It's not a very smart idea to directly insult the people who run this site and host these forums with a comment like this.

@SinisterDeath The writer's strike was primarily about the following things: 1. Writers' pay in an era of digital streaming 2. Protections against AI being used to replace writers altogether 3. Pension and Healthcare benefits 4. Job security for writers None of these things have anything whatsoever to do with the general operation and functions of writers' rooms, which do still exist in far more television productions than you seem to think.

I'm not in their heads and therefore cannot provide an answer. You would need to pose that question directly to Rafe. My guess, based on how my own individual thought process works when it comes to writing, would be that it provides an easy shorthand for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the books while also accurately reflecting a truth about the nature of reincarnation in the world of the books and television series. You pedantically obsessing over it as if it's some egregious faux pas (it's not) only serves as an indictment of you, not the writers.

You can keep making these claims until you are blue in the face; however, repeating them ad nauseam will not change the basic fact that nothing you say even remotely comports with the knowledge and experiences that I have gained as it pertains to the actual general processes of television writing in general and adaptational television writing in particular. What follows is a general description of how the television writing process generally works and how a television writing room typically functions, as per the experience of my TV writer collaborator. The process for creating a television series typically begins with a writers' meeting that usually occurs about a month before production begins. At this meeting, the Showrunner generally presents an overall layout of stories that need to be taken from idea to completed script, and writing assignments for individual scripts are then given out, with the priority being the premiere episode(s) (if the premiere is intended to be a multi-parter). Each individual writer is then given a predetermined period of time by the Showrunner in which to take their assigned projects from planning to initial draft to final approved script; this period of time is typically 7 to 8 days (which is the standard minimal shooting time for a single episode of television), and allows a television series to be continually filming without having to pause the workflow. Some notes on the typical functions and duties of a Showrunner: 1. They are usually the seniormost writer in a writer's room 2. They are the final authority when it comes to the finalization of all scripts 3. They may or may not provide a 'final polish' on the scripts that are submitted to them 4. They may or may not reach out to or collaborate with other members of the production team (such as a Consulting Producer) before offering final approval to an individual script, or instruct an individual writer to do so themselves

Nothing I said here is either insulting or gatekeeping behavior, merely commentary on how and why I believe that arguments against the show such as the premise upon which this thread is predicated are rooted in ignorance and lead to gatekeeping behavior. None of these things accurately represent the way in which a television writing room actually functions, at least based on the general practices that were explained to me by my aforementioned TV writer collaborator.

Objecting to a term like "the Dragon Reborn" being applied explicitly to characters other than Rand is emblematic of the ignorance and naivete that fuels threads like this one and that leads directly to gatekeeping and unfair attacks on the credibility and competence of the individuals responsible for this adaptation. It's also the epitome of pedantry.

I'm not under any obligation to agree with or endorse any other posters' assertions, especially when I fundamentally believe those assertions to be based on a false premise according to my own personal experiences and knowledge. In my opinion, the entire premise of this thread is an example of subjective opinions driving people to ask the wrong questions and pass the wrong kinds of judgments based on ignorance and naivete.

The question of fidelity is irrelevant to this conversation because it is entirely subjective. Not everyone is going to be happy with - or agree with - the choices that these writers have made. However, there is a stark difference between critiquing/criticizing those choices and using those choices to question these writers' commitment to the source material and their competency as storytellers.

No. I'm unequivocally stating - based on the personal knowledge and experiences that I detailed earlier - that I believe that comments questioning the competency and commitment of these writers ignorantly - and unfairly - ignore or dismiss the intricate realities of television writing and of the adaptation process itself.

Not trying to brag here, but I have actually directly collaborated with a former television writer who taught me (and our other mutual collaborators, of which there were several) about the general established functions of a television writing room and about the hours and hours of work that individual writers put in to bring a television series to life. Through my collaboration with the above individual and our other collaborators, I also learned firsthand about the difficulties, complexities, and subtleties involved in specifically adapting something from one medium to another. Other people might trot out the "complainers don't understand" argument, but when I do it, I do so based on my own personal knowledge and experiences.

There's not a lot that I think I can say about many of the most recent posts in this thread without getting myself in trouble, so all I will say is that said posts demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge about how television writing works and the intricacies, difficulties, subtleties, and complexities involved in it.

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.