A couple of points: The yellow, grays, whites would have been terrible fighters since their whole reason for existing was anathema to violence. The browns and blues had people who went into the world and might have needed to protect themselves, so individual sisters would have been proficient in self-defense, but again there was no call for projective attack weaves for either ajah. Bottom line, it is not unreasonable that the sitters from these ajahs were not accomplished fighters able to handle the pressure of a surprise firefight. I find the time to get off weave question focusing on the wrong issue. Several times in the books, it was noted that the AS were trained to unnecessarily wave their hands during weaving. While they could have done the spell much quicker, they waste time making physical gestures. So, by book logic, it would take noticeable time to cast the weaves. Someone trained not to use the hand gestures will get the spell off much faster.

This is the classic I refuse to like the series and I will find nits to pick at to show why the series sucks. At this level of analysis, every action sequence in every action movie/series is terrible and consequently the movie/series is bad. Yes, there are plot holes and illogical events, but sometimes you just need to enjoy the ride and tell the logical part of your mind to chill for a little while.

You nailed one of the main reasons that WoT is such a hard adaptation. How they handle the multiple threads that dominate most of the last series is critical. Given that there are often 6-7 threads going simultaneously, they will have to combine or eliminate some of them. They also have to be compelling viewing outside the main plot line to keep the series from bogging down. You have also presented a great refutation of the absolute "closer to the book", "concentrate on Rand's POV" viewpoint. Once they split into threads, the other characters must carry the show. If you question if the other characters have been defined well enough to trust they can carry the show in non-main plot threads, even with 2 years of ensemble-based shows, then a sole focus on Rand, like in the books, would have been disastrous. I am less concerned about Rand since he is the focus of the main plot, allowing plenty of time to fill out his character.

Inclusion is not bad and should not be a priori excluded except in specific contexts. Sex/religion/ethnicity etc. of characters are generally window dressing that are not terribly important to the story. In these cases, which make up the vast majority of fiction, I DON'T CARE if they are changed in an adaptation in an attempt to make viewers more comfortable or expand the audience. I agree that where sex/religion/ethnicity are integral to the story (e.g, what it means to be Jewish in pre-WWII Germany, growing up black in the racist Jim Crow south, trying to function as a non-Japanese in the hetrocentric Japanese society, the trials of being a women in a patriarchic society), changing these characteristics must be done with care. Even here, it would be perfectly acceptable to go SCi-FI and totally invert the characteristics (e.g, the Broadway play Hamilton) to subvert the audience's expectations and world view while still maintaining the heart of the story. Like everything else, inclusion can be done heavy handed/badly, negatively affecting the adaptation. Standing pat can also be done badly and negatively affect the adaptation by feeling anachronistic and using unnecessary/discredited stereotypes which turns off the audience.

Sorry you can't read, but why didn't you quote the second sentence as well as the first? "Some things are BAD and should be excluded". Since this sentence came immediately after one which only talked about inclusion, what other concept could it be referring to? I wouldn't have made my comment if it was just the first sentence.

So inclusion is bad. What a sad life you are leading.

I disagree with your assessment of the reasons for Rand training with the sword. I always believed that the sword training was the physical embodiment of the "am I Tam's son or the Dragon" subplot. The sword was an extension of his relationship with Tam (even when the original blade was destroyed). Given that that particular thread was unfilmable because it couldn't be made visual, emphasis on the sword training wasn't a driving factor. Other reasons, like mental discipline or tactics training mean that it might be useful to introduce, but it should never be a major plot point like in the book. The books always made the case that he could kill far more opponents much easier with the power. Don't you remember the several references in the books to people asking him why he was so fixated on the sword when he had the power.

WTF man. I was addressing a specific scene you asked me about. So without discussing the points I tried to raise, you jumped to another scene you didn't like. To make it easier, the point I raised was that there are two ways to view the series, one from a more holistic viewpoint where the overriding concepts are more important than the exact actions taken to get there and the second to value the actions as discrete points in their own right. Neither is objectively correct and is based on individual interpretations of what an adaptation should be. Based on the discussion, it seems I am more interested in the big picture and willing to give the showrunners the benefit of the doubt on the small details and you are the opposite. You are more interested in the small details and really want to see them on screen. Given the difficulties of the adaptation, you will likely be continually disappointed.

I went back and reread some of the thread and understand what you are asking now. Primarily, I think you completely misunderstood the larger context that the scene. In the books, the important issue was that Nyn and the others didn't abandon Egwene, risked their lives in trying to find a way to help her, and finally attempted a rescue. The mechanics of the rescue are completely generic and uninteresting. In the series, Nyn and the others didn't abandon Egwene, risked their lives in trying to find a way to help her, and finally attempted a rescue. The series was true to the important element of the story and also attempted to highlight Egwene's character by changing the (unimportant) details of the rescue. I think that it is telling that you concentrated on a specific set of actions as the key to the scene instead of the broader overall context the scene was trying to tell. I think this is one of the important disconnects between us, I am trying to see the series from a holistic/emotional level without being too caught up in specific actions while you see the actions themselves as a fundamental part of the story.

I don't remember what scene you are referring to here so I have no idea, but why are you fixated on single scenes? The adaptation requires major changes for reasons I've given in this thread. That particular change might have been bad/unnecessary or it might be part of a larger mosaic which was put in for specific reasons like trying to infuse the necessary elements of cut material back into the story, presenting the characters in a visual setting instead of a POV setting or any number of other adaptation reasons. Again, the only argument I'm trying to make is that not liking it because it isn't the books is self-defeating because it never was and never could be the books. I've never argued that the writers didn't make mistakes in their adaptation decisions or their implementations. This change might well have been a mistake.

I never disparaged anyone for not liking specific changes. I don't think that all the changes worked, but I can understand why they made the change in most cases which is good enough to let me enjoy the series for what it is instead of reflexively hating it because "it's not the books". My argument has always been that the books COULD NOT BE FILMED as written, so major changes were unavoidable in any adaptation. Like any other human endeavor, those changes could be good or bad, necessary of unnecessary, well written or poorly written. Any argument that begins and ends with make it closer to the books, all new material is bad, are irrelevant. So hate (and discuss) on what you think are bad changes but understand that these changes were a necessary part of the adaptation process.

Anyone who says that 14 books and 12000 pages is perfect and has no problems which an adaptation should address is not arguing in good faith. Deciding beforehand that the books should be filmed as written and refusing to think about the "why" for specific changes doesn't promote useful discussion. Liking the specific changes that try to address potential problems (book issues, POV characterization, dialogue/scenes that don't work on screen, structural filming issues) isn't necessary to understand why the writer's made changes and didn't just film the book.

One of the most interesting things coming out of the series is that it has given me a greater insight into the books. The changes from the books caused me to think about why the writers made the change and if they were good or bad. I realized that there were a lot of things in the books that I just read causally and never really thought about. I found instances where there were things that made me like the book better, but I also found instances where the books were weak that I had just brushed off earlier by ignoring them. Thinking through the issues made me feel I had a better understanding of the books.

Or just indicates prejudice. People look down on the folks on the other side of the tracks all the time. Any reasonable sized group of people will have both good folks and bad folks. I found the black or white vision that all the EF5 and their folks were good and all Congars and Coplins were bad was a major indication of the bad writing of EF in the book. This was why I liked the mixing of good and bad characteristics for the EF5 side of town (e.g., Mat's dysfunctional family) was a vast improvement from the book. It was much more realistic. It also justified why Mat was the one and only jerk (e.g., trickster, gambler, drinker, womanizer, reluctant hero) from the EF side of town, which improve his characterization.

This argument is used all the time and doesn't really pass any serious thought. Let's take it in order: 1. Do you agree that to fit the material in the time frame of the series, they have to cut and combine things from the books? 2. Do you agree that there is material from the cut/combined portions that are still necessary to introduce into the series? 3. Do you agree that there are important elements of the books that don't work well on screen? 4. Do you agree that most of the lore development in the books were verbal instead of visual? 5. Do you agree that there are elements of the books which are not perfect and can be improved? In my case examples include thinking the ending of book 1 and the characterization of EF were both poor in the books. While the series didn't improve on the ending of book 1, they did improve the characterization of EF (as discussed above). 6. Do you agree that much of the characterization of the main characters was POV and could not be shown directly on screen? So if you agree with me on some or all of the above points, please tell me how they can fix them without introducing new material not in the books? 1/2. Cut or combined material is in not in the books, so they require new material to introduce. 3. Since they are trying to produce and interesting TV series, important book material that doesn't work on screen needs to rewritten so that it makes interesting TV while keeping the story moving forward. 4. World development is important. Doing it with dialogue makes a very clunky TV series. Creating visual scenes to introduce world development is a better option. 5. New scenes are needed to fix book problems. Whether they are done well or badly is an individual decision, but just putting bad book stuff on screen is not the right answer. 6. POV can't be put on screen. New material is required. Since most characterization is done via POV in the books, this step can't be skipped. The characterization is critical to the story and absolutely requires new material. Like or dislike some (or all) of the new material, but to make blanket statements about the need to stay with the original story is just silly. If you think it can, you also need to address the structural issues (like the ones above, but also includes technical issues like availability of actors/sets etc.) that mitigate against just putting book material on screen.