Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

imlad

Member
  • Posts

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About imlad

  • Birthday 07/29/1973

Retained

  • Member Title
    Glenn тнєgєєкунιρριє™

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Science Fiction and Fantasy (both written and on film/television), watching YouTube videos (educational: science & history; entertainment news), watching science and history documentaries, trying to ignore American politics and smoking as much cannabis as I possibly can. (It do be legal here, ya know)

Recent Profile Visitors

2168 profile views

imlad's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/16)

  • Fifteen Years In Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

  1. Something people might not realize, GRRM is still to this day screwing them over. Martin had them over to his home for an entire weekend as he outlined for them the future plotlines of the books before they began breaking the rest of the story for seasons 6 and onward. That's what they based those seasons on. And GRRM at first backed D and D on the veracity of their story, allowing for differences based on the variations caused by who was alive or dead on the show that wasn't in the books. But as time passed, and more so in recent months, GRRM has basically stabbed them in the back by making many in the public believe that the books would be ending very differently from the show. If George's statements leading to this belief are true, then it seems he saw how much fans rejected Dany going mad and torching King's Landing, Jon killing her, and Bran ending on the Throne, and decided "hey, I can't do that, they'll eviscerate me!" and decided to change his mind and thus the story (something many feel RJ did with Taimandred, who originally killed Asmodean in his notes, btw). This would explain why GRRM is still writing book six, after 11 freaking years and counting (with no travelling and conventions he had to do over the last year and a half thanks to Covid).
  2. Page 290 of The Wheel of Time Companion (and I quote from the second paragraph of the entry for Galina Casban) "She was a lesbian; she was very interested in Erian Boroleos." What's this about "zero homosexual characters" and only one queer character? The text of the series made it pretty clear she was a lesbian as well, but in case your reading of it wasn't good enough, I figured the Companion should solidify that fact. And I'd say the Companion is a better authority on the matter than anyone posting in these forums, unless someone from Team Jordan hops in and directly contradicts the book. Sorry to break it to you, but they're still queer (even if you don't want to call them bi or some other "blank-sexual" term) which you said there was only one of.
  3. Not sure what books you were reading. We've got a world where a person's skin color, or the fact they are a woman, does not make them a second class citizen. We have two arguably bisexual characters in prominent roles (Moiraine and Siuan) for the plot, and there are undoubtedly other LGBT characters in the series. The power dynamics of the world are much more balanced between men and women than were seen in just about any other Fantasy literature at the time, or even now (as far as I can think of off hand), if not leaning a bit towards the women's side. You've got at least one culture that the woman controls who gets married, and when (the Aiel). There at least two Body Positive cultures in the series (Aiel and the Fal Darans), if not a third (the Domani). The Domani economy appears to be dominated by women instead of men. At a time when women were still not allowed in combat under US military regulations, Jordan had female warriors taking center stage numerous times in this series.. All this starting 30 years ago when none of this was taken lightly or considered common place. So, exactly what the FRAK is "not woke" about this series? Or are you just being an antiWoke troll, with misogynistic, homophobic, racist and/or transphobic tendencies (as those are the only reasons to object to "wokeness")? I'm not accusing you of those, mind, I'm just asking if your motivation for saying "don't go woke" is because you're antiWoke, and thus have one of those mental disorders. Finally, you live in the 21st Century. This Century is FRAKKING WOKE. GET USED TO IT, cuz that ain't going away. It's called progress, that's what happens as civilization grows and evolves, and becomes more mature, not the petty little boys club those who object to wokeness want it to remain. That's the realm of nematodes like Putin, Stephen Miller, the Proud Boys, and Trump.
  4. I don't predict a full trailer, but I do think they will drop some sort of 90 (to 120) second teaser trailer, perhaps even as short as just a minute long. We do know that there are going to be "asset drops," but we don't know if that will include for WoT or not (if not, exactly what is the point of Rafe appearing on the panel, just to announce the release date of the series?). The only other thing I can imagine them releasing at SDCC is some sort of sizzle reel, but I don't exactly see that counting as an "asset," though the studio can call whatever they want an asset I guess. We'll see soon enough though. The full trailer, as I've predicted on The Dusty Wheel (call in) and Twitter, I predict will drop sometime around September 16th, the anniversary of Jordan's passing and the two year anniversary of the start of filming. That's a Thursday, so I give it a window of the 15th-17th, allowing for "WoT Wednesday" through Friday, a more common day for trailer releases. The premiere (and likely the next two episodes after that) will probably be released five to six weeks after that.
  5. Um, what? Sorry, but it seems you haven't been paying attention. Television for the past 20-21 years looks nothing at all like television of the 20th Century, with a handful of exceptions from before 2000. The style of writing, filming, acting and directing are all vastly different for a great chunk of the television that is currently on the market these days, at least when it comes to scripted television. And a lot, but not all, of modern television goes for a more theatrical approach, which separates it even further from the 20th Century style of TV. As to unscripted, well even that is different than most of the 20th Century's fare, since many styles and formats we see today of unscripted content was invented in this century, or at least popularized in it. This is the main reason Americans (and Canadians I believe) use the term "season" for a set group of episodes of a television show instead of the UK term "series;" everything started in the Fall Season, and ended in sometime in Spring (in the early days of television, shows would go 26 weeks, or even more!). Then they would air reruns (for the kids out there, that is an already aired episode being played again 😉😎) until the new Fall Season. Viewing numbers don't mean nearly as much these days as you think they do. You should read this article (or this one) where they talk about the changed concept of a successful television show in the modern era. Today there are probably a multiple tens, if not a hundred (or maybe even more), times as many TV shows "on the air" (I put it that way cuz I include streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime as television) as there were 25 years ago.* Look at how many more cable channels there are today than in 1996. Look at the number of streaming services we have now. And all of them have their own original content, as well as old IP that is being rebroadcast. All of that divvies up the population, which I grant is larger (but not that much larger), even more than we were in '96. There are only so many people to go around for all those shows. And, as that article I linked above discusses, there are other methods of watching that do not get counted in many of the audience share counting systems (like the Nielsen rating system, which has lost a lot of its previous influence). * Compare the Wikipedia pages for TV shows debuting in 2021 and 1996 and compare the number of shows on each page. That is just shows debuting, not even counting returning television shows. That will give you a solid impression. You can also look at the "1996 in American television" page with the (at time of posting) INCOMPLETE and NOWHERE CLOSE TO FINISHED "2021 in American television" page. And those are just America, note. Not including Canada, the UK, or anywhere else.
  6. LezbiNerdy, you might just have given me some new head canon...
  7. You clearly haven't seen some of my monstrosities! Talk about "Wall of Text." I took lessons in verbosity from Jordan, and oft put them to good use 😎.
  8. Thank you. I've been down this road before on this very topic, and that's the very reason why I titled this particular thread the way I did. I've spend all my energy getting riled up over this issue that I intend to. Done with that. The two videos I shared say it all, nothing more needs to be said.
  9. If there was a thumbs up button I would be slamming it right now...
  10. Until you have watched this video, you don't even have the slightest clue as to what Robert Jordan's vision was in so far as the appearance of the Emond's Fielders (Rand aside). Furthermore, Rafe Judkins has the explicit support of Robert Jordan's widow/editor, the person who knows more about what that vision was than anyone alive. The only person who knew more about what Jordan's vision was, was James Rigney himself. And guess what, Rafe has actually met with and talked to Harriet, something I suspect you have not done. And here's that video I mentioned. In this video they go over not just the textual evidence from the books showing how the casting actually does line up with the books, but also goes over a number of excerpts from Jordan's notes that back that up as well. I challenge you to watch that and then come back and say again how these casting choices don't match up with Jordan's vision, how Rafe isn't matching up with Jordan's vision. Or is it just your own personal biases that Rafe isn't matching up with?
  11. As to the casting in Game of Thrones, no, it wasn't accurate. Ned Stark and Arya are both clearly described as having long lean faces (I think "horse-faced" was even used a time or two), and Ned as having dark black hair. That was not lived up to with the show. Tyrion Lannister was described as having very pale, almost white, blond hair, was exceptionally ugly of face and having eyes of two different colors. That was not the case (and most women I know call Dinklage a rather good looking man). He was also much shorter and more deformed than was portrayed on the show. So please, do not call it accurate. Especially with what you have to say about the casting for the show based on Jordan's work. On to The Wheel of Time. You definitely need to watch these two videos (at least the first one), in which they draw upon the AUTHOR'S own notes and texts to prove that your interpretation is wholly inaccurate. And THAT should be the end of that particular aspect of the casting conversation in this thread. Check and mate.
  12. Someone had to say it... (and for a while, I was "Someone Else" so that basically means me)
  13. Well, there's actually one thing that could actually (potentially) "radically alter our understanding" of Conservation Laws, and that is the solution to whatever the heck Dark Energy is, because that already seems like it may be violating them on a Universal scale. As to the rest, no, WoT doesn't take place in our world's future, but in the future of a parallel Earth. That Earth is one of the seemingly infinite (but not quite infinite) parallel worlds accessed via Professor Burrough's "continua device" in Robert Heinlein's The Number of the Beast. Those who have read that book see why that is totally obvious and makes perfect sense. Those who don't should read the Wikipedia article, or better yet, read the book.
  14. Hey thank you! And I've never run into any issues posting links to external sites. In fact, if you look at the features across the top in the editor when writing a post you will see a button specifically for links (just to the right of the Strikethrough button). I've posted dozens of external links, links I know moderators have read and nobody has ever said anything to me about them. So no worries on that. Anyhow, thank you for the link, good to have the information at hand now.
×
×
  • Create New...