Gotcha. I know absolutely nothing about it other then a headline that is was in the works.

I could be wrong, but I think I remember seeing that there is a WoT video game in the works. Now, if it is based on the show it may never see the light of day.

When the showrunner before the show even starts explicitly states his motivations for how he intends to use the story, his explicit stated intentions are a) fair game for discussion and a Ken’s through which to see his work and b) not a personal attack. You keep using the term personal attack and you clearly don’t know what that means. Critiquing a work - even vehemently - is not a personal attack. You double- and triple- down on saying any critique tied to Judkins’s handling of the source is a personal attack. You say that there is no reason the strengths and weaknesses of the show can’t be discussed but we have been doing that for three entire seasons and those of us with myriad complaints have been continually nay-sayed by a handful here and then called haters. Half the weakness of this show stems from the weakness of the writing but if we attack that, we’re suddenly haters and attacking everyone personally according to some of you.

I don’t have time to rewatch 3 seasons…

And this kind of stunted reading comprehension is why we live in a world today where every other person lives in a state of constant self-perceived victimhood and believes everything they see or hear is some kind of attack on them. Did I say I hate Rafe Judkins? I hated the product and I and many, many others clearly saw this as a work that didn’t understand the source material and at times didn’t even seem to know it beyond a Cliff’s Notes outline. The fact that we can’t call out a guy for saying “I love the book, and here’s everything I’m changing to better fit the way I think it should be” without white knights flying to his rescue and saying “why hate people?” shows such a lack of critical thinking.

You’re right. I love it for its characters, setting, and plot. Rafe loved it as a vehicle to tell his own story and hopefully become famous.

When you love something, you don’t fundamentally change it to conform to your vision; you embrace what (or who) it is. You don’t say “I like this thing, but I can improve it;” You don’t say, “I love this thing but we need to change it to fit with modern (read: my) worldviews.” Rafe “loved” this series for marketing reasons only and nothing anyone says can convince me otherwise because the product spoke for itself.

Always fun to see someone arguing against the law of noncontradiction. Syllogism is not subjective.

My argument is simply that nobody can sensibly make the argument that certain elements had to be cut from the IP, whether they be storylines, characters, etc. because of time/episode limitations whilst simultaneously defending storylines, characters, etc. completely made up by Rafe Judkins. Those are two wholly incompatible arguments.

It always reminds me of the Hardy Boys books I grew up on as a kid; every chapter ended with some mini-cliffhanger. That worked to keep kids engaged but it would be ridiculous in a competent adult novel.

These are the kind of statements that make no sense to me. If they are finding it necessary to “prune” characters in order to fit this story into a more time-constrained medium, how do they justify that while at the same time giving inordinate amounts of time to secondary, tertiary, and even barely-mentioned characters like Maksim? People tried to use this same style of argument when they claimed certain story beats needed to be changed or eliminated in order to adapt the material to television but at the same time tried to justify made-up arcs like the whole wardrobe funeral episode or Moiraine’s journey that overwhelmed the beginning of season 2.

The difference being that Ned was a strong leader, beloved character, seemingly the main character, etc., etc. Susan was horribly realized in the show. She wasn’t likable, she wasn’t all that politically astute, and her role hardly mattered. Talk an out pulling punches with major character deaths. They couldn’t have killed a more inconsequential “main” character as far as the show goes.

No body, no crime. I think there are ways he can be rescued if the show wanted.

I never considered compulsion, which would be plausible except didn’t Moggy kind of wipe that at the end of their talk? But otherwise, her just standing there was monumentally stupid.

I’m sorry, but I still can’t get over Thom yelling “Hey!” before throwing his dagger at the black sister. /facepalm

They distracted him…for some reason? Especially odd considering the cards were from Lanfear and the gray man from Moggy but they played as linked in the episode and the spell over Mat seemed to disparate when the gray man was killed. But anything for a few style points, huh?

Call this the cynic in me, but since there seems to be some uncertainty about the renewal status of this show, is it possible that certain story arcs were crafted in a way that would present to the executives in charge of these decisions that the show needs more season? Take Moiraine/Lanfear, for example. We all thought they should have died this season, and we were all wrong. Could they have been kept around as a way to sell another season to the executives?

Lanfear was gushing from the jugular, so I’d add that to the list of fake outs, even though it it obvious she didn’t die.

Wheel of Time: Chekhov’s Armory Remember the Azor Ahai prophecy in Game of Thrones? If you do, well goo on you, because the showrunners certainly didn’t. If this show continues, and if it does so under a time crunch, I expect many things to go unresolved or changed to fit the narrative.

I’m also not convinced that Moiraine means enough to Rand that we should spend story “killing” her and retrieving her. They tried to clean that up in this episode with the talk that Rand had with her, but I thought it was sketchy reasoning at best. I think I’m more in the camp that Moiraine would become Caddy, who is part protagonist, part mentor.

I haven’t been following this conversation at all; I don’t know the argument. That said, given that the term “Finn” is usually used by fans to group both species, it follows that they use it in the show as shorthand for both. If there were only one Finn species in the show, it would make most sense for a character to refer to it by name.

Yes, my point was more directed at the way it is written/introduced than that it happened. When you show - at least twice - a man being actively shielded and then just casually drop “tying it off” later, you need to connect that discrepancy. I think it’s a stretch for her to have “learned” it when she was shielded because she couldn’t see the weaves, but she could have said something like “I was shielded once. The weaves were tied off. I’ve been practicing. It’s a neat trick, isn’t it?” I’ve beaten this dead horse plenty, but my criticism was of the writing. One line, half a second of dialogue, works as connective tissue for two disparate handlings of an ability but they dropped the ball on it.

Nope. Just a back and forth of ideas. All good.

Didn’t say you specifically.

@DigificWriter didn’t read the books, right? I want to hear more about what he thought of the Finn. That scene must have been absolutely bonkers for some people.