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?

56 minutes ago, henrywho said:

If you can't see that for what it is then .....

What is it that I’m supposed to see?

10 hours ago, henrywho said:

My feeling is that television is a different medium from the written word, and what happens on the screen is as different from what happens in the book as swimming is from walking. They're very different.

But your posts on this topic don’t seem to echo that feeling at all. I’m confused. 

11 hours ago, henrywho said:

Again I disagree, I quite enjoyed it and was looking forward to seeing more.

I guess not enough folks felt like you did. 

1 minute ago, henrywho said:

As I've clearly indicated I believe the series can be filmed without deviating as far as this series has.

Yep. We got it. 

2 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Funny neither am I by you not being.

Shadow and Bone was just not good. Sorry. It was derivative, boring, poorly scripted and uninteresting. I’m not surprised in the least by its cancellation. And it gave me no desire to read the books. 

20 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Yeah.. Nah. Disagree with everything you said, except I too have not read the source material for SaB.

I’m not surprised. 

1 hour ago, henrywho said:

If they can axe "Shadow and Bone" they can axe anything, good story, good acting, good scripts and excellent production value and it still got axed.

Shadow and Bone was a poor show in comparison to WoT, in my opinion. The story was not engaging, the world building was weak, and the design was mediocre. 
 

I’ve not read the source material, so I have no axe to grind either way about whether it was ‘faithful’ as an adaptation. But there’s no question in my mind that WoT is a far better tv show. 

2 minutes ago, Samt said:

I think you could one-shot it.  But you would need major buy-in and funding which I understand just didn't exist.  We're talking a budget in the billions and actors and writers committed full-time for 1-2 years.  

1-2? No chance. 5 years of filming, minimum. If you’re trying to do the whole story. 

42 minutes ago, Samt said:

Frankly, I don't think the series is filmable as a 12 year project.  The decision to slow roll it that much kind of baffles me.  There is a reason that Peter Jackson filmed LOTR in one shot even though he was planning to release 3 films.  

You couldn’t one shot it either. The only way to truly do WoT justice would be as an animated series which would avoid most of the problems inherent with producing a decade + long tv show. 

57 minutes ago, zacz1987 said:

To be fair I don't think Harriet had much choice as the rights were still with Red Eagle Entertainment (now called iWOT) and they have already successfully sued her once for saying negative things about them. 

Red Eagle does not have the rights to the show. Amazon does. And she’s had nothing but positive things to say about the show. 

1 minute ago, henrywho said:

His wife and the man she got to finish the books are hardly official.

You mean his wife and long time editor, Harriet? The one who edited the entire series? She supports the show, as does Brandon Sanderson. 
 

It is comical to me that book purists who never met the man just KNOW that he would be “insulted” by the show when the woman who knew him best seems not to share that opinion. 

39 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Someone here said that they didn't expect to see the battle in the sky. Why not? GoT had dragons fighting while flying, infinitely more complex then the comparatively simple fight in TWoT.

Because the "battle in the sky" part of tGH was kind of cheesy. It's the same reason I always expected them to get rid of the Green Man and change the ending of EotW.

41 minutes ago, henrywho said:

The sky battle in the books reveals Rand's face to the entire city and his image is spread across the world, to the point where Liandrin has a painting of the scene, clearly identifying Rand, hanging on the wall in her "office" once she deposes Siuan Sanche.

So clearly Rand's infamy and face is not going to be public knowledge for some time in the show.

 

Why? His presence was known in the city. They don't just teleport away. Someone can very easily get a likeness of Rand together from the information available to them.

42 minutes ago, henrywho said:

I am shocked and confused that anyone can believe the first two seasons are a strong adaptation of the books. We will have to agree to disagree on the point that I believe the show is not and in fact far from it.

Be shocked and amazed then. I quite like the show. It has its problems, but I believe that it is a worthwhile adaptation. More importantly, I can still read the books. The show does not diminish my experience of the books.

44 minutes ago, henrywho said:

As any reading here will know I don't think much of the show's journey and also I don't believe it will improve, there have been too many changes for it to sanely get back on track or even resemble the books.

Great! We know your opinion! You strongly believe the show is bad. Anything else to add?

3 minutes ago, Kevin Ray said:

I think Amazon decided to do this as cheaply as they could and refused good production studios in favor of cheap ones.

They’re spending approximately $10 million per episode. So, no, they did not do this cheaply. 
 

Sorry you don’t enjoy the show. 

Just now, henrywho said:

In a darkened computer room in the corner of his house with the chill of the morning air upon his face Henry Who could be heard snickering quietly to himself. Gathering himself he departs his abode for a day labour outside.

Enjoy. I’ll await your explanation about how The Wheel of Time is all about how good will inevitably prevail if people are just true to themselves. 

2 minutes ago, henrywho said:

Well best way to achieve that would have been to edit and script the books and stick more closely to them.

 

Obviously the writers and producers disagree. Looks like we are at an impasse. 

Just now, henrywho said:

How in blazes do you go from

"Be true to who you really are and good always defeats evil eventually. "

to

'good will prevail if we make good choices'

 

Written as is I can't see it. Maybe I could have written it thus.

Be true to who you really are. Good always defeats evil eventually.

?? I don't see the difference.

I see no correlation between what I actually wrote and what you incorrectly paraphrased.

Well it makes no difference. Your original formulation is also incorrect. 

10 minutes ago, henrywho said:

To answer the question asked in the topic directly. Arrogance and stupidity. The first by simply believing, with no foundation, that they could write a better story.

Again, there is no need for the provocative language and insults. 
 

My answer: because they are trying to make a successful television show and feel that the changes serve that end.