5 minutes ago, Ralph said:

But I can't imagine we will all agree that it would have been better if it was more controlled by Rafe, considering some contributors' opinions of him? ??

Yeah, I'm one of those who isn't a huge fan of Rafe's vision. However, I do think that allowing him to craft a more cohesive version of that vision would have been to the show's benefit, and I would have certainly preferred that show over the one we have now. 

Maybe it's just because I'm an (aspiring) creative myself, but I can't help but sympathize for Rafe in this regard and wish that he had been given more freedom to at least go all the way with what he wanted to do. At least then those who enjoy the show as it is might have enjoyed it even more. 

53 minutes ago, thievingsackofpotatoes said:

I'm hoping for a serious uptick in quality for season 2 (which reviews seem to suggest) because there were parts of season 1 of The Witcher that showed small bit of potential but let's not pretend like it was amazing television.

Yeah, I saw a few episodes and thought they were pretty meh. My only point was that most everything I've read about Netflix seems to suggest that they give their creative teams a lot of creative control.  

Rafe's comments about Amazon (he talks about making the show like laying over a body while arrows rain down on his back) contribute to plenty of other stuff I've heard about the very corporatized, tightly controlled "creative" process over at Amazon Studios. 

Regardless of what you think of the show, I think we can all agree that it would have been better if made in an environment where there wasn't quite as much executive meddling for Rafe to navigate. 

"It seems like the streamer’s biggest mandate with fantasy adaptations is to make them faithful to die-hard fans. Anyone else who goes along for the ride is a welcome bonus." 

Read this in a review of The Witcher Season 2 today and it's really making me with WoT had been adapted by literally anyone but the suits at Amazon. 

Say what you like about the adaptation, but it was certainly made with a wider audience in mind first and then any book fans who weren't put off by the changes were invited to come along if they wished. 

Netflix's shows aren't always good or satisfactory for their fanbases (Hello, Cowboy Bebop) but it seems like they give their creatives a lot more control over there. 

5 hours ago, Ralph said:

In any case, Harriet says (and Plato agrees with her) that the only thing to do when you sell a book to Hollywood is to take the money, walk away very fast before they can take it back, and never, ever go to see the movie

I miss RJ so much... He was so down to earth and likeable. Really just a legitimately funny guy and I'm sure a delight to speak with in person.

45 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

When I throw up an explanation for something, it's never something I had to think long and hard about and contemplate.  It's the answer I had in my mind within 10-15 seconds of my initial view.

Information we've received in the scene: 

1. Moiraine says that she can't see the men's weaves.

2. A green reacts to Logain's weave as if she can see it. 

3. Logain reacts to Nynaeve and makes a comment, "like a blazing sun" at the same moment that Nynaeve's weaves are throwing off massive amounts of light. 

The audience is never told that the Aes Sedai can "sense" male weaves even if they can't see them. Anyone thinking about this scene only has as much information as the scene gave them. Given that information, it appears to create a contradiction.

Now, in a more character focused scene, the writers don't have to give us all the answers. Characters are people, and actions which don't quite make sense can force us to reconsider their personalities and motivations. When writers ask this sort of engagement from their audience, it's a good thing because it deepens our connection with the story. 

However, when they muddy up the mechanics of their own world and craft a scene which appears to break the rules that their own characters have established, it only serves to disorient the audience. It's a clumsy scene, and the fact that you have to come in here wielding extra-textual explanations for it is proof of it. 

You're like the guy who apologizes for glitches in videogames. "It's cool guys! You fall through the floor, but in 10-15 seconds the game will just spit you back where you were!" 

Good on ya that this stuff doesn't bother you, but it doesn't change the fact that it's there. 

5 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

You have to remember that this is film.
We the viewers are always going to see more than the characters see. Those characters have to act like they see what they're supposed to see.

True. However, that doesn't mean that the writers/director are excused from the responsibility of creating a comprehensible scene. 

It seems like they had this vision of what they wanted to happen and just pushed through with it.  

Knowing the limits of your medium, acknowledging those limits, and then being willing to kill your darlings to stay within them is part of the creative team's job. For the most part, they're doing a decent job. But in this scene their job was to tell the story using visual information and the information they gave out was contradictory. It's not a plot hole, but the scene was poorly conceived and executed and thus gave the illusion of a plot hole. 

15 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

In the books, women couldn't see Mens' weaves, but they could sense them. 

If either side couldn't sense a weave, there would be no way for them to "slice" each other's weaves, and it would be even more OP

Cool cool. My only issue here, then, is that if the show is just being taken by itself, that whole sequence of events that I laid out comes across as confusing. They may explain how it all works later, but until then, given what the show has told us, the scene doesn't look like it makes sense. 

In that case, it's not a plot hole problem, but it is a confusingly directed/staged/written sequence of events because it presents show watchers with apparently conflicting information. 

29 minutes ago, Spiritweaver1 said:

 Another example has already been discussed that the Ways are opened with the one power.  Okay but now we are gonna need explanations for the Fades and Trolloc's using the way without channelers, and  Perrin and Loial for that matter.  All of it unnecessary.  Moraine could have simply used the keys.

This (not think example specifically, but this issue in general) is what irks me the most about the adaptation. On its own, it's a fine show. Nothing special, and full of cringe, but fine. However, once you get into changes like this one, that's where I start to feel weird. 

When something from the books would have worked just fine in the show but is changed for no apparent reason, it doesn't really inspire faith that the writers respect the source material. But hey, that's just me. 

Speaking of plot holes, was I just not paying attention or was there a massive one in episode 4 with regards to men and women being able to see each others' weaves. 

Here's what I saw: 

1. Moiraine mentions that she can't see Logain's weaves, specifically wording it to imply that this is a principle which applies broadly. ie, men and women can't see each other's weaves. 

2. Then, the green Aes Sedai seems to see Logain's weave going towards the other two Aes Sedai. She intercepts to save them and is killed. 

3. Lastly, Logain reacts to Nynaeve's healing as if he is seeing her glowing like the sun. But to his eyes, she wouldn't be glowing at all. This one is less egregious, I think, because you could say that he's just reacting to the fact that the whole room is being healed at once, but it sure seems like he sees something. I think he even averts his eyes/covers his face. 

I think that they should stick with a good looking number. I would prefer them to land on 7. 5 would be too few IMO. 

I think Rhavin, Mesaana, and Be'lal could be cut entirely. Sammael could be merged with Demandred (this composite character should keep Demandred's name). That leaves us with 9 Forsaken. 

I'd hate to be the person who has to decide who gets the axe beyond that, but I do think it will be necessary. 

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

Dana says only one of you can be it in ep3

With as much a we've heard the defense that no one in this show actually knows anything about what they're talking about for stuff like the Hydra dragon and Moiraine's explanation of the Breaking, I hardly think a line from a totally insignificant minor character holds water. 

6 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

If you think there's some line to be drawn between How completely fictional situations are shown versus how marginalized people are represented I don't know what to say.

 

Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. Next thing you're gonna tell me that playing Call of Duty is going to make me a serial killer. Don't your hands ever get tired of clutching those pearls? 

7 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Is... is your argument that you think RJ would turn out to be a scummy person IRL and so we shouldn't entertain the notion he wasn't or that the story can be told in a new way?

I'm saying that since RJ is in fact dead we don't know how he would have turned out. So Rafe defending his decisions by saying that RJ would have done them himself is definitely putting the wagon in front of the horse. I would respect Rafe more if he'd just been honest and said that he's making changes to suit his own personal tastes. Read, my dude. Read and think. It's good for you. 

20 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

I was actually about to say I think Aran'gar HAS to go away because it can be read to suggest that your soul adapts to your body meaning that someone being trans is against nature.  

BUT, reading your comment, I think we could easily go the opposite direction and make it clear that Balthamael was always a woman but never came out as trans.

I think a much, much easier solution is just to stick with the books and stop confusing a fantasy world with reality. 

I don't understand how it's so easy for us to accept that people in Randland can channel a mystical power and are reborn time and time again in an unending circle but we can't just say, "The gender binary is a thing in this universe" and accept it. 

It's just a show. It's fantasy. It's not real, and it has NO obligation to reflect reality. Again, no one is saying, "That's not how metaphysics work!" with regards to the Wheel and reincarnation, but as soon as we get to the gender stuff everyone loses their minds. 

"Problematic" has become the new heresy, and everything has to conform to its standards or be burned at the stake. 

Jordan was a feminist in the 90's... but then again so was J.K. Rowling, and look where that got her. 

Rafe has been pretty free with expression his belief that his current progressive interpretation of WoT's gender themes is how RJ would have done it had he written the story today. I think this is gross, but I get the temptation to want to put words in the mouths of dead people you respect in order to justify your own beliefs. This happens all the time. I get it. 

However, I think it's just as likely that RJ could have turned out like JK Rowling, that he would have stuck with his ideas about a clear divide within the genders that such a divide was actually necessary in order to truly empower women. He obviously really cared about those ideas, and I think it's certainly hasty to think that he would have just abandoned them. Not impossible, but hasty. 

16 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I'm not asking for the evidence. I'm asking for the point. Why am I supposed to care about those things?

My point is that all these changes were pointless. The rationale behind them is dubious at best, vindictive at worst, and I think that rationale matters. You obviously do not. 

@Elder_Haman You keep saying "So?" as if I haven't just shown you the evidence. Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Send me a picture of your bus bench ad. I need proof. 

9 minutes ago, Ralph said:

But it is not the ruling body in the show. Did you read my responses earlier? And we don't know if she is as powerful as Logain, and I asked if you have canon source that she is weaker in the books. 

In episode 4, Moiraine says she she doesn't know if Logain is as strong as Egwene. In the books, Egwene is extremely strong among women, but there's still a dozen named female characters who are stronger than her. Keep in mind that men are more powerful than women in the books, and only 3 or 4 men are said to be stronger than Logain. 

11 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Like the books. Did you like Egwene in the books? 

Good point haha Egwene is the worst character in the books precisely because she's already pretty flawless (especially once you get to book 4). The show has taken this aspect of her and cranked it up to 11. I guess if you like Egwene, that's a good thing. 

12 minutes ago, Ralph said:

I have yet to see this

Episode 1. Mat steals a bracelet and it's implied that this is something he does a lot in order to pay off his dad's debts. 

13 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Not at all

Agree to disagree. Granted, I'm only on episode 4. Maybe 5 and 6 let Rand reminisce about his dad. As it stands now, I've heard more about Laila, a pointless character who no one cares about, that Rand's father. 

14 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Not really

Give me another reason. 

14 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Really? Lan killed at least twenty Trollocs in Ep1. She has killed one. Perrin has killed one Trolloc and one wife. Rand has killed one. Egwene has injured one WC.

Nynaeve fights a Trolloc in episode 1 and wins. She kills one in episode 2 (3?) and then in episode 4 she kills a few dudes with a knife when Logain's army attacks. My point is that book Nynaeve does none of this. It's a significant upgrade. 

16 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Like the books

True. This is generally the way it's handled. But I think there's a difference between Perrin being afraid of violence because he killed some whitecloaks who were attacking him and being afraid because he killed his wife/unborn child. 

19 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Name one woman who is more powerful. I haven't seen any. I assume you mean Nynaeve but I don't see that she is more powerful

Dude, we've been through this. Nearly every female character has received some kind of upgrade whether it be in significance to the plot, power level, skills and abilities added or anything else you can think of. I literally just made you a list. 

20 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Only the DR is not like the books ?

30 minutes ago, JeffTheWoodlandElf said:

A change made with the specific purpose of leveling up Nynaeve and Egwene's significance in the story. 

But at this point we're going in circles. I can only show you a rock and have you tell me it's a fish no many times. 

7 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

They've put female characters forward. That's all. No male characters have been "diminished" and none of the female characters are "beyond reproach". The show has presented viewers with a world where females occupy positions of power. That's it. 

Putting female characters forward is one thing. Leveling them all up dramatically is something else entirely. 

Moiraine is now the main character of the story

Nynaeve is a potential dragon, master tracker, and comes out on top of every interaction she's in. 

Nynaeve is adept at hand to hand combat now, for some reason. (I can't confirm this, but I'm pretty sure she's second to Lan in on-screen kills for the series)

Egwene is now as powerful as Logain and a member of the Women's Circle (the ruling body of her community!) when the series begins. 

Egwene is maturely dealing with the end of her and Rand's relationship meanwhile he acts like a child. 

The leader of the Tinkers is now a woman for no reason other than the writers didn't want it to be a man. 

Compare that to....

Rand is a side character

Tam's influence on Rand has been greatly diminished 

Perrin is a wife murderer

Mat is a thief

Abel Cauthon is a drunk abuser

Master Luhan isn't even there

Thom can barely sing or play an instrument (this one's a little petty haha)

Lan is fine, but notice how none of the male characters have received any sort of power up like the females have? What are any of the male characters better at than they were in the books? Go on. 

Character development for males = Dark past. Mistakes. Flaws. Inner demons. 

Character development for females = Good at everything. Super powerful. Just, like, so good and great. So great. Literally the best. 

Pushing the female characters forward would have meant giving each more screen time and developing their characters more. But that's not the only thing they've done, and it's obvious. It's all totally pointless and serves no other purpose than to gratify the writers' weird ideas about what a "strong" female character actually entails. 

29 minutes ago, Ralph said:

And I don't think that is enough to show a pattern. 

I guess I'm just curious what would be enough for a pattern, because it really does seem as if almost every male character has been leveled down in some way meanwhile all the women have remained the same or been leveled up. Do you think that this hasn't happened basically across the board? 

I just keep coming back to the show's approach to Mat and Perrin compared to Egwene and Nynaeve. 

Mat and Perrin are both made to do terrible things in the name of their "characters." Meanwhile Egwene is elevated to the Women's Circle as part of her backstory and both she and Nynaeve are turned into Dragon candidates and Ta'veren. 

Again, if anyone on this forum could come up with a comparable list to show the nerfing of the female characters and prove that I really am just drawing from a biased sample size, I would legitimately reconsider my position on this. 

7 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Why is this supposed to bother me? Do you not think that we are going to see that dynamic shift over the course of the series?

Why would it? The writers have already shown their willingness to diminish the male characters while presenting female characters who are beyond reproach. Why would that possibly change? 

That's fine. If you're alright with the show writers using their power to diminish male characters in season 1, you'll be fine with it in season 7. That's just your schtick. For some of us, it's really distracting. 

Things I am mostly positive are not going to happen: 

1. Mat saving Nynaeve and Egwene in Tear. Never going to happen. 

2. Rand/Taim commanding the Aes Sedai to kneel. Not allowed. 

3. Mat getting his foxhead medallion and becoming a constant source of frustration for Nynaeve, Egwene, and Elayne. 

4. Rand entering Rhuidean with just Mat. Egwene is definitely going to be there for some reason. 

5. Berelain being portrayed as a seductress like in the books. Very problematic. Reinforces a negative stereotype. 

6. Lanfear being evil because she was jealous that Lews Therin chose another woman over her. Also reinforces a negative stereotype. 

7. Egwene running off to chase Black Ajah. Show Egwene will not be allowed to make such an egregious mistake. She'll be kidnapped or something. 

8. I will be surprised (not shocked) if Nynaeve has a block in this version of the story. This one might actually happen. 

9. Mat as a loveable womanizer. NEVER going to happen. Book Mat is a literal rapist by today's standards. 

It should go without saying that I can't prove any of this, but I will take great pleasure in referencing this list if it turns out that I'm right. 

4 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Uhhh, what? Thom said that "gleemen" is a silly name and then made the familiar point that bards and musicians know the past. I'm not sure where you're getting throwing people off of scents.

Rand was like, "You know a lot for a gleeman" and then Thom responded with something like, "We call ourselves gleemen because it sounds harmless. Nothing is more dangerous than a man know knows the past." 

What else could this possibly be implying? 

"We call ourselves gleemen in order to make people think that we're harmless when in reality we're not." 

That's the definition of trying to throw someone off a scent. 

47 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

What head canon?  I'm not inventing some complex and extended idea to justify the line.  

It works like this: 

1. The line is there

2. It doesn't really make sense. 

3. The narrative hasn't given us any justification for it

4. You come in saying, "The way I see it..." or "I like to think that..." and adding context which does not exist in the show in order to make the line work. 

It's not your job to make up reasons that stuff in the show makes sense. It's the writers' job to make sure things make sense. If you have to cover for them, then yes, you are using head canon to excuse bad writing. 

4 minutes ago, Ralph said:

Moiraine is weaker imo. Logain is far more interesting.

Who has new skills?

Moiraine actually is somewhat weaker, you're right about this. But my point isn't just about power levels or skills. It's about the characters' treatment by the narrative. Moiraine may not have shown off as much with the power as in the books, but she is waaaaaaay more important in the show as are most of the female characters. All the male characters have had their significance/capabilities diminished. 

You say that you don't see the pattern, but I just gave a massive list of all the decisions the show has made which directly influence male characters for the worse/female characters for the better. 

If there's a similar list enumerating all the ways that the female characters have been nerfed in comparison to their book counterparts, I would be open to seeing it. 

9 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Hmm, what better way to continue to downplay himself than to imply that he's not unique in downplaying himself, that it's something everyone in the motley (the patchwork cloak) does.

Using head canon to justify bad writing is the definition of having no taste. 

4 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Thom 100% calls himself a simple gleeman precisely to keep people underestimating him.  It's a point multiple times over and then hammered in bluntly in book 4.

Right. But in the show he's implying that ALL gleemen do this. He's explaining the origin of the name itself. "WE call ourselves gleemen." He's not talking about just himself. Are you gonna tell me that ALL gleemen used to be high ranking figures in noble courts but had falling outs with their masters and are now on the run and trying to divert attention from themselves by hiding beneath a gleeman's cloak? 

Thom calls himself a gleeman precisely because no one expects anything of gleemen BECAUSE gleemen are essentially party clowns and storytellers. Gleemen are not a cabal of keepers of forbidden knowledge roaming the land in disguise, keeping their heads down lest those in power recognize them for what they truly are. Most gleemen are simple gleemen. Thom is an exception. 

This line is like a hammer to the face. There's no consideration given to who is saying it, just that it sounds vaguely cool. Thom could have literally said nothing at all and the implication of his silence would have been better for building his mystique than this half-baked bit of writing. 

So dumb. Seriously so dumb. The more I think about it the dumber it gets.