1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

Malkier fell arounnd 43 years prior to the story.  At the same time the commonly held belief is that Tar Valon didn't fail to help Malkier, they refused.

I don't remember anyone in the show talking about failure to help Malkier can you specify where that was mentioned?

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

So, 43 years ago Shienar was NOT the front lines.  And immediately after a very strong reason was given to NOT trust Tar Valon.  The Borderlands already can't trust anyone else south of them.  So where does the Horn go?

I don't really see this as just a matter of trust. If Shienar are not going to use the Horn then it's very presence becomes a burden and drain on their resources to protect it. Unless they actually think Tar Valon would use the Horn against them then whatever else they do with it they should not care about

4 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Except just losing the horn is devastating.  Even if the shadow doesn't find it, losing it is bad.  

yep all the more reason why it makes no sense for them to keep it in Fal Dara. It's like keeping plans for the atomic bomb on the front lines during WW2. The only sensible reasons for them to keep it there is if 1.) they didn't know it was there if all the people who had knowledge of it had long since died. Or 2.) if they planned to use it. It makes no sense to knowingly keep it without using it because not only is there a risk it will be lost in a trolloc attack but it's very presence paints a giant target on Fal Dara for not just Dark Friends but everyone hunting the Horn. Agelmar would have needed to devote countless troops to safeguard it which are soldiers who would be unable to defend against trolloc attacks because they're on Horn guard duty.  

7 minutes ago, Andra said:

 

If Rafe were a brilliant writer, he would surprise everyone by having the Horn not be in the box, but actually be somewhere else entirely.

 

Fain carries it all the way to Falme, where Turak opens it and we get a scene from The Fifth Element: "This case is EMPTY!  Empty. The opposite of full. This case is supposed to be full! Anyone care to explain?"

Ok I know this has been done before in Fifth Element but I love this idea it actually flips the entire scene on it's head if Fain was tricked into stealing an empty box. I doubt they'd do it but I wish it were true

28 minutes ago, Mailman said:

Or you have him move the Horn before the very last moment that the trollocs attack

I think if they had no intention of using the Horn there's really no reason for them to keep it in Fal Dara at all. We know that Fal Dara is essentially on the front lines of constant battle with trollocs so there would always be a chance that it could fall to an attack. If they truly believe the Horn is only for the Dragon then it would make more sense for them to have sent it to Tar Valon years or centuries ago or to Illian. There's no reason for them to want to keep the Horn because it's presence in Fal Dara just makes them an even bigger target for dark friends and hunters of the horn.

This is why having the Shienerans guarding the horn in Fal Dara creates so many plotholes. Heck they could have even gotten around some of these problems if the Horn was hidden at Fal Dara without anyone's knowledge, like buried in the ground or in a wall. Then maybe it could be accidentally revealed during the battle (maybe there is damage to the city that reveals it?). 

25 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Do Agelmar, Uno, Loial and Perrin know Fain is there?  If not your statement means nothing to my point.

?? Lol what are you on about??? I just meant he didn't just happen to be in the neighbourhood. 

25 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

We SEE Fain use the password and sneak in, so we know the same betrayal Ingtar did in the books happened.  Even if it turns out to be, say Uno, instead of Ingtar, it doesn't change that the plan was to take the horn to safety and the plan failed because of an unknown element arriving.
 

So what? we also see him use the Ways with no explanation (they have been shown to only open with magic, LOL, this in itself makes no sense as they were a gift to the Ogier but hey ho this is what we've got to work with). We also see he has the dagger so are we to also assume Ingtar somehow told him about that and how to get it? There are loads of different things Fain (not even counting all the other characters) does that haven't had explanation so why this one in particular?

25 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

It does, not sure what that has to do with anything I said, my argument is on the logic of moving the horn, not on if the betrayal plot is identical to the book.

25 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

They state they had considered using it but quickly bow to other plans.  Less they want to use it and more Boromir with the ring.

Not sure why you felt the need to quote every single line here individually. The point seems to have escaped you that these were just a few examples of things that differ greatly from the books. Also in what way is the Horn anything like the Ring in LoTR? That makes no sense at all they function completely differently and the ring is a thing of evil that corrupts and addicts those that come into contact with it. The horn does none of those things. You might as well compare the horn to a ham sandwich. 

25 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

And she wasn't still in the show, glad we got that out of the way.

Well that's the word that we've heard put about by the people involved with the show. In any case it's semantics. Moiraine does not have anything like this happen to her in the enitre length of the book series can we at least agree on that?

25 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Funny enough, this is a discussion point worth having.

The reality is the actor left.  So he wasn't there for Episode 7-8.

Now, I can easily understand and get behind what's coming with the reds.  BUT, there were other ways to take it.  So let's talk to this.

This was a change that show didn't WANT to do and had no choice but to deal with.  The actor left and so the character has to suddenly be removed from two episodes.   What path would you do with it?

Again you miss the point. These are just examples of changes, and I don't see what bringing the real word into this has to do with the price of butter? I'm talking about the fictional narrative of the show not what some actor did. You seem to be trying to defend a decision I was not even criticisng but merely pointing out that the show has changed so many things but you seem quite confident that a relatively minor plotpoint from the books will be kept.

34 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

No one knew Fain was going to be able to get inside the walls (or that he existed)  So you can't judge the situation based on his involvement.  The reality is they were uncovering it to take it to safety elsewhere, and if not for Ingtar's betrayal (that we don't know about yet) it would have succeeded.  So the failing there is the fact that no one considered that the traitor could be one of Agelmar's most trusted men.

Lol okay yeah I'm sure Fain was just in Fal Dara because the weather's lovely this time of year ? Also you mention "Ingtar's betrayal" just want to point out it is complete speculation and assumption on your part that there even is any betrayal. You've pointed out in many previous posts how things like the story of the horn and dagger are going in different directions so why not that too? In the books the dagger  kills in seconds, Agelmar and the Shienerans clearly state they would have used the horn given the chance, Moiraine was never stilled, Agelmar and he sister were not killed, Mat did not have the Red Ajah sent after him. Yet you are sure that this one thing will happen, when far more significant parts of the story have already been changed, why? 

5 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

There are multiple episodes of Star Trek that show Spock and Data showing great bursts of emotion under very specific circumstances.  Say, Pon Far, for example?   They did the exact same thing. AND Lan is supposed to be human, unlike Data and Spock.

Yes there are but they don't feel the need to rush through their entire emotional spectrum in a handful of episode in those shows. It's called pacing. 

5 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

The 'You are a Lioness' speech is in EOTW. Book 1.  If there is impatience and a shortcut in advancing that relationship, it is in the books.  It's just now we see what is in Nynaeve's head (who is a POV in book 1 too) explained on screen.

Lan and Nyneave's relationship in EOTW is seen mostly from afar, because the book is focussed mainly on Rand. We catch glimpses here and there but we don't know the full picture, we don't even know if they were physically intimate. The glimpses we did see though showed it as more of the beinnings of a relationship that Lan did not allow to bloom rather than them being essentially full on BF and GF. Again it's rushed and shows they have no patience to set up the romance.

5 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

That's as much as there is in the books. We don't ask who made the Horn.  It's clear in text the Shienarans, at least, believe the Horn is for the Last Battle, for the Dragon to use against the Dark One. They haven't used it before because there hasn't been a Dragon fighting the Dark One before.  Seems pretty obvious to me.  As to 'never in 3000 years used?  Maybe it has been used before....and it didn't work because the Dragon wasn't there. Per the book, he is kinda necessary.  All the more reason to keep it stashed until the Last Battle.

Sorry but you are just flat out wrong here the Horn is mentioned mulitple times throughout the first book. The first time is all the way back at Baerlon. It's not just randomly injected into the narrative at the last minute. 

Quote

“Silken manes flutter with tossed heads. A thousand streaming banners whip rainbows against an endless sky. A hundred brazen-throated trumpets shiver the air, and drums rattle like thunder. Wave on wave, cheers roll from watchers in their thousands, roll across the rooftops and towers of Illian, crash and break unheard around the thousand ears of riders whose eyes and hearts shine with their sacred quest. The Great Hunt of the Horn rides forth, rides to seek the Horn of Valere that will summon the heroes of the Ages back from the grave to battle for the Light....”

The Eye Of The World  (p. 209).

And again the Shienarans having the Horn just creates even more unnessesary divergences with the book such as...

Quote

Moiraine motioned for Loial to set the gold chest at her feet, and when he did, she opened it, revealing the horn. “The Horn of Valere,” she said, and Agelmar gasped. Rand almost thought the man would kneel. “With that, Moiraine Sedai, it matters not how many Halfmen or Trollocs remain. With the heroes of old come back from the tomb, we will march to the Blasted Lands and level Shayol Ghul.”

The Eye Of The World (p. 719)

and Moiraine's plan was to take it to Illian, which isn't mentioned either. I mean we are not even talking actions here, just a few seconds of dialogue

5 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

And terribly unappealing in every one. This isn't supposed to be a teen movie?
Considering I married a real life fraternity grad, I can definitely say that even fraternity boys aren't as bad as fraternity boys in shows.

Well do you think Merry and Pippin doing silly things made LoTR a teen movie? Rand, Mat and Perrin are transtitioning from boys into men, and boys do silly things.  Throughout the course of the series we see them grow up and become more mature. I heard so many people complain they didn't want this to be a Game of Thrones clone and yet you want the series to be darker than the books and cut out all the lighter moments. ?

24 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

An audience doesn't empathize with 'stone faced and says nothing about his feelings'. 

 

What you mean like Data and Spock in Star Trek? ? They just didn't have the patience to develop Lans character subtly so the did the cheap and cheerful shortcut. 

30 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

They definitely don't see why someone as fiercely emotional as Nynaeve could fall in love with him

And this is why it's not until Nyneave becomes a pov character in the books do we see the details of this. There's no reason to condense 10 books of development between Lan and Nyneave into a couple of scene. Again shows lack of patience and opting for the shortcut.

34 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

They explained this in episode. The Shienarans believe that only the Dragon could use the horn. 

They never explain why they think this or who gave them this task. Without further information it seems lik assumption at best. I find it difficult to believe in the centuries or millennia that they have kept the horn that no one tried to use it.

35 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

As to Mat being immature...
An adult, 20 year old man, unlike a hobbit, being silly and immature in the way Mat is in the books looks stupid and unappealing.  It comes across like...I don't know

Err allow me to introduce you to frat boys. They literally appear in just about every teen movie ever.

37 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Pippin

Lol ? I always forget which is which. They're basically a double-act but the point remains the same.

15 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

Lan's expression of grief, as a designated mourner where his stated duty was to express communal grief for a group of men who were not allowed culturally to express strong emotion except through such specific channel, can certainly be ridiculous of you ignore that whole cultural context and want to see it that way.

But why as a showrunners do you do this with a character who's meant to be reserved and closed off with his emotions? He only reveals his true emotions with a select few like Nyneave. This is why we never see the true extent of Lan and Nyneave relationship in the books until Nyneave is a POV character. IMO it would be a far more powerful scene if Lan is fighting to hold back his emotions and maintain his stoic visage rather than wallowing in them.

15 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

Digging up the horn of Valere 'just to give it to Padan Fain' seems ridiculous if you ignore the fact that Fal Dara was being overrun with trollocs and they had to retrieve it or it would fall into the hands of the Shadowspawn. 

This is not the reason this scene didn't work. The reason this didn't work is because they had the horn for centuries possibly even millennia and never used it once despite being under attack constantly and in this attack possibly about to lose the entire city with thousands dying. The point of the horn being lost was that no one would have the chance to use it.

15 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

Or maybe Mat and his badger is stupid and childish and what are these grown men doing fussing like pre-teens about who knows more about girls?  It's a choice that's been made, conscious or not, that then feeds into how you perceive the books.  Or the show. The pump is primed.

There's a difference between a character who is meant to be foolish and immature (at the time) doing silly a thing, and writers for a show creating plotholes and broken logic in a narrative. The audience of LoTR didn't complain when Merry knocked that skeleton down in Moria because it was logical that the foolish character did a foolish thing 

5 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

This is not a huge dropoff.  There's a big dropoff from week 1, but that was 3 episodes at once so it would obviously have more minutes viewed. Hawkeye included for comparison.

Might be useful to keep a note of this. I'd be curious to see how it compares with the figures for season 2 when it comes out. 

2 hours ago, Requiem said:

 

Teleporting is how they get there in tGH...

(Sigh) ? I was referring to just having him appear in Falme with no scenes of him actually going there not using the portal stones. They don't even teleport people you have to enter one and leave another to go somewhere.

27 minutes ago, Jake Sykwalker said:

 

There is a show on Netflix called The Movies that Made us.  It can be very interesting.  I watched the episode for Aliens.  How many people know that Michael Biehn wasn't the first pick for Hicks?  James Remar was chosen, but was arrested on drug charges shortly after shooting began.

 

There were scenes in the movie that were still Remar because they had already torn down the set and didn't have time to re-shoot.  The team and editors cleverly hid that fact from audiences.  

 

It was possible to not change things for the actor leaving, but for whatever reason they chose the path they did.  

There's a show called Peacemaker where they had to recast a supporting character after they filmed 4 or 5 episodes and had to redo the parts of those episodes I guess covid also caused problems, hence the bad CGI and strange narrative choices in episode 8. 

2 minutes ago, DaddyFinn said:

The Pattern works in mysterious ways. We don't know what will push Rand to Falme. We also don't know how accurate and trustworthy that "synopsis" is.

I guess. TBH I'm still pretty sure the season is going to be a mashup of books 2 and 3. I mean with Rand doing his solo wandering you can't really do that again next season so at the very least that will be from book 3 unless he just teleports to Falme (I hope that doesn't happen because it's so far away) 

On 1/25/2022 at 3:30 PM, DaddyFinn said:

User in Dusty Wheel Discord completed an online survey of TV series and was given this in the end. It's not official but seems very plausible.

 

Edit. It's a short "synopsis" of season 2.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

So Rand just coincidentally happens to travel the entire length of the Westlands and end up in the same city where everything else happens in? I hope it plays better than that in the show ?

36 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Your definition doesn't actually disagree.  It just applies to location of responsibility.  If you got scammed and could somehow prove and have the police catch the bad guy, courts might order you restitution.  But the financial institute will bill you and hold you responsible for it.

It's not my definition I just copied it from wikipedia which is in turn citing the Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM No. 1804. Theft by False Pretense (Pen. Code, § 484)). I'm no expert on fraud but what you are saying sounds like it's dependant on the type of institution and I'm guessing the laws in the country that the fraud happens in. To try and bring this back to WoT I doubt local authorities would indulge the nuances and legal loopholes that are found in modern banking and online fraud. 

49 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Side note, happy to drop this thread, was just something that perked my interest after 15 years as a fraud investigator.

okie dokie but to bring down to brass tacks (2nd Saul Goodman reference check) like I mentioned before, the point of all of this was just based on a offhand comment that was basically TV Show Mat and Perrin are significantly different from there book counterparts and their actions (like those previously mentioned) make them seem far less likeable in the show. The stuff about fraud really only cropped up when you mentioned it a few messages ago. Happy that it peeked you interest but I don't really think it's the main subject.  

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

And yet you ignore that they literally show that it's not always the simplest explanation in the show.

And you ignore that I already covered this in my last message regarding narrative twists. You point out twists that subvert the expectations of narrative storytelling but those are the exception to the rules of the narrative not the norm. If they were the norm then they would not be twists. There's no twist with the bracelet surely even you would have to admit there is no way they are going to revisit that scene and subvert the original expectation with a twist. 

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

In fiction and fantasy the simplest answer is not automatically right.

Never said it was automatically right just said it was normally right, and that is regardless or whether you are talking about fantasy or not because in any kind of coherent story there needs to be rules of how the world works so that the reader can understand and follow the story. If halfway through WoT Rand turns into and hamster and goes to live in LA to be a Hollywood movie star that would be breaking the logic of the narrative that had been constructed. Any story or world needs to be based on a kind of logic and laws and conventions in order to function coherently and while it may be possible to bend or break some of them this is always regarded as an exceptional event. 

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

I'm, flat out stating that taking possessions from corpses is not a universal moral but a cultural one and that taking possessions from a dead body is not automatically evil. 

Didn't say it was evil either if we go back to the original comment I made about 500 years ago all I did was use the example of Mat looting the dead and stealing as a difference from book Mat vs TV Show Mat. Even if you can find an example of Mat looting a body in the book look at how this plays out in the show. Is it shown as a good thing? Does Mat look good doing it? Does it reflect positively on him? The way I saw it was it came across as shameful and desperate. Mat was embarassed that Thom caught him doing it. That and the way he's trying to apologise to the corpse for his actions suggests this is not looked on favourably in this world. Also if taking from the dead was acceptable here I'm pretty sure the corpse would have already been looted. It shows that even the executioners wouldn't stoop to doing that. 

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

You willingly giving up funds is not fraud or theft, it can be elder abuse, but outside of the angle of taking advantage of someone not in proper mental faculties it is a "Too bad, sorry, now pay what you owe." stance in the eyes of the law.

  Err but that IS essentially the definition of fraud.

Quote

In common law jurisdictions, as a criminal offence, fraud takes many different forms, some general (e.g., theft by false pretense) and some specific to particular categories of victims or misconduct (e.g., bank fraud, insurance fraud, forgery). The elements of fraud as a crime similarly vary. The requisite elements of perhaps the most general form of criminal fraud, theft by false pretense, are the intentional deception of a victim by false representation or pretense with the intent of persuading the victim to part with property and with the victim parting with property in reliance on the representation or pretense and with the perpetrator intending to keep the property from the victim.^[7]

As for the specific case you cite I cannot speak to it as I'm not a lawyer but I assume it does not change what the definition of fraud is and just because you can find an example where someone was able to find a loophole in the law to escape justice doesn't mean the entire law is thrown out of the window. Do you think The Sting was about an enitrely legal scam to get someone to hand over their money?

4 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

(1) Danya was at no point portrayed as Mat's friend (much less Rand's or Perrin's). She was portrayed as someone involved in a dice game and someone with whom Mat flirted.

I feel like you are latching onto the wrong part of the discussion. Your comment makes it sound like if Mat did steal from her it was perfectly justified because they are not friends.  

4 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

(2) We don't know what Mat did to get the bracelet, only that he is reluctant for the town to find out it's been sold to Fain. He might have stolen it. He might have talked it off her with a sob story or trick. 

So instead of a thief your theory is Mat is a con-artist? I mean okay but I don't see how that puts Mat in any better light and it's arguably still stealing whether you trick someone into giving it to you or lift it from their person. The fact is it is heaviliy implied that Mat obtained the item dishonestly and their is little to no implication to suggest he didn't. The only thing you can say in his defence is Well we didn't witness him take it so we cannot say with 100% certainly but in the absence of any alternative that is pretty filmsy. 

4 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

(3) There is literally no evidence for the idea that Perrin killed Laila in order to "hook up with" Egwene. I get why you don't like the Perrin killing Laila thing (I don't love it) or the "love triangle" (I don't love that either), but it's still silly to claim that Perrin murdered his wife to get a new girlfriend.

I never ever said Perrin killed his wife to hook up with Egwene. This is just putting words in my mouth. I said he kills his wife, expresses no substantial amount of grief for what he's done and then starts displaying feelings for Egwene a few months later (I'm not sure of the exact time period but I think we can agree it cannot be much more than a few months at most?). I cannot see how anyone can kill their wife then a few months later display the kind traits that Perrin shows to Egwene. It makes it seem like his wife meant as little to him as she does to the audience. I agree with what Brandon Sanderson said on this issue Perrin should be consumed with grief by what he's done there's no way he'd leave to go off on an adventure immediately after and I'd be surprised if he didn't try to kill himself. We saw a greater outpouring of grief from Lan over Stepin's death than we did from Perrin over his wife. I also think killing his wife is a poor subsitute for killing Whitecloaks because that was already a morally grey issue but there were arguements in Perrin's favour. However, by replacing the Whitecloak killings with his wife it puts the blame firmly against Perrin. There's no getting away from it this Perrin has committed manslaughter and by the laws of most parts of the world it's difficult not to argue he deserves to face some kind of justice for that.      

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

I'm not saying he didn't steal it, I'm saying we don't see the theft and so multiple options are possible AND the show and the books both love doing unreliable narrator stuff.

Again what you are trying to say is basically that the simplest explanation is not normally the right one. If you see a shot in a TV show or movie where a character gets into a car at their work and the shot then cuts to the character getting out of a car at their home, it's pretty obvious that this character just drove home from work. You can try to offer other explanations to that where the character did something other than drove home but those explanations will never be the most logical or simplest. 

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

The takeaway here is an ambiguous situation is ambiguous.  For the record, any lawyer would make that argument if presented with this scenario where there is no complaining witness/victim.  Need a comparison of it happening in show?  Episode 7, 13:30.  Trolloc jumps down.  Power wraps around Egwene's wrist as she flinches and Trolloc goes flying.  If you have that single scene to go off of it's clear Egwene defended herself.  But then at 50:06, oh look, it wasn't Egwene.  

Now you are trying to use narrative twists to imply this is a storytelling norm. But it isn't the norm is the convention that A + B = C. The whole reason twists in a story work is that they go against the normal convention that the narrative usually follows. So again if it is revealed that Mat stealing the bracelet was bait for a twist I will concede the point but until then the narrative convention applies and any other explanation is a rejection of the facts that have been shown to the audience in favour of an explanation that subverts expectations. 

1 hour ago, KakitaOCU said:

You're searching for justification.  The issue is, not every culture or person finds taking items from a dead piece of meat that no longer exists as a person to be a moral issue.  More-over, if your argument is you just search for info, you don't take the money.  As for Mat doing it exactly?  How about the assassin he flips with off a roof in Tar Valon in book 3?  

And you are trying to imply that a moral character is amoral. The second sentence here seems incomplete you say if my agument. As for the example you give is this what you are referring to? 

Because I cannot see anything in this example that shows where Mat robbed the guy but even if there was you are talking about a guy who was trying to kill him vs a dead person he has not connection or justifable ill will towards. I addition you cite that some cultures where it's morally acceptable to loot the dead. Okay can't think of any (in fact I can think of many where the exact opposite is true half the ghost stories ever written are based on this concept) but sure for the sake of not drawing this out even more lets just assume there are. But what evidence do you have that Mat comes from such a culture. I have seen no evidence I can recall that in Emmonds Field it's acceptable practice to loot from the dead. 

2 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

So back to jumping to the worst conclusion and thinking it's infallible...  It doesn't serve the story?  So we don't have a reason for Perrin to have major hang ups over committing violence and if it would be better if he didn't?  Weird, it's like that was a driving issue in his talks with the Tinkers and then his actions in the last episode.

To be honest better writers and analysts than me are able articulate this point far better and I find it tiresome to keep going over this ground. I'd refer you to Brandon Sanderson's comments about this topic and many reasonable reviewers covered this subject in far greater detail.   

2 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

And before someone tries to jump all of this.

 

I honesty can't tell if you are trolling, being sarcastic or geuinely believe this stuff. I'm tempted to say the latter given how extraordinary this take is. 

2 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

No, we have no clear sight of Mat stealing from his friends.  We see him go talk to a woman with a bracelet and later he pawns it.  We don't know if he stole it or was given it, Which was the point, to leave it looking bad.

This is an argument even Saul Goodman would blush making. Yeah you're I'm sure she gave it to him as a present for taking care of her sick grandmother. ? So the take away here is that nothing is true unless it happens on screen. So maybe Lews Therin didn't imprison the Dark One at all, I mean we've never actually seen it happen. Maybe Thom is the Dark One, I mean we've never seen them in the same room together, right? (just for clarity this is sarcasm ?) 

The only way your argument works is if we completely ignore storytelling conventions eg: if you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground, then you wake up the next morning and there is snow on the ground you can say it snowed during the night even though you didn't see it happen. But you would have us believe that no it didn't snow, aliens came and sprayed the countryside with mysterious space dust that just happens to have the exact same properties as snow. Certainly you are entitled to your opinion but your conclusions seem more rooted in choosing not to believe the obvious and logical explanation and picking a far more illogical and unlikely one because you like the sound of that better. However, if it is revealed that there is a shocking twist where it is shown Mat didn't steal the braclet at all I will happily concede the point. 

2 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Stealing from the dead?  Please, fantasy heroes do this constantly.  Mat does it throughout the books when he gets into fights and kills people, he loots their coin.  It's not a moral compass issue.

Which corpses does Mat loot in the books? Also when does Mat do this for money and not to find out who this person is and why they are trying to kill him? Also there is a world of difference between searching the body of your potential murderer to find out information about them and looting a random body because you want to profit from their demise. You are trying to paint Mat like he is some grimdark character like out of the First Law series or Song of Ice and Fire character, he most definitely is not.  

2 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Perrin killing Laila is only an issue because it wasn't in the book.  Him being a rage fighter who needs to learn to control himself tracks, him being guilt-ridden and unsure if violence is acceptable tracks.  

No Perrin killing Laila is an issue because it doesn't serve the story in any way. By episode 3 the plot point is completely forgotten about. Perrin has almost no grief over the event and the fact that he is shown to be growing close to Egwene and even has an argument with Rand over the nature of his feelings for her (which shows this is more than just unacted on feelings) show that by the end of the season he has no feelings at all for this tragic act that should have consumed him with grief. He killed his wife a few months ago and now he clearly seems to be enamoured with his best friend's girlfriend.  Laila was just a throwaway character who existed purely to die tragically. It's the most blatant example of fridging I've ever seen in live action.

1 hour ago, Vartija said:

Now that it's been brought up, I have to admit Mat's initial reaction to Rand being able to channel was one reason I soured on him as a character, and why he's never been as big a favourite of mine as he seems to be to most readers. On my latest re-read I really started to doubt how deep their friendship really was. Obviously Rand wasn't the easiest person to be around when his madness started to effect him, but still it seemed to me Mat went to great lengths to get away from him, and he seemed to be warier than others of being around him. If not for the ta'veren effect drawing him to Rand I got the impression he would have been quite fine with "abandoning" him.   

Mat doesn't hate Rand he's afraid of what he can do. Mat cares about all his friends he even trades one of his eyes for them. Mat is simply afraid of what Rand can do and that he could go insane. Mat is also extremely wary of any Aes Sedai and magic as he see that as the cause of his problems with the dice and his endless memories of death. It should also be noted that Rand is not exactly blameless in bumps in the road of their friendship. He orders Mat and Perrin around like a king ordering a general and uses them as tools to fix problems that cause them much distress often with little to no reward or thanks.

2 hours ago, EmreY said:

 

Alas, so many people decided to follow the hidden spoiler trend that I'm lost.  Which prophecies?

Nicola's foretelling and Mins vision about marriage.

16 minutes ago, Jaysen Gore said:

@SingleMort while I understand the objections you raise - I was lurking here for the post aMOL discussion, and "he wouldn't do that" was the most common complaint - I really don't think you're proposed solution is good, either.  Not only is it cutting of the nose to spite one's face, it's slitting one's own throat.

 

It's why, as I've said before, I'm going to be so interested to see what they do in the next 10 episodes on this topic. Between the KC, Min, and the Aelfinn / Elfinn, there's a helluva lot of prophecy that could happen, but I think it will be dependent on whether or not Amazon commits early to the whole series or not.

I'm not saying Rand wouldn't try to find a way to live or even fake his death. I'm saying it would only be a matter of time until he got found out. If your argument is that Rand would leave everyone and go off to maybe another continent or somewhere then the other prophesies you mention directly contradict that because they show Rand would remain a presence in the Westlands and I can't see how he could do anything but continue as the Dragon in that case. 

In any case I think any prophesy that refers to anything post AMOL is likely to be cut unless Amazon plan on making a series in the 4th Age. TBH it might have been better if they had done their series in the 2nd or 4th Age then they could just use the books as inspiration and make almost whatever they wanted not bound to the existing source material.  

30 minutes ago, ashi said:

Yes, sadly the role of prophecy will likely be (and already is) diminished. Sadly, because it added a lot of weight to the series, didn't it?

I'd agree with that for Elaida's foretellings, Min's visions, KC and a few other things but can't say I've ever thought much about the Nicola thing. 

7 minutes ago, ashi said: