The Show Has Been Cancelled

[Bodewhin]

On 6/26/2025 at 1:46 PM, Cipher said:

The woman who played Faile almost looked exactly like the Min from my imagination.  May be a little younger.

Yeah, I didn't think about but now that you've said it - it makes all kinds of sense. She would have been a much better Min! 

[Mailman]

3 minutes ago, Bodewhin said:

Yeah, I didn't think about but now that you've said it - it makes all kinds of sense. She would have been a much better Min! 

Her face is a bit too angular for Min IMO. The prominent nose rang true to me for her as Faile. 

[Bodewhin]

52 minutes ago, Mailman said:

Her face is a bit too angular for Min IMO. The prominent nose rang true to me for her as Faile. 

Isabella Burreci seemed too old to be Faile imo, the nose shape kinda bugged me, because her profile wasn't hawkish just pronounced. Personally, she didn't fit how I pictured Faile but I might have accepted it had the character been written differently (most of the casting/characters were that way for me, and some I truly liked). But like most of the characters, the series version of Faile wasn't like her book counterpart. I disliked the show backstory for Faile as Davram Bashere is a character I really enjoyed in the books. And IDK I just didn't really get what the point was of changing her so drastically. 

Edited July 14 by Bodewhin
missing words x_x

[henrywho]

On 5/24/2025 at 5:17 AM, Ithillian Turambar said:

Well that sucks

Just like the show. That last episode, WTF were they thinking !!

 

BTW I did tell you so !

[Sabio]

The last episode had its good moments, but the confusing Lanfear/Moiraine fight sort of ruined it.

[churchill83]

Having read several pages of this 21 page discussion, I won't use the forbidden word, but we can summarize the whole discussion to "go W, go broke". 

They had a chance to make a great series, the first book is just running around the countryside (not much budget required for that). The thrill of adventure is there, plenty of material to finish episodes in a high note. Not even an issue if you start wondering if the Dragon could be woman...Cultural diversity? women enpowerment? It was there in the books!!!!! but no, you had to get politics into the series. RJ's wife let her ideology screw up the biggest chance to spread RJ's work around the world.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of anyone that has argued the show has struggled with poor writing or any other "objective" criticism, only to summarize the demise of the show as "go woke, go broke". You are letting your bigotry show. 

[Guire]

15 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of anyone that has argued the show has struggled with poor writing or any other "objective" criticism, only to summarize the demise of the show as "go woke, go broke". You are letting your bigotry show. 

There is not enough of a television audience to support a big budget feminist queer fantasy epic. On top of all the other more objective issues the show was still catering to a small proportion of people that routinely watch TV on streaming.  So Go woke go broke is actually not a bad summary for show being canceled.  

[WoTwasThat]

18 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of anyone that has argued the show has struggled with poor writing or any other "objective" criticism, only to summarize the demise of the show as "go woke, go broke". You are letting your bigotry show. 

Using a short hand general statement… to generally describe what went wrong… is not bigotry. It’s just common sense.

 

Amazon/Rafe/Whomever decided that WOT would be a great opportunity to make a woke fantasy series that appealed more to women. So they crapped all over the lore suggesting the DR could be a woman, focused way too heavily on the Aes Sedai in season 1, largely sidelined the male characters, deviated way too much from the books, and never really recovered.

Edited August 28 by WoTwasThat

[Elendir]

23 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy of anyone that has argued the show has struggled with poor writing or any other "objective" criticism, only to summarize the demise of the show as "go woke, go broke". You are letting your bigotry show. 

 

It seems to me that you are mixing two unrelated groups of critics. Quality critics and political critics may overlap in some small ways. But fundamentally they are two groups based on two different approaches.

 

Personally, I don't care how you experience your political crises in the USA. I was just looking forward to spending time with the friends of my youth. But instead, someone completely different came.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

55 minutes ago, Elendir said:

 

It seems to me that you are mixing two unrelated groups of critics. Quality critics and political critics may overlap in some small ways. But fundamentally they are two groups based on two different approaches.

 

Personally, I don't care how you experience your political crises in the USA. I was just looking forward to spending time with the friends of my youth. But instead, someone completely different came.

Ah, thanks for your condescion. I mean, I'm a Scotsman that lives in the Netherlands, but you know, obviously not relevant. 

 

My point is that anyone who has argued about lack of quality yet crows about politics when it is cancelled is obviously a hypocrite, not that all critics of the show are. 

 

Whether we enjoyed the show or not is subjective. You didn't enjoy the show from what I have seen from your posts: I did. Neither of us is "objectively correct", nor are either of us wrong. We just have different opinions. 

[Elendir]

12 hours ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

Whether we enjoyed the show or not is subjective. You didn't enjoy the show from what I have seen from your posts: I did. Neither of us is "objectively correct", nor are either of us wrong. We just have different opinions. 

 

You need question first, so you can assess if some answers are objectively correct.

Some "questions" really lie at the level of personal opinion. Like if you liked or not the show.

However so many peoples hides behind "opinion" in case of questions, which aren't subject of opinions.

 

Like, if characters from show can be called adaptation of characters in book. And because I care for them, let's call them technical questions in nature, more than for questions of opinion, there is no reason to shield yourself with opinion here.

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

1 hour ago, Elendir said:

 

You need question first, so you can assess if some answers are objectively correct.

Some "questions" really lie at the level of personal opinion. Like if you liked or not the show.

However so many peoples hides behind "opinion" in case of questions, which aren't subject of opinions.

 

Like, if characters from show can be called adaptation of characters in book. And because I care for them, let's call them technical questions in nature, more than for questions of opinion, there is no reason to shield yourself with opinion here.

I don't really follow what you are saying so I'll have to make some assumptions. My apologies if these assumptions are wrong. 

 

I'm assuming that you are saying that faithfulness to the source material is an objective quality and that the characters in the show are objectively deviating from the characters in the book. 

 

I think this a twisting of the truth to state subjective opinion as fact. 

 

This is not to say that your opinion that the show differs too greatly from the book for you to enjoy it is wrong: it is just that, an opinion. 

 

The show could never follow the books one to one: changes were inevitable and unavoidable. However, the way an individual views each change is a subjective opinion. Whether despite the changes the show managed to keep the same broad themes and atmosphere, is a subjective opinion. And if the sum total of all the different aspects of the show amount to something enjoyable or not is a subjective opinion. There are objective facts about the show, but in themselves they are meaningless without subjective judgement. For example, Min's character was objectively changed a lot. Whether the change was good is subjective, and whether that "ruins" the show or not, or what effect it has on the whole show is subjective. 

 

If that isn't what you meant, again I can only apologise. 

[Loose Theremin]

As soon as I saw that Amazon had fired Jennifer Salke I thought that would probably spell the end for Rafe's Wheel of Time.

 

Rafe was the wrong person for the job. His limited experience was in short form episodic television. On top of that he was hired for his ideological views not for his ability to produce good television.

 

According to Brandon Sanderson the guy didn't know how to make a long form story television show. Sanderson said Rafe didn't bother with planning and writing a whole season but just basically winged it from episode to episode. That was why the show was such a disjointed mess. It's a wonder it lasted as long as it did.

Edited September 26 by Loose Theremin

[Kaleb]

17 hours ago, Loose Theremin said:

Rafe was the wrong person for the job. His limited experience was in short form episodic television. On top of that he was hired for his ideological views not for his ability to produce good television.

I keep saying this and no one has presented any evidence to the contrary, so I'll say it again:. The Wheel Of Time TV show existed solely because Rafe wanted to make it. Amazon didn't hire him for a show they wanted to make, he convinced them to make the show and they agreed to do it because he had enough industry experience to have them believe in his pitch. It didn't work out, he's hardly the first ambitious entertainment industry professional to overshoot his abilities. But the show would simply not exist in any format if Rafe didn't push for it to happen, nobody else at his level or above has shown any interest in doing it, from what I've seen.

[Elder_Haman]

10 minutes ago, Kaleb said:

I keep saying this and no one has presented any evidence to the contrary, so I'll say it again:. The Wheel Of Time TV show existed solely because Rafe wanted to make it. Amazon didn't hire him for a show they wanted to make, he convinced them to make the show and they agreed to do it because he had enough industry experience to have them believe in his pitch. It didn't work out, he's hardly the first ambitious entertainment industry professional to overshoot his abilities. But the show would simply not exist in any format if Rafe didn't push for it to happen, nobody else at his level or above has shown any interest in doing it, from what I've seen.

This is correct.

[Ryrin]

On 9/25/2025 at 3:20 PM, Loose Theremin said:

As soon as I saw that Amazon had fired Jennifer Salke I thought that would probably spell the end for Rafe's Wheel of Time.

 

Rafe was the wrong person for the job. His limited experience was in short form episodic television. On top of that he was hired for his ideological views not for his ability to produce good television.

 

According to Brandon Sanderson the guy didn't know how to make a long form story television show. Sanderson said Rafe didn't bother with planning and writing a whole season but just basically winged it from episode to episode. That was why the show was such a disjointed mess. It's a wonder it lasted as long as it did.

💯💯💯

[BookMattBetterThanShow]

Never understood the defenders of Rafe, I know everyone wants to blame Amazon, but to me this failure is all on Rafe. I stuck with the show just because I didn't think I would live long enough to see another versions that actual followed the source material. I understand cutting things, but why completely rewrite the story and add crap that isn't even in the book, then claim there are not enough episodes  to actually tell the story. The fact that I made it through 3 seasons is amazing and I am not really disappointed in it being cancel, there are plenty of other really good shows to watch.

[Andra]

On 8/29/2025 at 5:42 AM, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

I'm assuming that you are saying that faithfulness to the source material is an objective quality and that the characters in the show are objectively deviating from the characters in the book. 

 

I think this a twisting of the truth to state subjective opinion as fact. 

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this statement.  At all.

 

It's true that the question of whether any particular deviation is "good" or "bad," or whether too much deviation ruins the adaptation is a subjective measure.

But to claim that noting that deviations exist or noting how much the adaptation deviates from the source material is "subjective opinion" is nonsensical.

 

And this kind of dismissal of any and all honest criticism is a big part of what has gone wrong with discussions of the show on this forum and others like it.

 

It is an objective fact that the show deviated from the source material - from the opening scene of the first episode.  It is also an objective fact that these deviations from the source material continued in every episode of all three seasons.  Some deviations were small, some were very large.

But their existence is not "opinion."

[Elder_Haman]

52 minutes ago, BookMattBetterThanShow said:

Never understood the defenders of Rafe, I know everyone wants to blame Amazon, but to me this failure is all on Rafe. I stuck with the show just because I didn't think I would live long enough to see another versions that actual followed the source material. I understand cutting things, but why completely rewrite the story and add crap that isn't even in the book, then claim there are not enough episodes  to actually tell the story. The fact that I made it through 3 seasons is amazing and I am not really disappointed in it being cancel, there are plenty of other really good shows to watch.

I’m not sure how one becomes a “defender of Rafe” for simply pointing out that there would never have been a show without him. 
 

I guess the prevailing opinion is that having no adaptation of WoT is preferable to having Rafe’s admittedly imperfect effort. I do not share that opinion. 

[Bodewhin]

39 minutes ago, BookMattBetterThanShow said:

Never understood the defenders of Rafe, I know everyone wants to blame Amazon, but to me this failure is all on Rafe. I stuck with the show just because I didn't think I would live long enough to see another versions that actual followed the source material. I understand cutting things, but why completely rewrite the story and add crap that isn't even in the book, then claim there are not enough episodes  to actually tell the story. The fact that I made it through 3 seasons is amazing and I am not really disappointed in it being cancel, there are plenty of other really good shows to watch.

Exactly. The claim there weren't enough episodes to tell the story is just as much a handy excuse as saying The Eye of The World was too hard to adapt in season 1. Saying hard to adapt, not enough episodes might sound like a defense...but if you look at how the story was adapted therein lies the issue. 

 

I stand by the fact that Rafe and the team weren't malicious or setting out to destroy RJ's world. I also stand by the fact that Rafe and the team were not interested in faithfully adapting WOT. The focus, themes, story, characters, everything is too different for that argument to hold up. They had their own ideas, an endless supply of them. He wanted to create a fantasy franchise and use WOT as a vehicle, borrowing seeds of concepts and names (he grew up with the books and probably related to the world the way fan fiction writer relates, a vehicle to tell a story about a crack ship or make the villain the hero or vice versa). I don't think Rafe wanting to adapt the WOT means he did a good job. And he is to blame for his show. 

 

Bottom line, could have had 10 seasons of the show, and trust me, it would never be enough to tell the story. It wasn't the WOT in the books, and I still don't know what story it was they were telling.

[Elder_Haman]

1 minute ago, Bodewhin said:

 

Bottom line, could have had 10 seasons of the show, and trust me, it would never be enough to tell the story. It wasn't the WOT in the books, and I still don't know what story it was they were telling.

I guess we will never know since it will never be finished. But I would have preferred to see what he had planned than to never have WoT on screen. 
 

We’ll never get it now. 

[HeavyHalfMoonBlade]

38 minutes ago, Andra said:

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this statement.  At all.

 

It's true that the question of whether any particular deviation is "good" or "bad," or whether too much deviation ruins the adaptation is a subjective measure.

But to claim that noting that deviations exist or noting how much the adaptation deviates from the source material is "subjective opinion" is nonsensical.

 

And this kind of dismissal of any and all honest criticism is a big part of what has gone wrong with discussions of the show on this forum and others like it.

 

It is an objective fact that the show deviated from the source material - from the opening scene of the first episode.  It is also an objective fact that these deviations from the source material continued in every episode of all three seasons.  Some deviations were small, some were very large.

But their existence is not "opinion."

But you think twisting words is helpful in discussions? I fully clarified what I meant in that post, with clear arguments about what was objective and subjective. 

 

Nothing you have said in anyway contradicts what I wrote. 

 

That there were deviations from the source material is fact, as I clearly agreed. However this says nothing about the quality, necessity or how they affected someone's enjoyment of the series. These are subjective concepts, and yet many try to wriggle out of that by claiming deviations are objectively bad. They aren't. 

 

I don't see that preempting any discussion about the show is helpful. If the show was "objectively" too far from the source for you to enjoy it, that is a shame. But don't pretend that isn't a subjective opinion or that anyone that disagrees with you is objectively wrong. 

[Bodewhin]

36 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I guess we will never know since it will never be finished. But I would have preferred to see what he had planned than to never have WoT on screen. 
 

We’ll never get it now. 

 

 

I understand where you're coming from. It's a valid opinion, the reverse is true too. It's not a one size fits all. 

 

It's like going to a concert of Beatles imitators, they don't really sound like the Beatles, but it's the closest you can get to seeing them live so the opportunity seems worth it. Totally fair if that works for you. For me, I'd rather just stay home and listen to the real records. 

 

The cancellation of the series is especially hard on people who came to it fresh and loved it. Because it's not like they can even pick up the books to see how things turned out, it's too different. As you said, we'll never know where the series was headed or how events would've unfolded had it been continued. I really dislike shows getting cancelled before their ending. I've been burnt plenty of times to think that's unfair.

[Loose Theremin]

7 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

I’m not sure how one becomes a “defender of Rafe” for simply pointing out that there would never have been a show without him. 
 

I guess the prevailing opinion is that having no adaptation of WoT is preferable to having Rafe’s admittedly imperfect effort. I do not share that opinion. 

 

For me it was like going into a Gentleman's Outfitter and asking for a well tailored conservative suit with all the accessories and walking out dressed in a clown's costume with the pants on backwards and a flower pot perched on top of my head. So for me, yes. Nothing would have definitely been better than what we got from Rafe.

 

Amazon has thrown close to $ 1 billion down the drain on that Rings of Power fiasco and Rafe's "re-telling" of WoT. For that amount of money they could have done all of the WoT and done it properly. It is so infuriating !