6 minutes ago, henrywho said:

My final statement, anyone who has read the books and believes the TV series is an acceptable adaptation of the books is NOT a fan of the books and is in desperate need of psychological evaluation.

This is absurd. You don't get to judge whether someone else is a fan. 

On 5/4/2024 at 1:35 AM, Maximillion said:

By the way - the fact that Sanderson is talking like that suggests that this show is cooked and we've seen the last of it after season 3.

What leads you to that conclusion? Sanderson has been calling it like he saw it from day one. These statements don't particularly stand out as ominous in any way.

1 hour ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

changes such as apparently combining Semirhage and Moggie into one character (that looks like what they have done?)

This is interesting speculation... Why do you think that? [As an aside, I have to say one of the things they've done very right is the villains. They've been great.]

1 hour ago, HeavyHalfMoonBlade said:

On the more general topic, I think there are clear differences between,

• changes such as Moiraine being the star, with many changes to enlarge and deepen her role which were very much chosen a priori
• changes such as Perrin killing his wife to try explain his motivations in story (which can also easily be broken in visual nuggets for the "Previously on" preamble), which are trying to tell the same story in a better way for TV or the runtime they have
• changes such as apparently combining Semirhage and Moggie into one character (that looks like what they have done?) to condense the story, or combining the ashagarai and dagger into a light sabre which also serves as a plot device (note, some of these may be better than others, but I'll leave that up to the individual to decide)
• changes such as the blight due to budget and priority of screen time
• changes forced by actors not being available or covid, or other issues.

This is spot on.  

16 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

There it is again. Directs insults of ignorance and then the tired gatekeeping argument that gets trotted out to malign anyone who disagrees with the elites who want to tell you what you should like.

Let’s not pretend that insults and gatekeeping are exclusive to one side or the other of this argument.  

4 minutes ago, Samt said:

Everything of any complexity is more complicated than the masses think.  True mastery is making difficult things look effortless.  If you have to start explaining why it was so hard, you know you failed.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. I’m not speaking in generalities. People are arguing that the writers are bad and that it’s easy to write a story that hews closer to the original. Those people vastly underestimate the complexity of the task. 
 

That’s not some sort of cop out. It’s the truth. 

1 minute ago, Samt said:

44 minutes ago, DigificWriter said:

So you are arguing that it would be literally impossible for a more faithful adaptation to be made?

Come on, man! That’s not at all what’s being said. The claim here is that it’s more complicated than the masses think it is. 
 

Is it possible to write a more faithful adaptation? Of course. But these are scripts by committee. There are myriad different tensions and agendas at work. And there are power dynamics that make it impossible to say no to bad ideas. 
 

So ultimately, the idea that you can just “put the book on film” is just naive. Is this a good way to create great art? No. It’s awful. But it’s what we’ve got. 

On 4/28/2024 at 8:19 AM, SinisterDeath said:

That said, it's a leap to claim to know that Harriet hates the show because she's not saying enough about it online. Anyone that's been around for any length of time knows that Harriet doesn't make a lot of public statements.

This is my point. The burden is on people who are claiming that Harriet secretly hates the show to prove those claims. Just saying, “she’s got an NDA” isn’t proof of anything. 

28 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

The argument that people are either not smart enough or not "educated" to the realities of TV writing is a bit insulting.

Is it more or less insulting than the argument that the showrunner and writers hate Robert Jordan and are intentionally trying to ruin the story to push a political agenda?

31 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

I'm concerned about the lack of news about season 4. if they want to air a season before greenlighting the next one, they won't be able to launch more than one season every 2 years. which is way too slow

Yeah. Hoping to have some S4 news soon. 

1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:

they are still filming?

No. They wrapped awhile back. I’m guessing season 3 will drop next spring. 

49 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

Moraine losing her powers did nothing for the show.

I think it was a pretty powerful depiction of what losing the power feels like. Setting up as a point of comparison for actual stilling, which we’ve yet to see. It also gave the viewers a true sense of the level of Moiraine’s dedication. 
 

I can understand why people feel like it was underwhelming or boring, but I do think it contributed to the show. 

45 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

 

To be fair, I think that is the implication and most contracts do carry those types of clauses to prevent people from damaging the product. 

So Harriet has that in her contract, but Brandon does not? 

6 hours ago, henrywho said:

You are not reading or not understanding.

I am reading. In context. 
By all means, explain how your comments about Harriet’s contract has anything to do with the conversation unless you’re trying to say that it prevents her from offering criticism. 
 

As for the motte and bailey style of argument, look it up. 

3 hours ago, henrywho said:

You need to go back and slowly read the original posts. Keep them in context and then read my responses.

Don't try and read between my lines, there is nothing there, I type upfront nothing hidden. Slow down, preferably stop, the knee jerk reactions. read only what I type, don't put words or thoughts that are not there in my mouth/typing. I'm reading what you are typing and responding to that. Please do the same for me.

I read what you typed. Words have no meaning if they are devoid of context. I’m not going to play the motte and bailey game where you come out making an argument that heavily implies something, then retreat to “but I didn’t actually say that” when you’re called out on the implication. 
 

If you weren’t trying to argue that Harriet is contractually bound to refrain from criticizing the show, fine. Then your posts are meaningless observations, irrelevant to the conversation at hand. You can’t have it both ways. 

6 hours ago, henrywho said:

At no stage did I say that. READ what is written.

You heavily implied it. I pointed out that Harriet’s involvement in the series suggests that she doesn’t find it to be some sort of abomination that insults her husband’s legacy.
 

You responded that her public comments were tepid and then brought up her contractual obligations to Amazon. What difference does the existence of those obligations make to your argument if not to imply that they preclude her from making negative statements about the show?

Why talk about how difficult it would be to get her name removed from the project if not to imply that she is forbidden to do so by way of contract?

3 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Of course there is a written agreement,

You are claiming that there is a written agreement that she not say anything bad about the series. I am asking you to prove that. Obviously there is a written agreement between Harriet (or whatever corporate entity represents her) and Amazon. That is a far different thing from a contract that restricts her ability to offer her opinion.

5 minutes ago, henrywho said:

It was regards whether or not she new about the production or not.

I don't understand what point you think you're making. She was unafraid to protect the IP when she felt it needed protecting. Clearly, she did not feel any trepidation about handing the reins over to Amazon. Do you honestly believe she didn't have any idea what direction the show intended to go before doing that? The sheer audacity to think that you can speak to her personal feelings boggles the mind. 

28 minutes ago, WheelofJuke said:

"(b) Mat wasn’t very well formed by this point in the books either. "

I respectfully disagree with the above statement,

but...

51 minutes ago, WheelofJuke said:

He's not full-on Mat yet

...you did agree?

1 minute ago, WheelofJuke said:

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. 😉

About which part?

1 minute ago, WheelofJuke said:

What?! By this point in the books, Mat is established as a masterful quarterstaff user, an avid gambler and carouser, has his arc with the dagger and humorous post-healing eating sequence, is persuaded to "escape" Tar Valon, et al. 

He's not full-on Mat yet, but he's still Mat. Definitely an established character by this point in the books. Sorry. 

I'm not saying he wasn't an 'established character', I'm saying that his personality wasn't fully formed by this point in the books. RJ was still trying to figure out what to do with him.

To your point about where he was 'by this point in the books': We have seen him being an avid gambler and carouser. And we've seen him go through some of his arc with the dagger. He 'escaped' Tar Valon here too. So all we are missing is 'masterful quarterstaff user' and 'humorous post-healing eating sequence'. So it doesn't seem like we're too far off. And that's before acknowledging that we lost 3 episodes of Mat content when Barney Harris left the show.

2 hours ago, Jaccsen said:

They will create a narrative that dislike of a show is due to hate of race or gender.

I know this is the case with RoP. But I have seen no such thing with WoT. Can you point me to it?

51 minutes ago, henrywho said:

it would be great if a person could delete and start again.

I could. But, nah.

31 minutes ago, henrywho said:

I'd day she is contractually bound

Prove it. You have exactly zero idea whether there is a contract, much less what that contract says.

31 minutes ago, henrywho said:

The law suit alone negates your argument here.

It does not. It makes it. She had no problem calling out something she believed was an affront to her husband's work.

32 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Harriet, if she wanted to, can not get he name removed from the show as a consultant unless the producers agree.

Prove it. Once again, you have no idea about any contract that Harriet has or doesn't have.

35 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Sorry you've lost me with this. How is this relavent to what I said?

On 4/13/2024 at 5:52 PM, henrywho said:

I've never heard of anyone getting jumped on or sued for saying positive things about someone else's work.

You said that you've never heard of anyone getting 'jumped on' for saying 'positive things' about someone else's work. That remarkably obtuse in today's day and age. People are publicly 'jumped on' on a daily basis for merely agreeing with someone who holds an unpopular or controversial opinion.

28 minutes ago, henrywho said:

So wrong it's funny. As I've pointed out I doubt Harriet could get herself removed from the project even if she wanted to. The producers love her name attached to the project and would even if she never did a single seconds work on it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Literally none. But go right ahead and continue putting words in her mouth and continue to pretend that you know exactly what Robert Jordan would have thought of the show. 

2 minutes ago, Jaccsen said:

This seems overly harsh.

It is the reaction you'll get when you suggest that you can speak for Robert Jordan and put words in Harriet's mouth. 

I have zero problem talking about the 'bait and switch' as you call it. It's valid criticism and a subject that is entirely worth discussing. What I despise is when people resort to saying that RJ 'would be rolling over in his grave' or pretending that they can arbitrate what 'deserves' to be called the Wheel of Time. And that is what I'm referring to as gatekeeping in this context.

52 minutes ago, henrywho said:

My point is I find nothing to support claims that Harriet likes what the series has done to the books!

 

Has anyone claimed that? Harriet has publicly endorsed the series, has signed on as a consultant to it. She has given interviews and been on set with the cast and crew. The question is not whether she has been effusive with her praise. No one is arguing that the show is without flaw or that it hasn't made major changes to book canon. Literally no one is arguing that.

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all.

1 hour ago, henrywho said:

If she had only good things to say she would be saying them.

Or maybe she's just a private person who isn't interested in causing controversy. There are people who simply do not want to garner the kind of attention that impolitic comments draw in fandoms like these.

1 hour ago, henrywho said:

I've never heard of anyone getting jumped on ... for saying positive things about someone else's work.

You've got to be kidding me. I don't know what world you live in, but it certainly isn't the real one. Guilt by association is all the rage on both sides of the political aisle these days. 

2 hours ago, henrywho said:

Hmmm. Simple I thought.

They are platitudes. A tactical response.

Meaningless words to sidetrack an awkward question.

Non specific, diversionary and placating.

What’s your point?