Amazon doesn't have filmic rights to The Silmarillion, so the creative team behind RoP were forced to create their own story by drawing on the sources - the LotR novels and their Appendices - that they did have filmic rights to and that didn't directly rehash the Peter Jackson LotR Trilogy (despite not being legally able to directly reference it, there was no desire to supplant it). There are a number of incredibly prominent, well-known, and well-respected die-hard book fans - many of whom I've previously cited directly by either their real names or their online handles - who would loudly and vociferously dispute this statement.

I voted 'Other' because I firmly believe that Rafe and his team will in fact 'kill' Moiraine, but then manufacture a storyline reason for having Rosamund continue to appear as the Series Lead and primary POV character. I don't have any speculation as to how they'll go about doing so, but I do think that's the general route that they'll take.

Incorrect. Also incorrect. The author is the ultimate arbiter of how characters behave or what the 'rules' of the world are, and it may become necessary to intentionally have a character behave in a manner that is inconsistent or break the rules of the world as established in order to service the narrative. Doing so does not automatically or objectively equal 'bad' writing, nor does it objectively or automatically equal 'good' writing. An objective standard of quality writing does not exist, regardless of how badly some might want to believe otherwise.

Outside of scientific or historical fields of study, the term "objective analysis" is an oxymoron and does not actually exist. You cannot offer a 100% unbiased and objective review, critique, or analysis of the quality of how something is written, regardless of your level of expertise, because your analysis is informed by your own understanding and knowledge and is therefore not actually objective.

In your opinion

A

^ I didn't say anything whatsoever about quality, which is a subjective metric and therefore almost meaningless.

Changing the context of my comment and parrotting it back doesn't really make the case for how/why the show isn't working.

There are two truisms about the WoT TV series that are absolutely essential when it comes to accepting - or at least understanding - how and why things have thus far played out narratively in th way that they have: 1) The TV series is very much an all-new Turning of the Wheel metaphysically and metaphorically 2) Rafe and his team have taken all 15 novels and Remixed them

Judging by both this thread and his/her/their other thread (Season 2 finale was so cringy, how are you all not upset? (Spoilers)), the answer to that question is 'Yes'.

As both a professional author and official Consulting Producer, Brandon has every right to be critical of aspects of the series' writing, but there is a distinct difference between being critical and being negative, and I don't see any negativity in the summaries of his comments that have been posted or alluded to here in this thread.

She was crushed to death by debris. Not necessarily.

This is an incorrect statement.

And that's not how it worked here. Also, how did everything devolve into contradictory nonsense? The gist of the argument everyone was using to push back against my argument is that Sharon Gilham and freelance writer Amy Ratcliffe were wrong in stating that the collar portion of the a'dam could only be removed upon the death of the damane wearing it, which is exactly what this episode demonstrated. Yes, the show found a way to get the collar off Egwene specifically that got around that caveat, but the caveat was still true nonetheless.

I'll admit to being wrong about Egwene temporarily dying. The question is, is everyone else as willing to admit that they were wrong in doubting the veracity of the changes made to how the collar portion of the a'dam worked for the show?