non-readers can still understand and enjoy.  But a big part of the success or failure of this show will come down to getting book readers to watch and keep watching the show.
 

I also don’t know how the economics of streaming works.  It’s hard to believe that Amazon is actually making money on this since it’s included in a subscription and there are no ads.  

I have always found the actual number of WOT book readers debatable, how many actually made it to the end, how many made it to the end and enjoyed the finish, I know I was disappointed in the final 3 books, and remain so. How many had re read the series since and thought it was dated, or disliked the repetitive prose. Lets be honest, as much as I am a massive lover of the series, and i did a thread about this on the book forum, there are major issues that really mean I shouldn't be, it is in-spite of all these issues I keep returning back. But then you also need to then ask, what %of the book loving audience will actually want to watch any TV show, how many of them actually want to sign up to Prime? I think when you whittle it all down you will find that the potential book reading audience is tiny. 

Non book readers are the bread and butter of any shows audience, you have to make the TV show for them first, especially considering that with streaming WOT will always be up there, always ticking along increasing viewership in a way that traditional linear TV never could. But also, the idea that all book readers dislike the show is patently false, just on this forum alone many more enjoy it then don't many more have returned for season 2 and will be there for season 3 then have not. most book readers don't care enough about the books to come onto a forum and discuss it, and therefore will care far less about any changes made to the series. 

The fact of the matter is that in reality, the people on this forum don't really matter, I am here because i love to discuss and talk about it, but actually our opinion makes no difference, and this is in part because we don't understand the business model for Prim TV, I don't have prime for it's streaming service, I probably would not have Prime at all if it was only a streaming service, I prefer AppleTV, Disney+ and netflix overall. I own Prime because of the free postage and next day delivery. We will never really know what Bezos business thinking is behind Prime, in terms of the whole Amazon organisation nowdays he could close down the shopping website and the TV arm and probably wind up making more profit overall as a whole, pretty much most of the revenue comes from the AWS arm. I wonder sometimes if Prime TV is created as a live shop window for the other streamers and that is the purpose, after all, Netflix, Disney +, now TV, HBO Max, APpleTV and almost every other TV streamer only uses Amazon Web Services to store and stream all there content. Amazon hosts and runs the entire streaming infrastructure for the world, think about that, you could end Prime today, take out a subscription to netflix, and Amazon will still be making money off you as Netflix will pay Amazon to serve you your TV. 

[Mailman]

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

 

so if intending to sink the ships, but no interest in whether that harms the people, how is that different? 

 

or if Siuan blows Lan away, but doesn't care whether that hurts him or not, she is not trying to hurt him, is that a weapon? 

I pointed this out before the fact she says i would kill 1000 innocents would imply she is aware of the danger.

[Ralph]

10 minutes ago, Mailman said:

I pointed this out before the fact she says i would kill 1000 innocents would imply she is aware of the danger.

 

aware but not her purpose

 

like diverting the train knowing it is likely to kill or injure people on board

 

could she throw something away from her, because it may hurt her (but not kill), knowing it is certain to hit and injure someone else? I think definitely yes. that is not using the power as a weapon

Edited October 9, 2023 by Ralph

[ilovezam]

2 hours ago, DaddyFinn said:

Oaths are full of loopholes and only as binding as an Aes Sedai allows them to be. That's why they don't work

They are full of loopholes but RJ was often careful enough to make it make sense.

In the case of this finale, Lan straights up tells Moiraine she might be killing innocents, and she replied that she would kill a thousand innocents if that helps Rand survive at all. With this as context I don't see how she could circumvent the third Oath at all without straight up denying reality 

[Ralph]

I don't have it with me, but acc to Tar Valon library New Spring ch 18 says that you can punish or torture using the OP, as that is not using it as a weapon

[Mailman]

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

 

aware but not her purpose

 

like diverting the train knowing it is likely to kill or injure people on board

 

could she throw something away from her, because it may hurt her (but not kill), knowing it is certain to hit and injure someone else? I think definitely yes. that is not using the power as a weapon

If she was to know that throwing something with the power would kill someone and she had a choice not to do so then she is aware of the result of her actions and would be unable to do so. You have in effect chosen to make it a weapon via choice. If she had no choice but to defend herself in a certain way that could cause a collateral injury then the intent is not offensive and would be allowed.

 

With the train again the intent would be on saving lives unavoidable collateral damage would not play a part in it. If your intent was however not on saving lives but causing deaths then your intent/belief is different.

 

If you believe someone is a DF then regardless of it actually being true you could strike them down but you must believe it. It cannot be just a lie you tell yourself it must be what you truly believe.

 

[DaddyFinn]

Aes Sedai can't "make a weapon which man can use to kill another". Nothing says AS can't create objects to hurt others severely or weapons that women can use to kill another women if the AS decides to interpret "man" as male and not human. Very vague.

[ilovezam]

6 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

Aes Sedai can't "make a weapon which man can use to kill another". Nothing says AS can't create objects to hurt others severely or weapons that women can use to kill another women if the AS decides to interpret "man" as male and not human. Very vague.

That's the second oath, the one about creating weapons.

 

The relevant one here is the third one:
"Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends or Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme defense of her life, the life of her Warder, or another Aes Sedai"

Brandon Sanderson straight up objected to an initial script where Moiraine channeled and killed that ferryman in Season 1 Episode 2 and had Rafe check with Team Jordan and get it reworked, because of how that would violate this oath.

[Ralph]

26 minutes ago, ilovezam said:

That's the second oath, the one about creating weapons.

 

The relevant one here is the third one:
"Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends or Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme defense of her life, the life of her Warder, or another Aes Sedai"

Brandon Sanderson straight up objected to an initial script where Moiraine channeled and killed that ferryman in Season 1 Episode 2 and had Rafe check with Team Jordan and get it reworked, because of how that would violate this oath.

 

because he said he is hyper sensitive to the three oaths, not because it is obviously against them. 

 

I still don't see the point - if your intent is not on causing deaths but on something else then it is OK. therefore if your intent is to disrupt someone else's activity it is fine, even if it is inevitable they will die. that would be indirect albeit inevitable. 

 

what about the examples I gave? can an AS push something off a cliff because it is ugly, if she knows someone underneath will die. I don't see how that is using as a weapon. 

 

and it is explicit in New Spring that can be used to torture, so clearly the point is intent and purpose not result. 

 

[Ralph]

52 minutes ago, Mailman said:

If she was to know that throwing something with the power would kill someone and she had a choice not to do so then she is aware of the result of her actions and would be unable to do so. You have in effect chosen to make it a weapon via choice. If she had no choice but to defend herself in a certain way that could cause a collateral injury then the intent is not offensive and would be allowed.

 

With the train again the intent would be on saving lives unavoidable collateral damage would not play a part in it. If your intent was however not on saving lives but causing deaths then your intent/belief is different.

 

If you believe someone is a DF then regardless of it actually being true you could strike them down but you must believe it. It cannot be just a lie you tell yourself it must be what you truly believe.

 

 

not everything that causes injury or death is a weapon. only if it intended to be used in order to cause... 

 

sinking a ship because Trollocs could use it is the same purpose whether someone is on board or not. neither one is using it as a weapon

[Robbin Poh]

You know, this whole debate over how Moiraine demonstrates exactly how Moiraine can use the OP to destroy the ships. Moiraine thought of every reason and she chose to believe in the one that best allowed her to justify what she needed to do. 

[Mirefox]

4 hours ago, Scarloc99 said:

I have always found the actual number of WOT book readers debatable, how many actually made it to the end, how many made it to the end and enjoyed the finish, I know I was disappointed in the final 3 books, and remain so. How many had re read the series since and thought it was dated, or disliked the repetitive prose. Lets be honest, as much as I am a massive lover of the series, and i did a thread about this on the book forum, there are major issues that really mean I shouldn't be, it is in-spite of all these issues I keep returning back. But then you also need to then ask, what %of the book loving audience will actually want to watch any TV show, how many of them actually want to sign up to Prime? I think when you whittle it all down you will find that the potential book reading audience is tiny. 

Non book readers are the bread and butter of any shows audience, you have to make the TV show for them first, especially considering that with streaming WOT will always be up there, always ticking along increasing viewership in a way that traditional linear TV never could. But also, the idea that all book readers dislike the show is patently false, just on this forum alone many more enjoy it then don't many more have returned for season 2 and will be there for season 3 then have not. most book readers don't care enough about the books to come onto a forum and discuss it, and therefore will care far less about any changes made to the series. 

The fact of the matter is that in reality, the people on this forum don't really matter, I am here because i love to discuss and talk about it, but actually our opinion makes no difference, and this is in part because we don't understand the business model for Prim TV, I don't have prime for it's streaming service, I probably would not have Prime at all if it was only a streaming service, I prefer AppleTV, Disney+ and netflix overall. I own Prime because of the free postage and next day delivery. We will never really know what Bezos business thinking is behind Prime, in terms of the whole Amazon organisation nowdays he could close down the shopping website and the TV arm and probably wind up making more profit overall as a whole, pretty much most of the revenue comes from the AWS arm. I wonder sometimes if Prime TV is created as a live shop window for the other streamers and that is the purpose, after all, Netflix, Disney +, now TV, HBO Max, APpleTV and almost every other TV streamer only uses Amazon Web Services to store and stream all there content. Amazon hosts and runs the entire streaming infrastructure for the world, think about that, you could end Prime today, take out a subscription to netflix, and Amazon will still be making money off you as Netflix will pay Amazon to serve you your TV. 

I’m thinking of it more from the lore/worldbuilding point of view.  Had all the writers been familiar with the source material I think we might have a better understanding of how things work in this show.

 

Just look at all the debates we’ve had here; they all involve some of there most fundamental and some of the most thoroughly-explained lore.  Saidin/Saidar, warder bonds, a’dam, the dagger, etc.  We’ve all argued to death over them because they haven’t been well-explained and they’ve been inconsistent.

 

I wish the show had been solid enough that what we were all discussing was the color of Rand’s jacket or how big a Two Rivers bow is like the proper nerds we are but we can’t even get past the things that shouldn’t be debatable.  This is where I think a read of the books by the entire writing team could have helped.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Mirefox

[DaddyFinn]

1 hour ago, ilovezam said:

That's the second oath, the one about creating weapons.

 

The relevant one here is the third one:
"Never to use the One Power as a weapon except against Darkfriends or Shadowspawn, or in the last extreme defense of her life, the life of her Warder, or another Aes Sedai"

Brandon Sanderson straight up objected to an initial script where Moiraine channeled and killed that ferryman in Season 1 Episode 2 and had Rafe check with Team Jordan and get it reworked, because of how that would violate this oath.

My point was the stupidity of the Oaths and how they mean nothing if the AS want so

[Elder_Haman]

7 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

My point was the stupidity of the Oaths and how they mean nothing if the AS want so

Which is basically why Egwene rejected them. 

[DaddyFinn]

6 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Which is basically why Egwene rejected them. 

Lifespan is also a big issue. There should be a better way than magically binding oaths for the AS to be decent and law-abiding people. I wonder how normal, non-channelers manage that.. 🙂

[Ralph]

22 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

I’m thinking of it more from the lore/worldbuilding point of view.  Had all the writers been familiar with the source material I think we might have a better understanding of how things work in this show.

 

Just look at all the debates we’ve had here; they all involve some of there most fundamental and some of the most thoroughly-explained lore.  Saidin/Saidar, warder bonds, a’dam, the dagger, etc.  We’ve all argued to death over them because they haven’t been well-explained and they’ve been inconsistent.

 

I wish the show had been solid enough that what we were all discussing was the color of Rand’s jacket or how big a Two Rivers bow is like the proper nerds we are but we can’t even get past the things that shouldn’t be debatable.  This is where I think a read of the books by the entire writing team could have helped.

 

nice idea, but all those years ago there were hundred of similar debates about the books. until people asked RJ at book signings or other occasions, and sometimes he answered, and sometimes the answers were satisfactory. I don't think this type of thing can ever be clear even in a book, and def not in a TV show

Edited October 9, 2023 by Ralph

[Mirefox]

2 minutes ago, Ralph said:

 

nice idea, but all those years ago there were hundred of similar debates about the books. until people asked RJ at book signings or other occasions, and sometimes he answered, and sometimes the answers were satisfactory. I don't think this type of thing can ever be clear even in a book, and def not in a TV show

Not necessarily perfectly clear, no, but orders of magnitude clearer than the show presented.

[notpropaganda73]

36 minutes ago, Mirefox said:

This is where I think a read of the books by the entire writing team could have helped.

 

I think we may just not agree on this but I really don't think this would help all that much. Because I think they have managed to explain certain elements of lore/world building quite well, so to my mind the inability to explain other parts of the Wheel of Time comes down to execution, poor writing and maybe exec/storyboard decisions?

 

Something I thought was explained beautifully in S1 was the Way of the Leaf. They didn't need a huge amount of time for it, with one scene in particular very well written (Ila explaining it to Perrin). I think they have explained ji-e-toh well enough so far, with the limited screen time of the Aiel in S2. Finally having Elyas in S2 we got one scene explaining the wolves/how they communicate (to a degree). Effectively done in limited time. So if they can manage that, why do they mess up other key elements of lore? Sometimes it's poor writing and sometimes I wonder whether it's purposeful obfuscation