2 hours ago, EmreY said:

 

I mean Youtube comments, as I have said before, although I admit it wasn't the most elegantly structured sentence.  And having a borderline INFJ/ENFJ personality (multiple tests over many years), I desperately need to defend those who cannot defend themselves. ? 

Well, youtube comments or not, I think my point stands. 

I have no idea what you mean by the rest, but I have to ask: who are you defending here that cannot defend themselves? 

4 hours ago, EmreY said:

I went and watched very single reaction to the series, and the comments sections are indeed full of people who say what you've been saying, upvoted once, and many, many more where they say they are enjoying the show and have been upvoted numerous times.

 

But who bloody cares?  Who lives their life by Youtube comments?

You care. You're posting about it. I care. I'm posting about it. Who cares if no one else cares? Not caring would really mean the books failed and the fandom would be quite a mystery. If no one cared enough to discuss and dissect the show it would be a failure of the books also, but if it is a window onto the success of failure of the show is questionable. If the show was great, that would be evident. If the show was dreadful but without the existence of the books, it would be difficult to measure except for the difficulty of the measurement, because no one would care at all. 

On 2/5/2022 at 1:25 AM, Andra said:

On 2/4/2022 at 3:17 PM, Skipp said:

And deciding to view the show as a different turning of the wheel is neither a good nor a bad thing. 

On 2/5/2022 at 1:25 AM, Andra said:

Actually, it's a horrendously bad thing - a pathetic copout that was invented to explain away a raft of indefensible changes.

I agree with Andra, and pretending it is merely a different turning of the wheel would need them to either get all the myths even more wrong and all sorts of things that would put things in the actual Wheel of Time books further into the obscurity. Wheel of Time would look as different from the books as the Age of Legends would look to real Rand/Matt/Perrin/Egwene/Nynaeve/Moraine/etc. 

Call it Wheel of Time II: Training Wheels. Or The Wheels of the Time Go Round and Round. Or call it Wheel of Time: Fan Fiction Edition. You see this in music all the time, where bands re-record some iconic band's music and the call it a tribute. Call it Rafe's Tribute to Wheel of Time. Everyone would ask "Who's Rafe?" and hope for a spin off series to The Expanse that isn't rushed like the last season felt.  

I think it is a case of the industry knowing it is easier to glom-onto a known IP their crappy stories from sub-par story tellers who come cheaper than skilled and qualified ones, making a chimera of old and new that pleases few, inspires less, and leaves the culture more empty than it was. If anything Rafe is proving Oswald Spengler right at least in some ways: culture is dead, not creating anything but it's own coffin where, once inside, it sees nothing but its own memories & feels nothing but its own rigor mortis (I might be misrepresenting his ideas here in this run-on sentence)

On 2/4/2022 at 4:16 PM, Skipp said:

...

But feel free to keep screaming into the void if that helps you through the day. 

This cuts both ways. You like the show? So what? People here can rationalize what they saw into coherence? So what? That this website existed long before there was any realistic chance of seeing a movie or show based on these books sort of means there is no need to "like" or excuse or even give a second chance to the show. If anything it grants unique licence to assess the show critically in light of the collective understanding of the books and to be open if the show comes up lacking in that comparison. 

17 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

... many many many millions more who watched and enjoyed it seem to disagree. 

So, not just many millions but many many many millions?

17 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

See the 20-30 people I know who watched it enjoyed it and are looking forward to season 2. 

I saw this on Get Smart long ago. I wonder if we'll get the whole bit here. 

11 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

Amazon actually has fewer Prime members that watch TV then you realise, that is one of the reason they are pushing original series to try and get more people watching the TV side of Prime. ...

 

Yes! I love Get Smart!  Here's the first time he did that bit:

11 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

Book readers are not, and should not be the target audience here. There are not enough in the world to warrant making a TV show with this budget. The target audience has to be people who have never read the books, and, Amazon also wants to draw in people who never usually watch fantasy TV shows. That feeds very much into the tone of the show as well and many of the creative decisions of what to cut and keep. 

Wait, hold up. Amazon does not have that many subscribers, and "they are pushing original series to try and get more people watching the TV side of Prime", but book readers are not and should not be the target audience HERE? 

Why would anyone be enticed into watching the TV side of Prime for some fantasy book series they probably know nothing about? Why would they watch it if they "never usually watch fantasy TV shows"?  So, Amazon was creating shows intended for people are not even fans of the genre by your logic. But logic logic would instead have them adapt shows from books that had loyal audiences who would watch the show if it was good. Then word of mouth from zealous and happy Book Cloaks, may the light ever illume our pages, would bring people in. That's what GoT did. 

Maybe your logic is why Bezos lost money on Amazon for so long before turning a profit and now owning the world. If he had instead used logic logic, we'd all be working at Amazon fulfillment centers and running home to see our groceries on our stoop delivered amazon drones watching an actual wheel of time. By your logic he may as well given us Pat Sajak and Vanna White as Lan and Moraine and made the Wheel a Game show. Why not? It would bring people into the genre. Which genre? I forget.  

GoT grew to what it was because the book readers were pleased and wouldn't shut up about it. I wasn't going to watch it, but a woman I was attracted to watched it I was like "oh, I'll have something to talk to her about" (and that went about as well as one would expect. Yes we're friends). Otherwise I'd think the mother of dragons had the greatest ob/gyn in all westeros. (Yes I know she was still on Easteros Island or what ever). We'll see if Wheel of Time gets four seasons. I'd be surprised actually. They're in for two. If it bombs will they leave it hanging? They might finish it up just because they talked about it being their Game of Thrones. We'll see. 

Stupidity is usually the right explanation. It's worth making a distinction between ignorance and willful stupidity though. 

3 hours ago, Asthereal said:

Anyway, I don't think about WoT much at all. Really.

I really wish we could click both a "like" and a laugh sometimes, and for this post (the whole post, not just the part that made me laugh) it's especially so. 

Just now, VooDooNut said:

I think what I said above is being misinterpreted, and I agree I have no idea what the actually quote(s) are. I don't care what Rafe said or didn't day. My point was that he would be wrong to claim he can write something as if he were Robert Jordan. The only person capable of that is Robert Jordan. Robert Jordan would also be wrong to claim he can run a show as if he were Rafe Judkins. Hopefully I've articulated that better than before.

cool, thanks for the clarification. I did quote you, and throw a question at you (I think. I'd have to reread, but that's not the point I'm making anyway), but I really wanted to get my own riffs on the idea out there.

So, not 'misspoke' but maybe more like 'speaking above his pay-grade' or 'talking outta his $*&$&' ?

On 1/20/2022 at 12:58 PM, Raal Gurniss said:

I don’t think any training will be given, I mean they have already intuitively mastered combat and healing.

they're going there to teach!

2 hours ago, VooDooNut said:

He can't write the show how Robert Jordan would have written it, because he isn't Robert Jordan. If he said this, I'd argue he misspoke, but I'm unfamiliar with the specific quote.

Not to nit-pick, but to say you would argue he misspoke but you're unfamiliar with the specific quote seems off to me. By misspoke I guess you mean he could have worded what he meant another way, which would be charitable but there's no need to characterize his quote you're not familiar with because you're not familiar with it. OK, I'm nit-picking. Sorry. But I'm spring-boarding off the nit that I picked to either dive or belly-flop. 

I think an honest assessment of the quote as it is attributed to him here (and perhaps not as he said it) would be "wow, that would be a crazy thing to say. I hope he misspoke or the specific context might put it in better light." I mean without any context, it assumes he's up to the task. Decent humility would have one not think that, and both decent public decency and clever public relations savvy would would have one never say that aloud. My number one off-the-cuff assessment of Rafe is that he's too young for this task. This is a kind of error the young make all the time. I think I remember saying stupid things I couldn't back up, so maybe I see myself in our ambitious show-runner. 

But, if the context is that he's writting it from a feminism point of view today as RJ would today, based on how he did it then from that perspective: well, that's off-base too probably. What kind of feminism does RJ reflect in the books, and how does he relate to it? Before even trying to to answer, I suspect Harriet has a lot to do with his view on it and his relationship with it, so there is a possible mediating factor that might need to be included.

But, is RJ offering a sort of 60s-70s view of feminism (where I'll remind everyone how the women on the original Star Trek series thought their short uniform-dresses were very women's lib, and women where soldiering on through an openly sexist world even if not everyone in that world was sexist. The nurse and the various yeomen (yeo-women? that's what they were) worked in spite of the leering. The whole gist of the Mary Tyler Moore show was that she was in her thirties and not married in an actual a career, standing up to a tough boss, and living alone even!), and his view on that (perhaps with Harriet's input)? The whole tension between men and women in the series (which also has a lot to do with mistrust sewn by the DO) sounds 70s-ish to me, not 90s-ish. Moraine is more Grace Slick than Mikki from Lush, imHo.

I don't know if Rafe is thinking about that, nor about what that view would be today or what that today would be. I don't think he can. But, I don't he isn't thinking along those lines at all. I think in artist circles today he has to address everytime he hears "oh, you're adapting that book series? Isn't it problematic?" and the best answer to that, to get passed all the gate-keepers and peer-keepers-down-ers, might be "yeah, but at it's core it's a great story with great women characters. the dynamic is outdated but for it's time it was progressive and even forward thinking." I don't think I'm misquoting Rafe here.  ;^)  I do suspect this little fake-dialogue is closer to the reality-- both in that he might not like this aspect of what he sees in the books but also that he has to work with people aren't going to be so onboard with sex-based differences everyone used to take for granted. 

Wow, very thoughtful comments. Thanks everyone for sharing. 

I think being bombarded with slogans like "build back better" and "the great reset" indicates that there is a reshuffling that some are pursuing on behalf of us all. 

There are also certain cycles that have been observed in the geologic record that indicate we're due for a big change. 

There are also indications that something's a-brewing in predictions and warnings from Marian apparitions. "Whoa, hold on there little fella" you say, "that's quite a stretch from what we all see in the media and what geophysicists see in the geologic record to ... well crazy-talk". Maybe so, I won't contest that.  But the consistency of these warnings and their spacing across time and where to whom they occurred, to me they indicate something-- especially when seen as pieces of the same puzzle the other more hard evidence are part of. 

And it isn't just geophysics and stratigraphy that indicate there are cycles of disaster. Mass extinction events are seen punctuating the paleontological record as well, that coincide with the other cycles observed. Many questions about plate tectonics, that we just assumed would have easy answers, are still unanswered while the details about the structure of the earth make easy answers less forth-coming. The amount of water in the earth at great depth is surprising, especially since not long ago many assumed beneath a certain depth water could not exist. The relationship between electrical activity in the earth and in upper layers of the atmosphere at and before earthquakes is surprising, but only getting more firmly established every few months as new studies and papers are published. The movement of the magnetic poles, and the bulge of the earth's core (around Indonesia, where one of the poles seems to be heading) is also ... interesting. 

I think what ever is up will surprise us, but the geologic record is filled with frightening things. But, what else would it have? If you see excavation and dump trucks and all sorts of mess, you'd say "what a mess is going on", but a beautiful new building needs all that to happen. Then you tear the building down and rebuild elsewhere and you see no building, but the mess. Not a perfect analogy, but I think it's important to consider what can and what simple can't even be expected to be seen in the geologic record. 

7 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

I also find the wafo argument to be bad at best.

After everything they did in season 1 to our characters, world, story and magic system why would I want to watch season 2?

Yeah, no to "wafo", more like RaRS: Reread and restore sanity.  There was a post in another thread I think about a version of the first episode's script that showed how Matt got the necklace he had to sneakily sell to Padan Fain, and ... nah. I'm good. No more for me.  I bid the show a kind, but not fond, adieu.

41 minutes ago, WhiteVeils said:

Interestingly, we have the script for episode 1, so we know how Mat got the bracelet.  Spoilered for script and...uh...adultness.

  Hide contents

In the original script, him getting it is very...uh...gray.  He offers and gives a woman oral sex.  She offers to return it, but he doesn't want it returned...he is doing this solely to pleasure her, not for himself.  During him doing this, he knocks the bracelet off her wrist...intentionally or unintentionally, we can't tell.  She finishes and leaves.  He takes the bracelet off the floor.

Given the scenario, depending on how the actor performed it and how the directing went, it could have seemed an intentional knocking it off with the sex to detract, or him taking it to 'pay' for the sex. 

It was not as simple as 'stealing from a friend'  or 'not stealing at all definitely'.  The original script was aiming for a muddy gray inbetween zone.

Well with that cleared up, I'm sure the "Bookcloak" contingent here will be just as satisfied as I am with the hands that are guiding this project. 

2 hours ago, Jake Sykwalker said:

Not every show can have Alan Rickman starring in them.  Robin Hood Prince of Thieves owes him big time.  Harry Potter and Die Hard wouldn't be as good without him either. 

how great is the moment in Galaxy Quest when he finally says "by Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Warvan, you shall be avenged!" and it's made that because all the ways he showed disdain for it. Here's a great compilation: 

5 minutes ago, Jake Sykwalker said:

 

This is a common problem for many writers.  It is very obvious that RJ based the characters on himself and his wife.  Since they were both older at the time they couldn't relate to the younger characters.  Instead they projected onto them how they thought they should act.

 

As a funny aside this sometimes works.  In Scooby Doo the characters were based on how Joe Ruby and Ken Spears thought teenagers acted based off of other TV shows and comic books.  Turns out it was very funny if not exactly accurate.  

 

this reminds of how the guy who wrote the screenplay for Heathers wanted to capture the dialogue of the kids he was writing about. I think the story goes that he tried hanging out where they might hang out, realized he hated it, wasn't a kid, didn't like kid things, and had to find another way. He ended up making up his own way for those kids to speak and it ends up being a strength in what he wrote. 

I'm responding to the original question: They couldn't really follow the show. That could be due to all the yelling I did at the TV, but I think it's Rafe's fault. 

/s /not-really-but-kinda

18 minutes ago, EmreY said:

I think Lanfear is closer to Inanna than to Mary.  And her consort was Dumuzid, who was a shepherd. ?

 

 

I can't say I know anything about Inanna. So maybe there is a closer connection, but the idea is not that she's like Mary but like an anti-Mary. I don't that RJ took any thing and inversed it like that though. 

I don't know if this is a good solution to selling the body switch, but if there were something different about Rand's eyes that carry over with him in the end, considering how important eyes are for when we look at each other if we really are looking at each other, it might help sell it. If Rand has some character-defining gestures, something some actors often create as they try to define and inhabit a character, that could be carried over, that would help. I didn't pick up any in the show but if it were subtle it could be better anyway (but then also tougher for the audience to pick up on). I do think there should be an attempt to create something to visually sell the switch since the show is a visual medium. But that could undercut the fullness of the switch and raise the question of "how", so I could see attempts being made and dropped. 

BookLover, I never thought about the Meyers-Briggs thing with regard to how we feel about characters, but I know it does say something about us. I liked Faile, but I know why and it ain't good. I kinda like Lanfear too, though I think even I'd see that Selene has some trick up her sleeve that is not on the up-and-up. 

I think the thing that has stayed with me most after reading the books is how the young characters grow up. I think you say that in another thread. Another thing, maybe a minor theme, that emerges more clearly (for something that might be at best a very minor theme) is gaining ground in my mind on that, but it is related. I'd rather not even mention it because you have to get through the books to then probably say "nah, that's not really there you're just reading into it".

4 hours ago, Kalessin said:

(This is going to sound somewhat Marian, for those of the Catholic religious persuasion.) But Atha'an Miere means Sea People, and Do Miere Avron means Watchers over the Waves. Lanfear's name initially is Mierin, so ... Seagirl? Seawoman? Mermaid?

 

Her assumed name in the Hunt for the Horn and until she unveils herself to Rand, is Selene, which by some strange coincidence, happens to be derived from the name for the ancient Greek Moon Goddess.

 

The name she chose for herself is Lanfear, Daughter of the Night in the Old Tongue. And her colours are all moon-related. Until she is demoted by Moridin, all her names have to do with either the sea or the moon. It's as if she was an anti-Mary Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea.

I like this. Also her big game plan for the end where she games the system to gain ultimate power through Rand is the opposite of saying "I am a handmaiden of the Lord", so that's also like being an anti-Mary.

9 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

 

You are calling me purposefully obtuse but frankly I think you're being purposefully adversarial. Being honest it's felt a little out of nowhere and gone from a disagreement about Agelmar to now being told I ignore anything that doesn't fit with a notion that the show was well done. I repeat - have you read any of my posts about the show?

 

To take a step back for a moment, you quoted me saying that I think it would be a more interesting dynamic if the Borderlands were not a monolith of wise flawless leaders who were respectful of Aes Sedai. You said that the culture of the Borderlands being on the frontlines creates those traits. I said I didn't understand how the culture has been changed in the show. You then tell me I'm ignoring things because it doesn't fit with how I feel about the show. And so here we are sniping back and forth.

 

ilovezam and I talked a little about it as well in between posts. I even said I agree with their wider points about Agelmar in the show? So how am I ignoring other perspectives?! Honestly, am I going mad? If I'm coming across as someone refusing alternate perspectives or as someone who loves the show unconditionally, then please make that clear by quoting where that is coming across, because it's not my intention. I've gained a lot from reading perspectives on the show that I disagree with from this board. I'd even say that my general optimism for S2 has dimmed quite a bit since the finale from reading others' well reasoned criticisms on here.

 

Again, I don't understand the needless adversarial nature of your post. 

 

 

I didn't say I found him interesting. I said I can understand trying to give Agelmar a different slant to try and make him more interesting. Even if he is laughably bad as commander and leader, in the context of a nation on the frontline, that could make for interesting dynamics. Much like Denethor or Theoden being blind to the problems facing them until it's almost too late. Having a nation that faces the threat of the DO on a daily basis being less welcoming of Aes Sedai could make for interesting dynamics. However, as I've said ad nauseum, the show has not explored this in any depth so it hasn't worked. 

 

Once more, I didn't like what we got in the end with Agelmar. So no, I wasn't glad - but that doesn't mean I don't think the core idea was bad. This gets back to something I've said repeatedly as well, most of my issues with the show I think come down to bad writing, rather than bad ideas. 

 

Hopefully I've been clear here but honestly, can I ask you to stop telling me I'm being obtuse or ignorant or whatever else? It's needless and gets my back up, so I end up snapping back. If I've said something that has gotten yours up, then I'm sorry, it's not my intention.

Let me get this straight: you're not talking about what WAS, but what COULD HAVE BEEN, not what they presented but what they might have intended to present, not that what they did was interesting but that it might have been interesting. You're talking about not what the show did either by intention or not, but what it might have intended to do.  I'm sorry for wasting your time, because I can't possible discuss that. But, I hope you can see that if this is what you're talking about, how impossible or at least frustrating that must be to discuss. Sorry, I'll leave you alone to defend the show based on what they might have intended. 

2 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

Wow. 

 

Did you ever consider the idea that maybe I just don't see it the way you do, and it's not about defending the show or ignoring flaws? The fact you characterise me as "defending the show even after the flaws are pointed out" or refusing to "admit the points made" and that the changes are "indefensible" says to me you haven't really paid attention to anything I've posted. Not that you're obligated to, but maybe take a second before you decide that everyone enjoying the show are incapable of acknowledging flaws. 

 

Take a look at any of my posts about Perrin, or the interactions with ilovezam in this very thread, or responding to Lethira about the poor communication of ideas in the script. I am not frustrated and "clinging" to anything, but I am frustrated at being characterised in the same way relentlessly by posts such as yours above. I get frustrated that many of the critical posts come across as needlessly adversarial, rather than engaging on the topic. 
 

In terms of why I was exasperated, it's not to do with the arguments presented, it was saying that I was ignoring something or refusing to acknowledge it because it didn't fit with how I feel about the show. I don't understand the need to pigeonhole me in that way. I can easily see a leader like show-Agelmar being in charge of a Borderland nation, and if it was explored more than I think it would be interesting on screen, to have a Borderland leader proud and blinded to their needs. Call that rationalising if you want. 

 

I'm comfortable with how I see the show. I'm optimistic for S2 but I don't feel the need to justify things I think were terrible in it. You don't see me saying that Loial was a valuable character in the show, or that Padan Fain was a good villain, or that they built up the Dark One well through the season. If I'm discussing things in the show with those critical of it, it's because I see it a different way, that's all. 

Oh I get you don't see it the way I do. You refuse to consider another perspective if it undercuts the notion that the show was well done. It makes no sense, regardless of you calling it interesting or not. What you're not doing is admitting you are not trying to see it more fully by incorporating other perspectives, and you do not want to.

Being obtuse is not the same as having an opinion. Even having an opinion is not the same as gaining more information and broadening  one's perspective to enhance and flesh out an opinion over time. You're being purposefully obtuse.

You found him interesting, and I'm saying he's laughably bad as a commander and leader. The change is from a great commander to a pathetic and petty one: interesting, or bad? What was interesting about that change? What interesting thing did it give you to ponder? Does the change cheapen him, now that you've seen other perspectives on it? Or are you glad he was cheapened? How does taking a stalwart character from the book and making him pathetic not count as a crime against the book? Surely you must have reasons and good answers for these questions, so I can see what is so interesting about this change. I'd love to have my perspective broadened.

I think we would have lost a lot, not dismissing your points though which I'd probably see as tighter writing. I think of just how many things come together in the end, and how much Egwene and Nynaeve grow as characters. I do think Perrin was in a holding pattern for way too long. Also, RJ was ill and that had a big impact. 

I guess I think if it were six books we would have had six excellent books, but we would not have had the ending we got. For me, the way so much comes together, emphasis on the so much part that comes together, is what stands out. 

I agree about a drop in quality, and in inconsistency in some of the chapters compared to others in the same book also. If not for the quality of the quality, I would not have stuck it out to get to the ending, which for me was the most satisfying part of it. 

5 minutes ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

Here's what I find hilarious. 

according to Agelmar, they have apparently always defended that gap with its very crappy defenses (no siege?) For a very long time.

During the battle all it took was about 200 go overrun them. So are the showrunners really going to tell us that they all that attacked them over all those years were very small armies? Seems a waste of resources on the dark ones side to keep throwing tiny armies at that wall if you could overrun it with a couple hundred easily.

I'm sure someone will make an analogy to a pool shark playing sub-par only to get his mark to bet big money, and thus make Rafe a genius. That would deny what happened to Malkier, which would then be spun as an "interesting" spin on the male arrogance of one of the greatest military minds of his day. 

8 hours ago, ilovezam said:

Maybe in this TuRnInG oF tHe WhEeL the Shadow was of no threat whatsoever historically, until that horde from Episode 8.

 

But yeah I would think if the commander of the Shienar armies is dumb enough to refuse help and constantly underestimate the enemy and belittle allies because "we've always done it ourselves", they should have died out long ago. A brilliant general holding back an overwhelming force against poor odds is so cool, and not the best character with whom to portray "male arrogance", IMO, especially with their awesome relationship with Lan. I loved how he recounted Lan's origin story with a "sad pride in his eyes". And it's much better development for Lan than the Stepin stuff, too.

 

 

 

But it begs the question, they have always done what themselves? Stare down and non-existent mytical enemy? Swing their members around in a display of "male arrogance"? Both are silly. The first rebellious young man would overthrow the whole system and have all-night raves/ragers where the trollocs aren't, and get shredded by them when they become a reality to deal with. The whole concept of "male arrogance" seems especially in this military context to be like complaining that the tall large guy under the basket doesn't pass as much as the the little guys by the three point line. Sorry, I can't give any ground on this. The more I think about it, the more it really annoys me because it undercuts a bit part of what motivated RJ to write this: his time in the military.