regardless of how we can try to interpret the various data on viewership and ratings, the people at amazon should by now have all the feedback they need. they are the ones who will look at all the numbers and decide accordingly if the show will go on.

I wonder what's taking them so long to announce formally whether season 3 is confirmed or canceled. I assume they could save money by filming back to back if they greenlight it. And if not, i don't see any gain in waiting to declare that the show is canceled.

is it normal that we don't seem to have any news on this?

I doubt shannara - or even the witcher - had as many enraged fans so hard bent on sinking the show by voting 1, though. just because those franchises had many less fans, or (in case of the witcher) book fans.

and according to the data on viewership, the show was successful, with very few people starting it and not finishing it - the most clear mark that they didn't like it.

11 minutes ago, Gothic Flame said:

I concur except the last paragraph. ( AOC...never returns my calls for some reason)

 

That said I have to wonder at Sarah's naivety. She had to know what she signed up for. She had to know that Rafe wasn't just getting hate mail, but getting dunked in haterade... How could she not know that she too would get her share?

 

would she?

I don't have that much social media experience, but I do hang out on forums, and I am astonished by the level of vitriol that some people are showing.

I can totally understand not liking the show, but the fact that a lot of non-readers liked it means it's a generally good product. Even the most fervent critics, if honest, must admit that there is a lot of stuff that the show got right.

But there are whole threads that are completely overtaken by people claiming the show is the worst kind of crap, like it was something made by asylum. people calling for rafe's head. All this over something that - it must be repeated - is objectively a good, or at least passable, show.

No, I wasn't expecting something of that magnitude, and Sarah probably wasn't either.

As for answering actual criticism, unfortunately going on the defensive could be seen an admission of fault. Brandon managed to answer criticism without making it look like he was pleading guilty, but, well, he's brandon.

Though I say, I would love to hear some honest interviews where the producers talk about the stuff that they are not happy about the show. like, the stuff that they wish they could have done better. Again, brandon has managed to do that about his own books without making it look like he was bashing himself, but it's hard.

Maybe when there will be less tension they will do it.

6 hours ago, ForsakenPotato said:

Usually when almost exclusively men do something bad to a woman, sexism is at play.

 

I wouldn't be so certain. There are a lot of other factors in play.

For example, most murdered women are killed by men, so by this metric one may assume sexism is at play.

But then, one can see that most murdered men are also killed by men, so it's got nothing to do with sexism, it's just that most murdered are men.

In general, men are more likely to be nerds, men are more likely to be violent (verbally or otherwise), and so men have a greater likelyhood of being internet trolls.

So, I'm not surprised at all that a majority of men are insulting SN. I am not convinced that they would not equally insult a man in her place, though.

I do hope that Sarah is receiving a lot more supportive messages than she's receiving hateful ones. There's always going to be a few bad apples, and the internet makes them stand out. but there's also a lot of decent people.

will there be a special extended edition of the show?

I suspect they have a lot more footage than they showed. in paticular, they scripted "basil gill",and we got the announcement for it, and then he appears in one scene and doesn't utter a word. smacks to me of a small part that was cut for timing reasons.

do you think they will take that extra footage and do something with it?

i still think they'd have included tar valon and not caemlyn, for casting reasons.

that said, we'd have gotten a lot more development for thom, loial, and maybe a less rushed finale. more worldbuilding too; would have liked to spend some more time in the ways

7 hours ago, WoTwasThat said:

TEOTW is among the top half. Certainly better than books 7-10 and I’d say it’s a sight better than Books 5, 11, and the Sanderson cappers. 

 

I think book 1 is on the same level of book 10. I find elayne talking with bankers and mercenary captains to be more entertaining than rand playing the flute or chopping firewood for a room.

I also like the Sanderson books to the best ones - how much of that is because i prefer sanderson's style, and how much is because the plot finally starts to get solved, is unknown

But we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

If nothing else, it shows that different people reading the same books will read different things in them. Why should we be surprised when that applies to Rafe and his vision too?

Quote

 

Where Jordan “stumbled” was with the challenge of writing a Book 1 that served as a launching pad for the series while also being a complete story in and of itself.

 

On this part, instead, I agree. RJ was under some tight editorial constraints, and a lot of the problems with the book were caused by that. Just like RJ2 is under some tight timing/budget/covid constraints, and a lot of problems with the show are caused by that

Quote

The writers had eight hours - the equivalent of a trilogy of feature length movies - to adapt about 2/3rds of one book (after correctly cutting Caemlyn and much of Rand/Mat’s backpacking trip) and they still failed.

they had to add all the stuff with aes sedai politics. They HAD to, because they had to introduce the worldbuilding earlier. As I complained many times, the first books really follow the general "fantasy quest" scheme, which was a good thing back in the eighties, but now it's considered a stale trope. Putting more focus on the larger world, I think it was a correct editorial decision - just like it was a good decision to expand the part of Logain, it was a great way to show the power and the danger of male channelers. Unfortunately, it did take a lot of screen time.

3 hours ago, Raal Gurniss said:

Can’t see how they turn it around unless they pretend the whole first season was the equivalent of a “dream” episode and little to none of it happened.

from this i'll take you're one of those who disagree with the changes; in which case, there is no hope for you, you won't like the show.

me, i think most of the changes were good. it was good to put more focus on moiraine, to introduce the white tower politics early on, to give more space to logain to showcase the danger of channeling men. it was good to shift some of the focus of the eye of the world away from rand, to have someone else face the trollocs instead. rafe generally had good ideas on the changes that are necessary to adapt the story in no more than 8 seasons.

It was the execution of those ideas that was botched at times. and that execution can improve.

On a hopeful note, teotw was one of the weakest wot books, RJ did stumble a bit before finding his way. teotw alone was nowhere near as good as the full wot, but it was a story with potential. A potential that got fulfilled.

the tv show has many flaws, but perhaps rafe will also find his way with some time. right now, the show has potential; it can yet be fulfilled in a way that will satisfy even many of the people who are now disliking it.

3 hours ago, fra85uk said:

The funny thing is that if you read the article they heavily trash the show(acting, cgi, dialogue etc) but all is good anyway because of the "message"

no, it's good because it's overall good, despite its flaws.

In the same way that a beautiful girl with a pimple on her nose and slightly overweight is still beautiful.

Quote

In a way, The Wheel of Time TV series has the same issue as The Wheel of Time novels—it’s a captivating narrative obscured underneath a bevy of ultimately cosmetic problems. And in a way, that makes the show a more accurate and authentic adaptation than those hardcore fans might realize.

That part was ????

that would have made for a better example, really. the wot books are full of flaws, but they still tell a beautiful story. the same goes for the show

I wonder when we'll get the news on whether season 3 is greenlit or canceled?

5 hours ago, Raal Gurniss said:

 

Many people prefer the show to the book…Weird I know, I personally don’t understand how unless they haven’t actually read more than a chapter or three of the book,  just like the show’s directors.

i don't know, maybe because the first half of the book looks like yet another LotR ripoff, the relationships feel completely unnatural, and the ending has a lot of problems and the author himself disliked it?

everyone telling how great wot is, they are thinking of the whole saga. the first book, taken alone? it was average. certainly no better than a lot of other fantasy i read, worse than some. wot greatly improved after that.

the show did great in trying to cut the lotr parallels, and in trying to expand the world earlier. 

unfortunately, the writing could have been improved, and a lot of details are poorly managed. lack of time was the major issue. those factors alone are keeping the show from being actually better than the book.

I'm curious about later seasons, where the books become much better. will they still change so much, or will they try to get back on track?

17 minutes ago, TheDreadReader said:

 

Depends. 

 

From a military perspective, assuming there are populated/fortified areas within the scope of the wave's landing zone, it is an effective way to bring death, destruction, and general disruption along a wide area during the battlefield prep stage.   It would be much more effective then trying sling channeled fireballs for example.   

 

Having that combat capability would have certainly made a number of military operations easier in our history.

 

yes, the problems are that

- there are no populated/fortified areas within the scope of the wave, not that we see at least

- there is a tall cliff behind the shore, so the wave will stop there

- the seanchan are there to conquer and turn to their side, not to destroy. it makes a lot more strategical sense to subdue a city with intimidation and gain access to its resources, than to destroy the city completely

- book seanchans would land, destroy any resistance, make everybody swear oaths, then leave. throwing tsunamis does not accomplish any of that.

throwing tsunamis is a great power, i object to its usage in that specific circumstance.

now, if they start season 2 by showing a city nearby, and a seanchan envoy telling the city leadership "surrender to us, or we'll do the same to your city", then the scene would make perfect sense. but there's none of that. there's a deserted coast with a child and a reef

2 hours ago, SingleMort said:

No offense but isn't that the whole point? Having depictions of slavery that are politically correct and not humiliating, or dehumanising seems like a contradiction in terms. 

yeah, the whole point is that what the seanchan are doing is BAD. it's like kicking puppies, really: people don't like to see puppies being kicked, and we have the villains do it exactly to show they are the villains.

next thing, the seanchan will ask egwene if she please will let herself be put into an a'dam, if it doesn't hurt her feelings.

that tsunami makes no sense.

i assume, also judging from rafe's interview, that they wanted to get a sense of dread, to show that those newcomers are really powerful. we just saw 5 channelers repel an army, and now we see invaders with dozens and dozens of channelers. and they look aggressive.

so that tsunami is meant to evoke "those strange people are powerful and scary".

Unfortunately, it is a nonsensical scene. first, it makes no sense for them to invoke a tsunami without even announcing themselves.

second, there is a massive cliff on the coast, so the tsunami will stop there and won't do any damage. except to the child. by the way, where did she come from? where are her parents? where is her village?

the whole scene is dumb. it attempts to convey an emotional impact, and it does if you disconnect your brain and don't think of the implications.

11 hours ago, DaddyFinn said:

The damane look so much more sinister and unnerving with those mouthgags. I suppose they can't speak at all with those and are only removed when they drink/eat. Dehumanization is still there for sure, just different.

my theory is that the mouthgags are really face masks for covid, with some paint on them. it was cheaper to do it than to get a test for all the actresses ??

9 hours ago, Storeebooq said:

I feel like with the Seanchan their first introduction will seem basic and "cartoonish" at first, and then they will get deeper. Hoping so at least.

 

in the books they did that. they did seem cartoonish bad guys in the second book, they gained more complexity only later.

Now that it's ended, i think i'd give it a solid 8/10. I was leaning on 9, but the last episode had many weaknesses.

the changes over the books, i don't mind. it is that kind of adaptation, and it can be a perfectly valid adaptation. considering the slog, and the weak romances, and a few other weaknesses of RJ writing, it can easily be better than the books.

there are some clunky dialogues occasionally. the plotting at times feels rushed, at times too slow. at times it's unclear. some good ideas are transposed poorly.

but, there's plenty of great scenes, plenty of good dialogues and characterization, plenty of good plots with good resolutions.

the show is pretty good overall. i am watching it together with the witcher, and i like the witcher, but watching them back to back, i feel clearly that wot is my favourite by a wide amount. it's got weak moments, but it's a good show

8 hours ago, JenniferL said:

Does anyone have a summary or transcript of this episode? I read faster than I listen. 

seconded. with the additional caveat that i read english as well as my mother language, but i'm much less versed at hearing it in american accent through a loudspeaker. so for me, it's not a matter of saving time but of understanding it clearly

even without a transcript, a summary or some important quotes would be great.

Can someone please ask rafe why he thought it would be a good idea to have the seanchan summon a massive tsunami against a mostly deserted coast? A coast with a high cliff behind, so it won't do any damage or accomplish anything except kill that child.

I get that they wanted to show those people as powerful with channelers, but they could have just as easily shown a sea in tempest, and the damane making the sea calm to land safely. or maybe show a city in the background, and the seanchan would show up and throw a tsunami at the shore near the city, as an intimidation tactic: "surrender to us, or we can wipe your city completely". those would have conveyed the same idea and they would have made sense.

I liked this episode less than others.

the dialogue when they said "the fortress will fall" three times in three lines was too telegraphed, way too cluncky. it's the first time i complain of that. And for 5000 trollocs???? the real borderlanders would laugh at 5000 trollocs. the real borderlanders have a name for being assaulted by 5000 trollocs: they call it "last tuesday".

Speaking of clunky dialogue, last episode i wanted to see lan put up some resistance with nynaeve. here he utters one of his famous sentences from the book - but in a context that makes no sense. after bedding nynaeve, he tells her they can't be with each other? and without further explanation, either. why? what? if i hadn't read the book, i'd be utterly dumbfounded.

And the seanchan introduction? what did they do to the damane? but most of all: why the hell would they start a tsunami on an empty coast? an empty coast with a big cliff behind, so one of the few places where a massive tsunami wouldn't do any damage - except perhaps to a child passing there.

seanchans weren't mass murderers; even in their first appearance, which is quite different from their later characterization, where the brutality was toned down. they showed up, told everyone they had to obey, then they went on, business as usual. they definitely did not unleash a tsunami on an unknown shore.

Yes, I see that they needed to show an army of channelers. After showing just 5 channelers stopping an army of trollocs (way too strong, by the way. the white tower has 1000 channelers, if 5 can stop an army like that, then armies aren't threatening anymore), they wanted to show those newcomers with dozens of channelers, so we could get an "oh crap" moment. unfortunately, it doesn't make sense.

the battle was bad, bordering on terrible. i get the feeling it would have been terrible, if only they had it fought in the open. the men go in the fortress shooting arrows, while women who can channel stay in an empty field. how about those women go in the fortress and hit with the power from cover? or do something before the men are all killed?

the scene also introduces big changes to world lore. You can kill someone linked in a circle by overdrawing through them; in the books, you couldn't. this has all kind of abuse potential, and just for a scene that wasn't needed. Egwene was a crappy healer, and here she heals nynaeve. what if her lack of healing ability becomes part of the plot? are they making all channelers equally good at healing?

Finally, in the blight there are no trees trying to eat the characters. no insects with deadly stingers. no mutated animals. what are the dangers of the blight? we see some corpses, no more.

granted, there are things i liked. i liked padan fain. i liked the eye of the world. i liked the prologue. I admit that the ending of the first book was confusing and unsatisfying, and the tv show wasn't worse and may even be a bit better. I'm still going to wait with trepidation for the second season.

But for the first time, there's lots of things I didn't like, and I can't reconcile with. in earlier episodes there were things i didn't like, but i could see why they were included. not this time.

My trust that rafe knows what he's doing, that his master plan for "delivering the same character arcs" can work, has taken a hit.

rafe has done what is a very common sin in hollywood: doing nonsensical things for emotional impact. they do stuff to get a reaction, and they get a reaction, and then you analyze things a but and you see it's all stupid, and it loses everything it was trying to achieve and make a mockery of itself. I don't know, maybe those creative types aren't used to thinking things through? Or maybe they just think viewers are morons and won't think past the initial emotional impact? Let's throw a tsunamy against a deserted cliff with a child in front of it, that's a wonderful idea to show how powerful we are!

3 hours ago, MasterAblar said:

I do kind of agree with the author, if realistic was what they were going for I don’t think that really came across. It was very well done and all kinds of awesome but some of the stuff in there is a bit much to be called realistic.

 

I did have to laugh at the elite Companions of Illian being made to look like a bunch of nobodies basically.

hey, i'm sure someone said in the books "5 on 1 is even odds against aiel, if your 5 are good troops". the companions were good troops, they were 5 on 1, even odds. they all died but mortally wounded tigraine, so the math worked ?

but really, i don't see anything superhuman in that fight; except maybe that it was made by a pergnant woman in labor. i don't see any of the wuxia stuff that the article complains about. did he ever watch the olympics as a show of what humans can achieve with training?

this reminds me of people complaining about dana running with a sword because somehow they think running for one full minute with a sword weighting 1 kg in your hand would require some "special training". I'm sedentary and overweight and I could do it.

i just take it as prejudiced people grasping at straws to despise the show.

8 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

 

Yes ?

Plus, cutting Faile/Shaido kidnaping plot will save us a whole season worth of material. 

I'm all for it.

But then they have to give perrin xomething to do for a couple seasons.

...

Maybe berelain gets kidnapped by the shaido? ?

another change i appreciated; in the books, as soon as they're out of emond field the three great friends, loial companions, they start bickering for no reason, mistrusting each other. every conversation they have, it takes the worst possible turn.

in the show, they don't start to drift apart until machin shin.

and i think it's much better. the way the emond fielders fell apart felt forced in the books. Still believable, well executed, but you could sort of see the fingers of the writer in there "i want those guys to mistrust each other and I will find excuses to make it so".

machin shin planting doubt in their mind is a lot more believable, more organic.

it also changes my emotional reaction from "what the #@ç/% are you doing, you damn fools!" to "poor guys, feeling the scars of what they've been through". it makes the cast more symphatetic.

We can argue whether "i want to hit those protagonists with a baseball bat" is a desirable reaction in the public, or if rj wanted it that way. 

16 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

 

Here's an actual synopsis of EotW.

The Eye of the World | A Wheel of Time Wiki | Fandom

 

Here's another one from our own site:

Book Summary: The Eye of the World - Dragonmount.com

you're not very clear on the difference between synopsis and summary, aren't you?

15 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

 and it'll be a great set up for Faile (but I was kinda hoping they cut Faile & just replaced her with Berelain ? ! 

so, it's all right to make big, radical changes, as long as they are for stuff that you, personally, disliked in the books?

but i'm with you there. I'm all for berelain. perrin should have picked her the moment faile started getting violent with him. what they say to women about violent men goes for men with violent women too.

14 hours ago, Wolfbrother31 said:

IMO the Prologue is definitely "core" because it immediately introduces us to the significance of the Dragon, that the Dragon is LTT reincarnated, that the Dragon killed his own wife/family, that male aes sedai went insane and broke the world, that the Dragon has a male-channeler nemesis, that Dragonmount is tied to the Dragon,  that the Dark-one wants to break the wheel of time, ect... all from the get-go ... which is ALL very, very much so "core" to the story.

does the prologue actually do that?

because i agree that all that is core to the story. but the first time i read the prologue, it was super duper confusing and i understand nothing of it. i didn't get the prologue until i was past book 4 or 5.

and i'm not the only one. the prologue is very divisive, some say it was a great way to introduce the story, others say it was too obscure.

but people already complain that the show is not explaining stuff well enough; imagine if they had started with the prologue

Now, back on the original topic of changes you liked:

I really liked the blood snow scene, with tam helping tigraine instead of just finding the baby. it's a powerful moment.

another one of my friend watched it, and said it was very good

2 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

They have Sarah on the team. They have Brandon Sanderson as a script consultant. Harriet is involved. What more do you want? Short of resurrecting Jordan and having him write the scripts, what could possibly satisfy you?

you know, when they adapted terry pratchett books, and pterry himself was still alive and he approved the changes, some fans argued that he "didn't understand his own work".

so no, not even resurrecting jordan would satidfy some people.

5 hours ago, TheMountain said:

Sure, if one is only comparing the magic systems. Worldbuilding is much more than just magic though. Where Tolkien excelled was in the creation of languages, cultures, legends, religion and histories. There are volumes and volumes of worldbuilding he wrote before ever getting started on LotR. I know because I've read almost all of them.

and none of that is much apprent in the movies. that's my point. the whole worldbuilding of lotr was greatly reduced. you get hints here and there, yes, but you never get the full picture you would get in the books. I watched the movies first, read the books later, and I missed most of it until i read the books.

and same with wot. and with witcher. and with dune. because a movie cannot do that the same way that a book can.

and if you like to put attention to those kind of detail, and you pretend to get them, then there's no way a movie adaptation is ever going to leave you satisfied.

It's as impossible as complaining that action sequences in a book are not as beautiful as they are in a movie.

like, the blood snow sequence, that was beautiful, and much better than the book version. there's no way the books can convey that fight sequence and do it justice. there's no way the descriptions of tar valon can keep up with the actual image in the show.

and there's no way the worldbuilding and deep characterization we get in the books can be fully transposed in television.

those are the limitations of the media about which i was trying to make a point.