14 hours ago, EmreY said:

In all this discussion of accents, how is it that no-one mentions the Universal Translator aspect of having averyone across an entire continent speaking the same language?  Even if they all spoke the same before the Breaking, that and the wars and splintering that followed would have created far greater divergences than after, say, the fall of Western Rome (and double the time has passed since the Breaking).

5 hours ago, AdamA said:

This one is just a limitation of writers. Constructing languages is difficult if you're almost anyone but Tolkien. It's probably better that RJ mostly did not bother to try, but yes, in reality there is no way the Sharans and Seanchan would still speak the same language as the mainline characters after a thousand plus years with no contact. As it stands in our world, Middle English didn't even exist yet a thousand years ago.

One of the ways Jordan minimized that effect was by having various periods throughout that 3,000 years of history where the nations were all in regular contact with each other - even having a single empire unifying the entire continent for a time.  Even at the present time, there is trade via river and ocean that spans everything from the Borderlands to the Sea of Storms.  And the effect of the White Tower would be similar.

In real life, it wouldn't be enough, but it would have at least some ameliorating effect.

Another thing would be the effect of the underlying history of the Old Tongue in every current land.  Kind of the way all the Romance languages today are at least somewhat mutually intelligible, even though they are clearly different.

It also wouldn't be enough in real life, but I don't think I've ever encountered a work of fantasy that handles languages realistically.  Lord of the Rings explored languages more than most, but that was Tolkien's avocation.  But even in Middle Earth, everyone could talk to each other - and they all started out different.

It's actually something Game of Thrones did better than others, with different lands having different languages.  And the Mother of Dragons needing an interpreter.

14 hours ago, Andra said:

The way we learn she can channel is by her nonchalantly igniting multiple wall torches simultaneously, without setting fire to anything else in the hallway by accident.  Given what we are told in the books, that would have taken excellent control and dexterity with the Power, if not necessarily great strength.  And it meant she was actually quite proficient at using "weaves inside a building with friendlies."

 

Sorry, but what we see in the show means precisely the opposite of what you imply.

 

Is it true that she was ordered to do something else - something she would have been completely useless at without Nynaeve and Egwene's presence?  Absolutely.

 

And that's the problem.

Again.

3 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

In a calm environment with no pressure or time constraints, sure.  I'm a hobbyist Archer.  I can go out to range, take a moment to warm up and then hit multiple stationary targets no problem.  If you put me in a battle situation with people trying to kill me, friendlies and enemies running around and crossing in and out of each other, I don't think I'd do nearly as well, would I?

 

That depends - did you have to go through the same kind of intense training we know is required to earn that Ring?  Including passing the extremely stressful testing to be raised Accepted?  She didn't get it by doing nothing but the equivalent of hitting stationary targets at a range.

She isn't remotely a "hobbyist."

We're told she left the Tower because she wasn't strong enough, not because she wasn't skilled enough.  Knowing how to lead a Link shows us that she was capable.  And she had experienced trolloc raids before.  So she understood danger and pressure even outside her Tower training with the Power.

Yes, I'm using book knowledge to explain something the show doesn't.  But you're doing the opposite - denying book knowledge when the show doesn't.  Unless and until the show says otherwise, the background info should be what the books say it is.  And from what the books tell us, she would have been far better used helping get the Horn to safety than burning thousands of Shadowspawn on a battlefield.

Which you've already acknowledged she couldn't have done without Nynaeve and Egwene's strength, and had no way of knowing about ahead of time.

7 hours ago, WhiteVeils said:

She wasn't ordered to do anything. She was in command.  She chose to make her last stand in front of her city rather than watch it fall. 

She was "ordered" to use the women and children to protect the city after all the foreigners got out.

She was in command of that effort - because she was given command.

8 hours ago, Sir_Charrid said:

I would actually challenge if Bezos himself had anything to do with the acquiring of rights, he runs a multi billion dollar set of companies and I very much doubt he is so embedded in the minutia of deciding which shows do and do not get made. Amazon Prime itself is actually the lesser of his revenue creators. For a long time now Amazon has effectively been a web hosting company with a tiny corner shop attached in terms of revenue generation. 

Bezos is documented to have both used the term "Next Game of Thrones" in meetings going over future productions and to have even gone so far as to create a list of 13 characteristics any show should have to qualify.

And we also know that Bezos had the final say on acquiring the rights from Jordan's estate.

This isn't remotely speculation.

10 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

So yeah... I mean if we're just going to take quotes from Rafe and say "nah I don't believe that's what happened" then there's no real discussion to be had here.

It's not that he's contradicting the statements from Bezos and Price, it's that he's using the term differently.  Just as people questioning the criticism have done in this thread.

In that interview, Judkins is specifically saying that WoT isn't that similar to GoT in its details or the overall kind of story it is.  While what Price and Bezos specifically meant was how much of a blockbuster it should be, and the formula for getting there.

Not being one doesn't mean it isn't intended to be the other.

9 hours ago, EmreY said:

 

I very much doubt Tear will be season 4.  There's a high probability it will be 2.

Taking the Stone might be in season 2.

But the piles of books come after that.  I doubt they would try to squeeze that in until 3.

24 minutes ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

Right... but why is the show being criticised for not being something that it hasn't tried to be? 

 

And why would the studio go ahead with the production and demand that it's like GOT, if it was explicitly made clear in the pitch that the show isn't going to be GOT? 

 

I'm struggling to understand the point of this criticism levelled at the show, especially when there's plenty of other stuff to critique it on. I can understand saying Bezos wants a show like GOT, and this isn't it - but I don't really see why the show should be criticised for that. 

Do you really think that if you were pitching a show to Jeff f*ing Bezos and he said, "I'll give you 10 million per episode if you give me the next Game of Thrones," that you would tell him No?

Do you really think Rafe did? 

And again, it's not that Bezos wanted a show that was literally like GoT.  He wanted something that was that much of a blockbuster - whatever it was.

Duplicate post

1 hour ago, EmreY said:

 

You might be right, but after more than a pages of "we want Errol Flynn" in this and other threads, I thought it might be an idea to remind people that there are other aspects that are just as important.  And if they're just as important, and people aren't concerned by their absence from the TV series, then doesn't it all boil down to "I just want my favourite bits in the series or they're not going to be good"?

It's not that people aren't concerned about the absence of his reading, it's that it doesn't really become a part of his arc until after he takes the Stone of Tear.  When he starts trying to figure out what he's supposed to do next.

The sword - and everything that goes along with it - is supposed to be happening now.

Remember that this thread is about season 2, not season 4.

So no, it doesn't just boil down to people wanting their favorite things (though of course everyone does).  It boils down to "this important thing should be happening now, while that important thing should happen two seasons from now."

Now if you want to talk about a story arc that should have already been heavily into books, it's Loial's.

And given that lack so far, I don't really have any confidence we'll see Rand with piles of books in the Stone, either.  Or his "Academies."  Or Min curled up in a chair with Herid Fel's philosophy books.  Or Master Fel at all.

Which will be a disappointment.

But only one of many.

48 minutes ago, EmreY said:

 

I would argue that his ravenous reading is much more critical.  We were robbed by merely seeing him with a book in his hand.  I demand that we have an entire episode dedicated to his rummaging through the library at Tear.  And then let us not forget his setting up of centres of learning.  Another episode to discuss the importance of education.  Etc etc.

And I would argue that satire is lost on a format like this.

5 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

Amalisa and the other two were not useful strength wise.  Amalisa had training that when combined with Nynaeve and Egwene's power made her formidable.   Her destruction was done in an open area with no concern for collateral.  Not the same as trying to target weaves inside a building with friendlies.

The way we learn she can channel is by her nonchalantly igniting multiple wall torches simultaneously, without setting fire to anything else in the hallway by accident.  Given what we are told in the books, that would have taken excellent control and dexterity with the Power, if not necessarily great strength.  And it meant she was actually quite proficient at using "weaves inside a building with friendlies."

Sorry, but what we see in the show means precisely the opposite of what you imply.

Is it true that she was ordered to do something else - something she would have been completely useless at without Nynaeve and Egwene's presence?  Absolutely.

And that's the problem.

Again.

1 hour ago, expat said:

"Shifty" and "lazy" certainly have racist undertones when used to describe a group.  Remember American history when immigration in the 1800s switched from mostly Northern European to Southern and Eastern European.  Everyone was white, but the abuse and discrimination against the Italians, Poles, etc was still racist. 

 

If you want to use another word than racist, fine.  It was still the case that the book centric EF characters looked down on whole groups (families) using disparaging language often found in racist arguments. Were they a valid description of the Coplins/Congars? Who knows since the books never addressed it other than the put-downs.  Just seemed out of place and unnecessary.

 

Bad people exist and there is nothing wrong with pointing out their problems. When you extend those issues to everyone in an extended group, you are flirting with danger.  

"Shifty" and "lazy" don't have racist undertones unless they are assigned to an ethnic group.  Otherwise, they are just disparaging terms that are applied to individuals.

Noting that certain characteristics run in families is not in itself racist - particularly since the Congars and Coplins are the same "race" as everyone else in the Two Rivers.  Except Rand.

Any more than noting that the Hatfields and McCoys had "issues" is racist.

44 minutes ago, Andra said:

I would clarify that, though the statement wasn't made in any promotional materials, it was absolutely made in interviews.  So referring to it is fair.

33 minutes ago, psmith1990 said:

By someone in charge of the actual show? I understand the usefulness of making comparisons, I do. It's shorthand. I just think critiquing it because it's not something it isn't necessarily trying to be is odd?

That depends on whether you consider Roy Price (head of Amazon Studios) or even Bezos himself to be "in charge of the actual show."

Price gave interviews in 2017 using the term, and Bezos is quoted in a book (confirmed by people directly involved) to have said it repeatedly through the years since.  Even setting up a list of thirteen points GoT had that he felt were important for any pitched IP to have going for it.

Jeff Bezos Wants Amazon to Make the Next 'Game of Thrones' | Inc.com

Every TV Show Trying To Be The Next Game Of Thrones (& Why They'll Fail) (screenrant.com)

It's not that Rafe pitched it that way so much as that it's what Bezos was demanding when Rafe pitched it.

11 minutes ago, psmith1990 said:

 

That was the impression I got too. Is it then fair to mock WoT for not being GoT by saying 'HA THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE NEW GOT BUT ARENT' (by whatever metric we're using) when they never said that in the first place? I guess, for me, I think it just makes more sense to praise or criticise a series on its own merits and flaws, especially if part of the critique is shaming it for not living up to expectations we ourselves have imposed on it. 

 

I DO think there's an interesting discussion that can be had regarding fantasy TV and the inevitable comparisons (there are some decent articles about that) and even how much television consumption, broadcast and streaming, has changed - or not - since GOT first premiered, to be fair, and I do think Bezos can be laughed at for his presumption. I'm just not sure I'm as keen on using that to critique the showrunner or writers, etc, when there are plenty of other ways to do so. 

I would clarify that, though the statement wasn't made in any promotional materials, it was absolutely made in interviews.  So referring to it is fair.

Especially since much of the criticism on sites like this one are about how the decisions they have made take it away from that goal.

And why threads in this forum keep devolving into discussions about ratings and reviews.  Because that is what Bezos was specifically looking for.  Not just a "fine" show, but a "blockbuster."

33 minutes ago, Jsbrads2 said:

There is this great line in another show, something like, “you sound a bit northern” to which the response was “Where I come from has a north too.”

I like all the different ideas, but RJ never really bothered to go out of his way for most of the cultures. These people sound a bit like their, those people sound a bit like their land. But when it came to particularly Illian and Seanchan, RJ went out of his way to stress their different speech.

looking forward to what they do, but understand practical and etc. 

Do you have any accents in your mind from when you read the books?

It's a little odd for me, going over my headcanon for the accents.

For some of the cultures, I imagine their accents as being similar to real-world people with similar physical appearance.  For others, I imagine it as being similar to real-world people with similar cultures.

In my head, Cairhienin look east Asian, and so sound that way.  Even though the Shienarans have the most Asian culture.  On the other hand, in my head Aiel look Irish, but sound like a cross between Native American and north African - the way I picture their culture.

Tairens, with their darker skin and oiled beards, always sounded (and looked) like Spaniards.

Andorans are plainly English.

And let's not run this thread off into another discussion of ratings.

Or it will just get locked as well.?

1 hour ago, psmith1990 said:

 

Just curious. Is there any promotional material 'they' (Rafe? Amazon?) released which actually 'bills' WoT as the 'next Game of Thrones'? Or is that coming solely from Jeff Bezos comparing the properties in so much as he wanted his own GoT? Because for me, the expectations set would differ quite a lot dependent on that answer. And what about the two properties and their respective successes and failures we're measuring, too. 

 

Certainly, if it WAS another GoT (either S1 OR S8), I personally wouldn't have been very interested in checking it out. Period. And that's the thing. What attracts us to either/both the books and show is likely to be very different from fan to fan - in terms of what characters we want focused on most, what plot or arcs we see as indispensable, what beats we think should be hit, our willingness to potentially add material to build the world whilst removing other material that someone has deemed less necessary, or not, etc.

I'm not aware of any specific promotional material that made the comparison.  Which is kind of understandable, as doing so would only draw attention to the competitor you want to surpass.  Not something that is generally done if you actually expect to surpass it.

The comparison is based on statements about what Bezos expected out of it, and even about what he said he wanted before acquiring the rights.

Not because of the similarity of the content, but because if what he wanted as far as popularity.  Which means it's not a specific season of GOT that he was referring to, or about what kind of character or world development he wanted, just the overall buzz.

1 hour ago, Andra said:

The entire point of this topic is comparisons between the show and the books, and how the show could have done it better than it did.  Given that, the comparison is completely valid.

40 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

The broader point yes.  This particular issue is about the Horn.

Yes.  The particular issue of how they could have done the horn better than they did.  Which is what everyone talking about it is doing.

42 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

If your argument was "they should have just left it unknown like in the books"  you'd have an argument.  But instead you said "Having it lost in a place where the Shadow can find it isn't any worse than not knowing where it is at all."   That's only a fair comparison if both were options IN universe.  They aren't.  The options were trying to get it to safety or leaving it to fall to the shadow, those were the only two options.  So you can't compare the third option that was not on the table in universe for these people.}

Neither of those were my argument.

My argument is that leaving it safely where the Shadow doesn't know about it is better than bringing it out in the open in circumstances that insufficiently protected it from getting into the hands of darkfriends they already knew were around.

If the show still decided it had to be dug up and moved, it would have been better (as others in this thread have said) to protect it with a large enough force that a couple of darkfriends - even with Fades - could just walk up and take it from them.

Failing that, it would have been better to leave it where it was, because the Shadow didn't know about it yet (as far as they had any reason to suspect.)

We don't know it right now, because the show hasn't said it yet, but we can guess that the only reason Fain knew to come for it is because Ingtar told someone.  And the only reason Ingtar would have known to tell someone is because Agelmar told him he wanted it moved.  

If Agelmar doesn't make that decision, the Shadow never hears about it.

In the book, no one - neither the Light nor the Shadow - knew where it was until it was found in the Eye.  At that point, keeping it a secret became a problem.  A straightforward and unforeseeable risk that there was little time to address, but still wasn't ignored.

In the show, the risk was absolutely foreseeable, yet was ignored until it was too late to address.

Keeping the Horn in a place as close to the Blight as Fal Dara was inherently and unnecessarily risky.  Moving it under the circumstances shown was inherently and unnecessarily risky.  The need to bodge together a solution as bad as the one in the show was created by the changes the show made in the first place.  Changes it didn't have to make.

Incidentally, you really need to stop paraphrasing people, then claiming the paraphrase is what they actually said.  You keep doing it wrong.

8 hours ago, KakitaOCU said:

He is the head of the forerunners but that could be looped into one of the other seanchan, maybe Tuon's general.  Have him retreat instead of dying.

As for Rand earning his heron mark.  There were no witnesses, no one acknowledged the feat.  He's not actually acknowledged as a blademaster until his casual dual in book 7, even then, it's an informal statement by someone, not a true acknowledgement.

Beyond all that, him being a blademaster is cool but ultimately not important to the narrative. (note I said blademaster, not being a swordsman in general).

Earning the right to it is not the same as having that right acknowledged.  My point was that it's more about how he sees it himself than how others see it.  And at that point, the sword becomes his preferred weapon - even if it's a sword made of fire - rather than the bow.  Killing Turak gave Rand the awareness in himself that he uses immediately to fight "Ba'alzamon" with it.

Aside from the fact that Turak is the first human he actually kills with it.

Turak being a blademaster is critical to Rand's arc in the books. 

But we have no reason to think that part of the arc will remain in the show.  Considering that Lan hasn't trained any of them in the use of the weapons that most of them are no longer carrying.

54 minutes ago, Andra said:

So we can only compare something to itself?

How novel.

 

But even so:  in the TV verse, we were better off not knowing where the Horn was than we are now, knowing that Fain has it.

24 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Better choice of words on my part is comparing a situation to another situation in universe.  Your comparison requires people IN universe to understand multiverse theory and know about the different play out that happened in the books.  Without that knowledge the comparison isn't valid.

As for your second point.  It's invalid.  We didn't know Fain was going to come steal it prior to that event happening so you can't use that hind sight to justify your opinion.  A person who got in a car wreck running late to work would have been better off staying home, but they didn't know the car wreck was coming so it wasn't wrong of them at the time to try and get to work.

The entire point of this topic is comparisons between the show and the books, and how the show could have done it better than it did.  Given that, the comparison is completely valid.

As for my second point: the forces of men are objectively better off not knowing where the horn is - and more importantly for the Shadow also not knowing where the Horn is - than they are with giving it directly to the Shadow when they didn't have to.  That's not hindsight, it's objective fact.

Yes, something similar happened in the books.  But they hadn't known its location beforehand.  And in the books, they had made plans specifically to not leave it in Fal Dara, but had it stolen before they could carry them out.  There was never even a possibility it would be left there.

30 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

You have no way of validating the Shadow being stronger 2000 years prior vs now when the seals are weakening.  Ishamael was active during both times so they were at best the same then and now where as humanity is factually weaker.  Malkier is the only comparison because it's the only nation to fully lose to the shadow in the current setting and the only one that could have had retake attempts with the current time's Aes Sedai and Militaries.

The forces of the Shadow included many millions of trollocs invading lands throughout the continent, getting all the way to the southern coast.  That is far more than the few thousand that attacked Fal Dara through the Gap.  One of the things that is implied throughout the books is that in the intervening years trollocs didn't head south in force again partly because of how depleted the forces still were from the last time they did.  So they mostly (with a few notable exceptions) limited themselves to raids across the border.

We learn later that this isn't entirely the case, and that they had actually been rebuilding their numbers.  But no one - book or show - knew how much by this time.

But the comparison in that post wasn't about the relative strength of forces today vs. those of 2,000 years ago, it was about what happens when trollocs take land.  Which is what I was specifically responding to. 

Malkier wasn't retaken because there were no Malkieri left to retake it.

The same would not remotely have been true if Fal Dara had fallen.  The King, and a large number of additional Shienaran forces were a couple of days away.

35 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

You're mis-remembering what we were told.  The Tower didn't say they were too late while never trying.  The Tower let everyone think they didn't try because they thought that was better than the idea that the tower failed.  The reality is they sent over a hundred sisters who arrived too late to defend, but could have been there to retake if it was possible.  This is revealed in Chapter 25 of New Spring.

You're right, I had missed the statement made in New Spring.

Though I think the gist still holds.  Because they believed were too late when they arrived, they didn't actually try to do anything.

1 hour ago, Andra said:

My point was that "knowing the Horn was there" couldn't have been the reason the trollocs attacked the city.  Because they didn't know it was there.

43 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Hence my chalking it up to a misunderstanding and acknowledging it as a misunderstanding.  But given your clear statement here.  At what point did anyone suggest it was the reason for the Trolloc's attack?  

No one had suggested the Horn was the reason for the attack, which is why it was odd that you read my post as if it was saying someone had.

It was a response to the idea that if the city fell, it would mean the Shadow would find the Horn, and take possession of it.  The point was that it wouldn't be the case, because they had no reason to even suspect it was there to look for.

And you did just slightly more than chalk it up to a misunderstanding.  You claimed I had gone back and "conveniently" edited a post to change something I had never said in the first place.

The only misunderstanding was in what you thought I had written.

5 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

We don't know if they are going to give all the Damane the tattoos, or it's possible these ones were taken from Shara. I dunno

Those looked the sul'dam, not the damane.

Unless there are damane with the same tattoos, it would be impossible to pass one off as the other just by changing her dress and giving her a pacifier.

22 minutes ago, Rmp said:

So the show undeniably did well in terms of initial viewership - as I mentioned in another comment, between fandom hype, availability of Amazon Prime, and a huge marketing push, it's not surprising at all.

But there was a lot of "buzz" about The Rise of Skywalker. And....yeah. 

 

We can all sling various stats, figures, anecdotes, and personal opinions on the show all day long - the only true deciding factor it the overall performance and reception of season 2 when we get it. The show won't be able to rely as heavily on book fandom good will this time around, the quality of the first 2-3 episodes will probably decide the future of the show IMO.

Absolutely.

55 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

False equivalency.  You don't look at a situation compared to another situation, you look at it in it's own light.  Either way, incorrect conclusion.

Conclusion one: We can validly compare the two, in which case not knowing where it is is a better option than knowing it is in the hands of the shadow even if they don't realize it.

Conclusion two (correct): The fact is that the TV verse knows where the Horn is and doesn't know about the other turning of the wheel where they didn't.  You don't compare the situation to a non-existant what if, you compare the situation to the situation.

So we can only compare something to itself?

How novel.

But even so:  in the TV verse, we were better off not knowing where the Horn was than we are now, knowing that Fain has it.

55 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

The time 2000 years earlier where Aes Sedai were stronger as were nations?  That point aside, the Trollocs did not expand and hold, they rampaged.  Either way, Malkier is the comparison.

No, they tried to conquer and hold territory.

Driving out the last of them was kind of a big deal.  As was rebuilding cities the trollocs had destroyed when the land was reclaimed - like Fal Dara.  Or Ebou Dar.

Yes, the human forces were stronger 2000 years ago.  As were the forces of the Shadow all across the Westlands than a single force focused on just Fal Dara.

Malkier is only the comparison because you refuse to look at any other comparison.

55 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

How?  With what forces?  How fast can they mobilize?  If they could mobilize quickly there would have been discussion about it.

With the forces that are always available throughout Shienar, and can mobilize on a moment's notice.  Commanded by their King.  We know they can mobilize quickly because we know how the Borderlands work.  And because we know Agelmar originally expected the city to hold until those forces could arrive.

55 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Except we're discussing taking it back.  And in the case of Malkier, people came, Aes Sedai came.  They just came too later to defend.  So if taking it back is so easy, why didn't they?

No, the Aes Sedai didn't come to Malkier's aid.

We are told in the books explicitly that, though the Tower had told everyone they were too late to save them, they actually never tried.

And we're talking about a king taking back his own territory, rather than someone else's.  Which is a dramatically different thing.

1 hour ago, Andra said:

That's not at all what I said, and I'm baffled how you could have read it that way.

55 minutes ago, KakitaOCU said:

Yes, you did, you said there's no reason to go to the city unless they know about the horn.  You've now conveniently edited your post.  Given that we're not enemies or malicious, I'm going to assume you meant the way you've edited it and simply made the edit to be more clear in what you intended and it's a simple misunderstanding.  

Pardon my French, but bullshit.  That was never part of any of my posts.  And nothing I wrote could have been rationally interpreted that way.  Either before or after editing.

Though it is "convenient" that you didn't actually quote my post when you claimed it's what I said.

Even if it had been, the post you appear to have been talking about was edited 8 hours before you responded to it.

My point was that "knowing the Horn was there" couldn't have been the reason the trollocs attacked the city.  Because they didn't know it was there.

7 minutes ago, Rmp said:

Their methodology is....nebulous to say the least.

What is Demand? | Parrot Analytics Help Center

They don't measure viewership - they measure online engagement and demand, i.e., how much was the show talked about on social media, and try to correlate it as some metric of demand. The issue: its biased towards shows that have a weekly release, which create longer timeframes for online engagement. Also you'll notice they place Arcane in front of Squid Game, so they're clearly not measuring viewership.

 

Tldr; Parrot Analytics measures stuff like whether the name is being searched for on Google and (primarily) online chatter - including the negative kind.

 

On a side note; there was a pretty huge and humorous thread on r/television regarding these stats, with the overwhelming majority of top responses being something along the lines of "how?" or "it was meh".

 So "Demand" = "Buzz."

Which in the streaming world doesn't translate to $.

12 hours ago, EmreY said:

What is this, does anyone know?  And why?

 

Leane Sedai VFX setup

I suspect that's not from Wheel of Time, but from the new sci-fi series she's currently working on.  Where humans are genetically experimented on, and turned into "monsters."

IMDB: "The Imperfects"

If it's for something related to WOT, it may be a data capture session for design of her action figure.

Worst case scenario, it would mean she only appears in the show in later seasons as a full-CGI character. ?

1 hour ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

No showrunner making unnecessary changes just because they want too

Or even more - a showrunner that learned from negative response to the changes in the original movie, and changed them back.