Jump to content



king of nowhere

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by king of nowhere

  1. I laughed so hard at it. Fantastic idea!
  2. As far as I understand, Shara as a whole served the dark one. Which is why they were so secretive, they wouldn't want to advertise the thing outside. And personally, I'd be unhappy if it was cut out entirely. It's a continent as large as Seanchan, and yet it seem to have no impact on the story. It is occasionally mentioned on passing, never serving any plot purpose. What a waste. Those ancient aes sedai may as well have sunk it to the bottom of the ocean. Just as I'm sad that the books never used the land of the madmen. I would have liked to see it.
  3. so, if i've got this straight, being director requires a lot of preparatory job, deciding how to adapt the script in front of a camera in every detail, and they split the job because it makes things more manageable by the individual. And movies instead stick to a single director because... because they are much shorter and thus can be handled more easily by a single person?
  4. i actually like the tower more than any other depiction. and i liked it because it makes sense. the way the tower is described, the internal spaces, the aes sedai quarters, the gardens, the large chambers, it does not reflect well with a tall square tower. that tower is still very high, it just looks squat because it's so large. but that justifies how they have so many grand halls and special chambers, it gives the tower enough room to fit all that stuff. and the somewhat irregular exterior leaves room for balconies and other amenities on individual rooms. also the wings, that's the first time i see them in a way that looks good. the one thing that feels off is that they don't have much in the way of warder training grounds. there should be more free space around the tower
  5. I'll watch the dubbed version. Much as I'm proud of my english proficiency, and i can read english like a native speaker, i have more problems hearing it in a movie. especially with accents and background sound to distract. in the best case, i can understand everything but it requires so much concentration that it distracts from enjoying the movie. Unfortunately, a lot of the specific terms of the books sound really silly in their italian translation. I am afraid it could be too much, and I may have to actually watch the show in english with subtitles. anyway, I'll have much greater problems than accents
  6. I disagree on wizard's first rule. It had a good shot at being the epitome of trash fantasy, but it was surpassed by the rest of the saga. that first book is the only one that's halfway decent. At least the first half is not bad. Book two is full of wot plagiarism. subsequent books... i wonder why fantasy is full of vivid rape descriptions. is there some correlation between fantasy and interest for sexual humiliation/violence? because it's not just sex put in as blatant fanservice; no, it's specifically rape and humiliation. in a lot of bad fantasy.
  7. except where appropriate. it was a great way to deal with semirhage.
  8. that would be great, too. as long as the actor change is not a sign of a toxic working environment.
  9. I have to take the opposite approach and callously hope that it it actually is some healt problem or similar. Because otherwise the alternative is that there are disgruntlements in the show, and it would be a major red flag if actors are running away from it. so, ultimately i hope it's some outside factor, not a red flag for the show, but not too serious either.
  10. We know the show had 4 different directors for season 1, each one of them got two episodes. And one of the most recent news is about this Sanaa Hamri being director for the last part of season 2. i already dropped a question in that news, but i got no answer, so I'm asking here because I'm ignorant on the details of making movies and this genuinely sparked my curiosity: why do they have so many directors? wouldn't it be better to always have the single one? even if the director only directs the actors as they enact the script, he's got a lot of power, and he'll leave his imprint in everything. camera angles, lights, all that kind of thing. plus, in a professional environment it generally helps to have a tight-knit team. hiring multiple directors, giving a couple episodes to each, seems in direct contradiction to all this. the actors always have to learn to work with someone new, and as soon as someone is starting to really fit into the position, he's swapped out. So why do they do it? how is that supposed to improve the show? And by the way, what's exactly the difference between director and executive producer?
  11. this condenses my major points in the handful of walls of text i dropped in this thread...
  12. even though a lot of the slog could be cut, i doubt you can condense 7-11 in a single season; in there there's dumai's wells, the cleansing of saidin, the fall of ebou dar with all that led mat to marrying tuon, the black tower being born and becoming a major world power... i belive more likely to have 2 seasons for books 4-6, and 2 seasons for 7-11
  13. while i love that rendition, i believe it was more accurate 10 years ago. it's still accurate among those that do not watch/read fantasy, but i don't expect those people to watch wot trailers, if they do i don't expect them to comment. actual fantasy fan, nowadays, are a bit more learned
  14. perhaps. i already stated multiple times that i am rather "tone deaf" when it comes to visual looks. probably i am underestimating stuff here because I don't feel it. You, on the other hand, look like you are very sensitive to the topic, so perhaps you also are overestimating stuff because you feel it stronger than most. again, maybe, maybe not. I could not recognize stuff at first glance, but mostly because of how quick they were cycling between scenes. i watched the trailer more slowly, stopping the image at every scene change, and it was much more clear. aside from that, i wouldn't recognize much, but - as i stated - it's because there weren't enough complete scenes there. it's not like i would ever recognize anything from a teaser trailer anyway, unless it was some visual i was already familiar with. Again, it could be because i am less sensitive to this than most people. But again, you are also probably overstating your case, for the opposite reason. all speculation. the vx effects used by twich streamers are nowhere near as good as those required for a movie; unless you are a specialist in the field and you know very well how much it would cost to edit the warder's cloaks for hours of footage, i suggest you leave some room for doubt here. same for making a good set. and telling fans to "gird their loins" may very well be aimed at those who expected a scene-by-scene transposition, or close enough. All your solid data on "why the show is gonna suck" is that they screwed up the props. And I can agree with you on that, they could have stayed more faithful to those little details. But everything else you have is speculation, heavily tinted by the fact that you already lost faith in the production. You authomatically assume the worst about everything else. You authomatically assume that making color-shifting cloaks would have been dirt cheap, that making up multiple cities in detail (without copy-pasting everything) would also have been dirt cheap, that shifting around some plots and stories (like logain, or putting in elements of new spring while delaying the trakands) was not made for good reasons. none of that is definite. it may well be that the plot changes will be lauded as being better than the original story. it happened with some elements of the lotr. or it may suck. What I know for certain is that I cannot tell with certainty if wottv captures "the soul and spine of the story", based on 100 seconds of mostly unrelated snippets. And I don't expect anyone else to be able to either. But I thank you for trying to explain yourself so soundly to someone disagreeing with you. I got a better appreciation of your point, even though i still disagree and i still think you are letting your prejudices for the visuals color your judgment on everything else.
  15. yeah, we are all basically saying the same things. but you also have similar troubles comparing in the same category. a small production with a little community of fan that's ignored by the mainstream could be more akin to a small channel, while a trailer for something with millions of fans behave in a different way. so, indeed if there were more dislikes than likes it would be very worrying. but the numbers are not strong enough to draw ANY kind of conclusions. there are way too many confounding variables and statistical noise
  16. no. numbers are aes sedai, they can't lie but they are so obfuscating they cannot be taken at face value. take the dusty wheel trailer gaidon, it's got 5% likes per view. that's twice more than cursed, ten times more than wot trailer. what does it mean? it's selection of the sample. few people went to look trailer gaidon, and they were the people who are more likely to upvote it. the trailer itself was seen by more people, including a lot of casual watchers who are unlikely to leave a vote. the more casual viewers, the less the upvotes. in general, there's thousands of brilliant mathematicians trying to figure out relevant marketing data out of those numbers; i'm not aware of any one of them having much success. i would be very careful to draw hard conclusions. and beware of logic. the real world doesn't always have to conform to it.
  17. YES! that's EXACTLY MY POINT! people who are unfamiliar with the stuff will not recognize it, will see it as something generic! Which is exactly what people are complaining about here. people see wot, they do not recognize it, they think it's generic. if people did not recognize star wars, and they saw a trailer, they'd think it generic too. they only praise the unique style because they are familiar with it. which can't be the case here yet, because the show hasn't aired. it's a bit hard to miss a point when it's the only one point you've been making in the past several months. yes, you always go back to this: the props don't look like their "book canon" version. Yes, we got it. And everything bad you have to say about the show always goes there, as your only argument. Every other criticism always comes from that. "they have no respect for the story", how can we tell, because they changed the props. "they don't understand wot", how can we tell, because they changed the props. "they will make logain the real dragon, and rand will be demoted to extra!", how can we tell, because if they could change the props they are capable of doing anything! well, too bad with that. my point is that i don't recognize this as a good argument for "i don't recognize this as wot". as if it was the only thing that mattered, whether they got the props right. i mean, as people what makes star wars memorable, i doubt the main answer would be "the protagonists are dressed as clowns". Or what makes star trek recognizable? the fact that the aliens are regular actors with some plastic glued to their head? because that's what props are. they are not the soul or spine of a story. and just because you can or cannot recognize them from the descriptions, it doesn't mean anything.
  18. well, was close enough to use it in colloqual language. interesting that wot got roughly 4 times as many visualization, but a similar number of likes. it is indeed true that a greater percentage of those watching the trailer had upvoted cursed. but whether any or all of those numbers are significant? that's anyone's guess.
  19. hopefully, they'll do it for the actual trailer. but regardless of the quality of the trailer, i think wot's success or failure won't depend much on it. there are millions of people who read the books and who are going to watch the show regardless of what they see in the trailer. if those people give good or bad reviews, if they recommend the show to other people... that's probably going to be more important.
  20. first thing, you are confusing a teaser trailer with a trailer. second, how would you introduce "the dragon" in the two minutes teaser without confusing people and/or spoil major plot elements? how about aes sedai, care to explain what's unique about them in what's left of the two minutes after you talked about the dragon? and don't forget you also have a plot to recap. I'm not saying i disagree with you on the problems of the trailer. i feel them too. but the world and plot of wot is too large for a trailer to be able to sum them up decently. which is why we never got an adaptation before; it's a daunting task. i don't see how a teaser trailer could do it justice. that's worrying. maybe rafe will turn out to have done a good job, but if people aren't engaged, the show will be canceled. this, on the other hand, is not a good measure. i have no idea what cursed is, but its trailer has been sitting there for months, maybe years, gathering views. wot has been there for less than three weeks. of course it's got less likes. and a wot trailer would surely catch the attention of the fans first, if one in twenty of them is like thrymascus, then this explains the dislikes. In fact, I'd say that the dislikes are a sign of that. people do not put dislikes on what leaves them apathetic. people put dislikes on stuff they disagree with, often ideologically. a diehard fan that dislikes an adaptation is surely going to put a dislike on anything related to it. a random bloke stumbling on the trailer? unlikely. Many dislikes is easily just a mark that wot has a large fandom that feels strongly about it. and it's still a like/dislike ratio of, like, 15-1. it's also possible that other fandom sites have shared the trailers and thus split the likes? numbers don't lie, but they aren't straightforward either.
  21. this is actually a valid point, but one that deserves some attention. because yes, i agree that if i didn't knew it was wheel of time, i would not recognize much. and i agree that it mostly looks generic fantasy. But then, what doesn't? The teaser trailer is 100 seconds of fast images, we never see any scene for more than a few seconds, and there's very few dialogues. Show me one teaser trailer for anything fantasy that wouldn't look generic. Heck, show me a teaser trailer for anything that wouldn't look generic. star wars? starships, people fighting with laser guns, exploring strange places, very generic. star trek? starships, people figthing with slightly different laser guns, exploring exotic places, equally generic. lotr? elves, dwarves, people fighting with swords, just another fantasy. harry potter? kids doing magic. meh. which, by the way, is why i never watch tv. trailers don't hook me. everything feels samey. Which is unavoidable, because you can't really get something's unique character in a couple of minutes. Have me talk for two minutes with a bloke, he'll look very generic too. So yes, the trailer was kinda generic-fantasy looking, but i have no idea how it could have been anything else. and the closely related argument about what would be recognizable as wot. Well, what would be recognizable? I mean, i could see a specific scene from the books and recognize it. that would be recognizable wot. In the trailer we don't recognize scenes. The keenest viewer would realize, perhaps it's because we haven't seen any one scene in the trailer. Like, at all. just a few seconds of snippets. what is there to recognize? is there any pivotal scene from the books that would be recognizable in that format? I can't think of one. Which leaves the props, the items, the scenery, which is where thrasymacus always ends up going. but that's not wheel of time, under any definition. I could make a perfect replica of tam's sword and mat dagger, copied with the greatest level of faithfulness, and then give them to luke skywalker to fight a sith lord, just because there is the item it does not mean anything. Heck, I could use those exact replicas as dildos to make a porn if i wanted. Just because i see a perfect rendition of the shadar logoth dagger, i do not recognize it as wheel of time, and it does not guarantee a quality adaptation. so what's exactly recognizable as wot? what's the spirit and spine of the story? I'm sure everyone will answer differently. But I'm also sure you can't expect them in a couple minutes trailer. It's like hearing a few randomized notes in a symphony, perhaps a few seconds of a few instrument's performances extrapolated out of its contest, and trying to judge the whole symphony from it. Me, I'll have to watch a few episodes to decide if they did manage to get the spirit of the story. whatever the hell that means.
  22. this is a perfect show of how true facts get expanded and embellished until fake news are born. perrin was never going to be a bearbrother. that's not at all what that q&a was saying. it said that they considered having perrin talk to a bear. which is completely different than making him bearbrother and removing the wolves. probably they just considered, among his various powers as wolfbrother, adding "talks to animals other than wolves too". and yes, it was probably a bad idea. but still nothing close to a bearbrother. adding a similar power is a thing that could be asked in a brainstorming also, speaking of fake news. there's a problem with search algorithms. they record your preference, and show you stuff you liked. in this case, it means if you see a zany speculation, and you search for it, you get results from sites also containing zany speculations. and if you go read those, your browser will take notice, and the next time it will show greater preference for them. the whole system is built in a way that will tell you what you want to hear. in this case, confirmation of your fears. at the most extreme, if you got ahold of a flatearther's laptop, and googled on it "is earth flat?", it would answer 1) yes! 2) hell yes!!! 3) there's no doubt about it. Because those would be the results that the guy was looking, and his browser would keep showing him those results. so "you keep seeing rampant speculation that they did X Y and Z" does not prove anything. it's most likely this effect at work
  23. asking as an ignorant in how those things are made, but what's the purpose of changing directors so often? they had 4 different directors in season 1, and not in a "storms off and resigns from the job because of interpersonal conflicts, have to get a substitute" (which would have been a huge red flag on the show quality) but it was planned like this from the beginning. Isn't there the risk of lacking a unitary vision? What do they gain by having so many different people be directors? And by the way, what's exactly the difference between director and executive producer?
  24. good point. that's the biggest difference between most of us optimists and the naysayers. we all can see that they made pretty relevant changes, thank you so much; but those of us who are optimists think "oh, let's try to make hypothesis on why they changed it; but we start by assuming they had a good reason for it, and it can work" while the others think "they changed this and they could have not changed it. and if they changed this, then they probably changed a lot of other things too, for no reason. it will suck"
  • Create New...