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?

Rafe said in his first post-Strike AMA that he has big things planned for Anvaere going forward.

^ Star Trek novels/comics/et al have never been Canon, but you're right that the existence of the TV series has zero effect whatsoever on the 'WoT Canon' and is entirely its own separate entity that can, should, and does exist independent of and alongside the novels.

I like Lauren (Unraveling the Pattern)'s channel, but I just don't see how it makes sense to try and 'justify' Siuan's betrayal of her Fishwife by somehow absolving her of that betrayal.

And I say that as someone who was genuinely upset by that choice.

I said this in the chat of WoTTuber KritterXD's most recent Wheel and Chill Show Livestream, but am going to repeat it here: with their TV adaptation, Rafe and his team of writers have taken all 15 books of The Wheel of Time and created a Remix.

2 hours ago, Guire said:

Not a big deal but an error

Or a deliberate change.

41 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

it still does feel wrong to have the snow here and green meadows in what can't possibly be much lower elevaton.

That's how mountainous environments work. Snow can linger in some spots and yet be completely melted in other spots.

For a clear example of what I envision when I talk about having Egwene die and then be immediately resuscitated, see the conclusion to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode Prophecy Girl.

1) Temporarily killing Egwene so that the collar falls off and then immediately resuscitating her thereafter would not be a 'fake-out' death

2) Egwene being rescued without being physically freed from the collar in no way means that she will remain a damane for the rest of her life; it simply means that there is not an immediately available solution to the problem of removing the collar and that a solution will need to be found

1 minute ago, Elder_Haman said:

Why does that give you 100% confidence that her secondhand report of something the costume designer may or may not have said should be taken as gospel over what we know from the books?

Because I know her reputation and her credibility, both of which are high-level.

If the information about the collars only being able to be removed from dead damane didn't come directly from Sharon Gilham and were not objectively true, it would not have appeared in the article.

8 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

You mean information from a random journalist associated with Nerdist. 

7 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Nerdist and legitimate journalist aren’t typically mentioned in the same breath. 

The site is legitimate enough that Sharon Gilham agreed to speak with them (exclusively) about the show and share concept sketches.

Also, the author of the site's article, Amy Ratcliffe, is far from "some random journalist"; she is an incredibly well-known and well-respected book author, former podcast host, and freelance writer with a long and distinguished career.

Just now, Elder_Haman said:

It could have just been made up by the author.

That is not how legitimate journalism works.

2 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

That's where WAFO comes in.

Not everything is WAFO; sometimes (most times, I would argue) Word of God, BtS information can (should) be taken at face value and treated as binding without having to have said info confirmed onscreen.

4 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

I'm operating under the presumption that book lore holds true until the show proves otherwise.

That's the thing; in this particular instance, the show has already proven that book lore doesn't hold based on the already-mentioned information from Sharon Gilham.

2 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

it can only be assumed to be unreliable when there are very good reasons to doubt it.

like, for example, when it would create big plot holes and worldbuilding holes that could easily be solved if what we were told was not true.

The a'dam not being able to be removed while a damane is living is not something that either breaks the world worldbuilding of the show or creates plot holes.

There's a difference between debating something and/or acknowledging that, in one specific instance, BtS commentary proved unreliable and automatically assuming that nothing that anyone says in BtS commentary is reliable or that book knowledge holds 100% sway in every instance.

Also, the Nerdist article may not directly quote Sharon Gilham stating that the collar can only be removed when damane is dead, but that type of information could only have come from her.

9 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

there’s no reason at all to think the collar can only come off if the damane is dead

Except for the fact that the show's Costume Designer flat-out said so.

11 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

We know that’s not true

 No. People are assuming it's not true based on book knowledge.

25 minutes ago, Finnssss22 said:

This is WoT, unreliable narrator is a huge thing

Not everything that is associated with the show can or should be assumed to be unreliable.

That way lies madness (and sweaty palms).

24 minutes ago, VooDooNut said:

they are allowed to clean themselves

The show demonstrated in this episode that the sul'dahm sponge-bathe their damane.

1 hour ago, Samt said:

They even acknowledged that Nynaeve's resurrection in S1E8 was a mistake

1) Nynaeve didn't die

2) Resuscitation isn't resurrection 

3) The thing that they acknowledged as a mistake was the level of prosthetic makeup/CGI enhancement they used during the scene 

4 minutes ago, DreadLord31 said:

we can go back and read that you were SURE that the in the show Moiraine was stilled

I never once said that I believed she'd been Stilled; what I have consistently said is that the writers approached the crafting of her story from the perspective of her having been Stilled. I also acknowledged the possibility of said perspective being revealed to have been a red herring.

Assumptions (a lot of them wrong) about what changes the show has or hasn't made aren't sufficient justification to automatically behave as if everything that we're being told/shown is misleading.

In-universe, the show's version of the collar is a seamless unbroken circlet that does not physically open (the physical, practical prop itself would have to).

9 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:

i can't accept it because the collar makes it impossible for the damane to change clothes. even if they were to not wash, the cloth would still decay in a few years

And?

That's the point. The damane don't need to be able to change their clothing.

1 minute ago, SinisterDeath said:

Same reason people didn't accept the lore in the show that said Moiraine was stilled.

That's not lore; that's crafting the story from a specific perspective knowing that said perspective is in fact a red herring.

Why is it so difficult for some to accept that, in the lore of the show, the collars cannot be removed without first kilking the people wearing them?

@DreadLord31 It's literally part of Sharon Gilham's job description to know (or develop) the lore behind the things she's designing. Her statement - second-hand or otherwise - that the collar portion of the a'dam can't be removed while a damane is still alive is as absolutely binding as if the info came from Rafe or Sarah (Nakamura).

5 minutes ago, Finnssss22 said:

If it's the same in the show as in the books

It's not.

Quote

and i don't see why it wouldn't be

Because the show's version of the a'dam's collar portion is a seamless unbroken circlet that doesn't physically open, but instead literally morphs itself to fit around the neck.

1 minute ago, DreadLord31 said:

I don’t know why you think death is the only way to remove it?

See the article I linked to above.