For what it's worth, I read intimacy into the scene of Liandrin stroking Moiraine's face as well. Helped by Amazon's original Liandrin biography, which read in part: "she has a complex history with Moiraine; long ago they were close."

Yeah, previously it was almost perfect, being 5pm my time (in Australia) and now it's 10am. Which means a seven hour gap between when it airs and when I get home from work. So the new time isn't as ideal for everyone! That's always going to be the case, though.

3 hours ago, Guire said:

So with 8 seasons max.  More likely 5.  I think a better aproach is what will be kept.  I am guessing a fraction of total story and a fraction of characters.  Also Rafe is correcting toxic masculinity so Moraine, Egwene, Nyn, and possibly Elaine and Avhienda get some expansion of certain arcs while cutting others completely.  I think we get a lot less of territorial expansion. More Aes Sedai intetnal plotting. Great captains and borderlanders either gone or alluded to off screen.  Sea folk gone. Perrin may get decent arc in season 3 but post Battle for Two Rivers I think he becomes support team for struggling Rand.  Him and Avhienda may be faction of Avhiendas posse if Faile and Gaul never show up.  Elaine will be part of Egwenes faction teaching her to rule instead of Rand.  Possibly Egs love interest if Rand cycles through 3 lovers instead of being full polyamory.  Black Tower greatly reduced.  

 

Not sure if it spoils anything per se (?) but seeing as people have presumed this a couple of times now, as per Rafe's own social media

 

3 hours ago, Samt said:

So we can only discuss things that can be quantified and everyone agrees about? Beauty doesn’t exist? Love doesn’t exist? Meaning doesn’t exist?  
 

And I think you are exaggerating the degree to which people can’t agree. If you ask specific questions, you can get agreement. Does making Abel Cauthon a womanizer make the adaptation more or less faithful？What about giving Perrin a wife to kill?  Making those changes makes the adaptation less faithful. Maybe you think this isn’t important or that those are good changes that help in some way.  But it’s a bit obtuse to pretend that those aren’t actual changes that reduce the degree to which the adaptation follows the source material.

 

And for me, the decision to change Abel Cauthon's (a very minor character) character is something I'm not pro or against yet. I don't think it being 'unfaithful' is inherently a bad thing, especially if it later pays dividends. For example, if this leads to him later getting a character arc wherein he finds redemption  and/or we see the impact of a different upbringing on Mat's character in a way that might justify or explain some of his character in a nuanced way, I'd be very interested in seeing that onscreen. 

 

Quite honestly, adherence to the letter of the text is far from the most important thing to me because we all come from the books with different views on character, dynamics, plot, story, pacing, and the relative necessity and importance of them. If making material changes to the source text means we end up in a place where I think a favourite character's decisions make more sense (logically) or a dynamic is depicted in a way that feels more authentic (to me), I'm going to be all for it in a lot of cases. Selfishly. And because others might've interpreted a dynamic or motivation differently, those changes might feel unnecessary or unwanted even though I see them as the opposite. 

30 minutes ago, Samt said:

Like I said, canonically queer is a bit of a stretch. There is a passing hint that the characters experimented sexually as teenagers, years before the prequel and decades before the main story. We get not so much as a hint that either of them has the slightest thought about this during the timeframe of the books.  If you don’t read the prequel very carefully, you wouldn’t even suspect that there was anything.

 

They are canonically pillow friends. Pillow friends canonically have a sexual relationship as per RJ. Even ignoring that confirmation, it's pretty clear, surely, based on Moiraine's own inner thoughts when Cadsuane refers to them that way? I don't quite understand how it's a 'stretch'. Do you need an explicit sex scene, or for them to announce their sexual orientation? I know how RJ often framed pillow friends as gay until graduation, so to speak, but these two literally - within months - were pledging to share everything and were together all the time. They were novices for three years, accepted for another three, and were 'close' for a time after that as well. That's over SIX YEARS. That's not a sexual experimentation, lol, especially considering that Moiraine speaks to never having been closer to or loving anyone as much as Siuan. 

 

I quoted some of The Great Hunt in my earlier post because I love that chapter. A lot. 

 

[SPOILER ToM]

 

 

Moiraine and Siuan's relationship, in my reading, is foundational to New Spring, specifically, so I don't think their closeness is a blink and miss it type of thing. Or maybe it is and I'm just more attuned to it because I was so starved for representation. Who knows. Either way, it's canonical.

28 minutes ago, Samt said:

Canonically queer is a bit of a stretch.

 

Spoilers for New Spring, I guess. Just character/relationship quotes.

 

 

1 minute ago, Samt said:

Some people like being pandered to. No shame in that.  It’s fantasy.

 

Can we not with the condescending tone? I love WoT and I had zero expectations of Episode 6 and the snideness as though I'm just some demographic to pander to is rough. 

 

Or MAYBE just MAYBE they looked at two characters who are canonically queer and in a relationship in one of the books (and even if they weren't, loved the other person above all others), and thought continuing that relationship through to the current time was both good representation AND interesting for the plot and characters going forward. 

 

If they choose to include moments or character beats you consider interesting or relevant or important or that you feels represents you in some way or that you've always head-canoned, does it mean they're inherently pandering to you? 

59 minutes ago, Samt said:

It’s tawdry and gross because it’s clearly a sex scene for the sake of having a lesbian sex scene. It doesn’t add complexity or interest to the characters or story. In fact, it undermines them.  That feels like shallow pandering. 
 

Yes, in real life it’s valid to make the argument that the sexual nature of their relationship is not really a huge increased risk. But including it in the story undermines the narrative and nature of their characters.  It looks like they took time to add a lesbian sex scene because they thought it would check a box.  

 

Can you elaborate on how it's even a 'sex scene'? Because honestly, it was like one kiss, followed by a fade to black; and a huge percentage of the scene was focused on the reliability of prophecy, the potential of stilling, the consequences of their plans, backgrounding the Eye, etc. And a sex scene, grounded in character work and plot, WHICH IT WAS, isn't inherently tawdry or gross. If you're suggesting it's because it was because it wasn't het, that's another matter altogether and one I won't engage with.

 

For what it's worth, explicitly showing them as having a romantic relationship with each other (complete with physical affection, teasing and so forth) means a lot to me as a fan of these books. I don't feel pandered to; I feel validated and affirmed as someone who didn't understand why younger me was sooooo drawn to New Spring and Siuan and Moiraine's relationship. It ramps UP the nature of their sacrifice, places it in even higher import to me. 

 

I honestly just disagree that it somehow undermines the narrative and their character. The added fact that their relationship remained sexual, not platonic, isn't impactful on the crux of the matter - that if they're caught, if people become aware of their schemes (not that they had sex for the first time in years), they'll be stilled. That was the case in the book series and remains the same for TV.

 

The fact that you're talking about 'box checking' and 'shallow pandering' really does make it clear what the issue is, however, so I might leave it there.

10 hours ago, Samt said:

  Hide contents

I felt that making the M/S relationship sexual in the present was tawdry and frankly gross for the character assassination that it perpetrates.  If you read, New Spring, you understand that Siuan and Moraine have given up several decades of their lives to the quest to find the Dragon and make sure that he is positioned to fulfill his mission.   They have set aside all other personal goals, desires, and passions in order to fulfill this mission.  They realize that this is their calling and that if they don't succeed, no one is coming to help them and nothing else matters.  

 

To have them maintain an illicit sexual relationship undercuts all of that.  One of the interesting themes of the books is how even in times of existential crisis, people can't put aside their personal desires and wellbeing.  The leaders of the world and many of the Ages Sedai can't seem to put aside small things in order to save the world and that almost destroys the world.  In the books, Moraine and Siuan have moved past that and are actually only interested in saving the world, whatever it costs them personally.  The sex scene ruins that.  

 

Of course, if the purpose of the scene was to make Moraine and Siuan seem more selfish and less altruistic, maybe that is an interesting change.  But it doesn't seem that this was at all the point.  There is no judgment for the fact that Siuan and Moraine are literally risking the fate of the world because they can't keep it in their pants.   

Some mild book spoilers.  

 

Mild NS/TGH, I guess:
 

 

And a quick, untidy transcript of the Q&A on Twitter for those who don't want to dig through the Twitter thread:

 

ALDEIB BETTER NOT DIE rafejudkins I'M TELLING YOU NOW

Rafe: I dunno about Aldeib but Aldieb will be fine 🤓

 

Which books make it into season 2?

Rafe: Pieces of 1,2 and 3.

 

Blink twice if we see more than one Forsaken!

Rafe: 😌😌

 

How much has the making of process changed in between seasons especially with how the pandemic affected season 1?

Rafe: It's certainly affected us in ways both huge and small, but by the end of Season Two it had become so second nature that MULTIPLE TIMES I poured a coffee into my mask and was confused why it didn't go into my mouth

 

What's your favourite scene with Donal Finn, and why is it him blowing the horn?

Rafe: #LetDonalToot is now the rallying cry of a generation

 

How far into the books will this season take us, know the EF5 are much more split up than EotW

Rafe: We are trying to get a fair amount of what's done in Books 1-3 (large parts still being held for later) by the end of S2 so that S3 can be a much closer adaptation of TSR

 

In comparison to season one, how much queer rep is there going to be?
Rafe: It depends on how many great memes you churn out.

 

favourite type of gin, and also, can you drop a hint about something you're looking forward to us seeing in season 2?

Rafe: Your pic makes me excited about where Liandrin's character goes in S2. We are so so lucky to have the amazing katefleetwood in the show and you will love, hate, and love to hate her LiLi

 

describe S2 using only alcoholic beverages please

Rafe: Spiked Kaf

 

favorite Season 2 two person scene with only the character names and no more

Rafe: Egwene Renna

 

Do the Seanchan still use the ball gags on the Damane?

Rafe: I've never seen a ball gag on a damane

 

Can you tell us how much you will be expanding on the forsaken in this season?

Rafe: It's a big point of difference from the books in S2. We will spend more time with any Forsaken who's in the show, more how the later books treat the Forsaken than necessarily Books 2 or 3 did

 

When will Rand's luscious curly locks return?

Rafe: Ask joshastradwski1. He should be growing them now 🙂

 

What new character/actor are you most excited to introduce us to?

Rafe: There are so man - Aviendha, Elayne, others that have been both announced but not announced, and of course Bayle Domon

 

Can you please tell us what Xelia Mendes-Jones will play please

Rafe: Xelia is playing the role of knocking their scenes out of the f-cking park every time they stepped on set.

 

How many episodes will Season 2 be? If only 8 again, will they be longer?

Rafe: They are longer than first season, but yes, still only 8.

 

Maybe you can open with an explanation of why you had the entire seanchan ever victorious navy unleash everything they had on a poor little girl on the beach, or how you had the forces of Fal Dara hard charging the BACK OF THEIR OWN DEFENSIVE FORTIFICATION

Rafe: That girl had it coming. So did the entire coastline and all its cities.

 

Pretty sure I saw Uno in the behind the scenes - interested in how that is possible after last season...

Rafe: He's breathing. Watch close

 

Are you aware that as the second RJ writer for WoT some parts of the fandom call you R2J2?

Rafe: No. But this is my best news of the week

 

What is the journey like for Moiraine and Lan in season 2 with their bond still masked

Rafe: Another big departure point for us from the books is making much more story for Moiraine and Lan. We aren't sitting these two amazing actors on the bench for a season, so we take what's in Book 2 for them and expand it in a huge way. That's all I can say.

 

Will we finally see Steve?

Rafe: How does this only have one like. Most important question

 

Since most of the main characters split up geographically at the beginning to tGH, will the next seasons keep them on parallel timelines for a convergence at Falme? In which case, the Portal Stones left a time gap of 4 months for Rand's group; easier to do on a page or on film?

Rafe: Time gaps are very difficult moving to the medium of television with the stories intercutting, but we try to do as much as we can to avoid one hour cross continent dragon flights

 

Which new cast member gave you the best "Yep! THAT'S (insert character name)!" moment in season 2 filming?

Rafe: I think this moment will be in the first or second trailer of season 2. It lives rent free in my mind at all times

 

Why did you guys decide not to make the dagger instant death like the books? How did Loial survive being stabbed by *the* dagger?

Rafe: That's a story best told in a stedding

 

I have to ask. Gawyn (and I guess the lesser brother Galad) actually beat Mat in the warder training yard in the show right? There's no way they lose on screen is there?

Rafe: This is an iconic scene from the book and we are building to a believable version of it in the show. Hopefully. Ha.

 

Does Mat get to wander the Tower practice yard, and do we learn of Jearom?

Rafe: Get your Origins on!!!

 

Will we get "Do you like to dance, Perrin Aybara"?

Rafe: Yes.

 

which character had his plot changed the most compared to the books?

Rafe: Mat. But we try to bring the characters back to where they should be by the end of S2.

 

Did everything happen as planned this season or did you guys have to change anything (as in the last 2 eps of season 1)?

Rafe: There were unforeseen changes as we shot S2 immediately after wrap of 107 and 108. But that's making television. Anyone who tells you there weren't unforeseen changes on their show is lying.

 

Are the Wheel of Time Origins canon to the tv show or just a pretty (amazing) side piece where the stories of origins aren't the mythology used in the show?

Rafe: Canon

 

Any hints on Moiraine's journey in season 2?
Rafe: It's much expanded from her Book 2 story. But built out of the core of that and of a couple relationships that were not explored in the books

 

Will there be a premiere where WoT youtubers will be invited to ask questions? I really like that for season 1, it was quite unique!

Rafe: I love having that! So here's hoping

 

How cool was it actually seeing a Fade nailed to a door? Did you pick up a hammer and help mount the fella?
Rafe: I genuinely loved it ha

 

please tell us gawyn won't be likable please please please you can't do this to me

Rafe: I love every character I write. I think you have to find a way to.

 

Will weaves appear the same in the coming season(s)? Congrats on S3 btw!

Rafe: They're getting a bit of a revamp for S2. Threads and colors and bears oh my. But no bears.

 

What was the scene you dreamed of bringing alive the most and have you filmed it yet?
Rafe: That scene is in the final episode of the show

 

First off, G&T is divine. Second, I want to know if you get more chances to expand the dialog more to let us see the characters better? 

Rafe: We are always try to. Lots of one on one scenes that didn't get shot or didn't make the cuts. But I'm always fighting for them, I think that's where the characters really live or die, and our actors can always deliver when it's just 2 people in a room taling

 

Will we see more than one of these cities in season 2? Cairhien, Tear, Falme

Rafe: Yes

 

Early S3 renewal?

Rafe: Yep!!! Thanks PrimeVideo!!

 

Hopper?

Rafe: THANK YOU. WHY IS NO ONE EVER GIVING HOPPER THE RESPECT HE DESERVES. OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: HOPPER IS IN S2

 

Are you sticking with the fun cold opens?

Rafe: Yep! It's our ode to the out of POV chapters in the books and we will always have them

 

The most pressing question of all, will the Seanchan have Texas accents?! Please sarahenakamura I have to know

Rafe: Yes and no

 

Does Rand get his Red and Gold outfit this season? I can't wait to see Josha officially in it 🥺

Rafe: 🤗

 

Is the Darkfriend Social gonna be in the show?

Rafe: Yep

 

Is Liandrin's friend a <ahem> North Harbor friend, a Darkfriend, or both?
Rafe: I wouldn't tell you even if you used a weave of compulsion

 

I have a cheat question about season 1. What was the biggest change in episode 8 that was brought by COVID restrictions compared to what you had originally planned?

Rafe: The thing I like the least was we originally had Egwene using the Wisdom skills she'd learned in the pilot from Nynaeve to help her after the channeling in Fal Dara. But last minute Covid changes on the day didn't allow for the same amount of touching so it got switched and I *melting face emoji*

 

Are we going to hear more about Moiraine's dog, Jenny? A few of us had some theories that there may be more to that story...
Rafe: Please make rammypark do an Origins episode about this

 

IS SHE STILLED OR SHIELDED?!

Rafe: Dinner time! Thanks everyone. Gonna try and carve out some more time to get online and chat between seasons this year. It's always fun interactng with #TwitterOfTime

We also know the original 101 script included Egwene

after the 'take it' line so it's more likely, IMO, directly referential of that than what people are inferring re. murder, it seems. See below for script:

 

 

12 hours ago, DojoToad said:

I imagine that many of us had different pictures.  I pictured a 20-something Linda Carter.  Pale skin aside, I also could see Halle Berry or Priyanka Chopra.

 

But I think no matter who they cast, a lot will depend on the make-up department.  Said this before - they did Rosamund Pike no favors in the show.  Everything else I've seen her in she was stunning.  Maybe they didn't want her beauty to be a distraction?

 

Or maybe she's also distractingly stunning in WoT? I was quite frankly on board the minute they gave us the opening shot of shoulders/back, suspenders and cloak... Each to their own though, lol. I kind of appreciated, from episode to episode (bar when she was in Tar Valon), seeing her getting dirtier and more bedraggled. Let the woman have a rest.

 

Personally, I also always assumed/headcanoned pale skin, dark hair and eyes, and relatively slim, though still with shapely hips and chest, shall we say. But I'm pretty easily pleased and have been happy with casting this far, so remain optimistic re. casting Lanfear and other Forsaken. 

6 hours ago, Andra said:

I may be reading too much in to Loial's admittedly distracted description of "perfect human beauty, in face and form."

Which is a description I don't recall ever hearing applied to Keira Knightley.  Nor could I imagine it to be.

"Boyish" is more common, I believe.

 

The 14 year old me would strongly disagree, and 'boyish' and 'perfect human beauty' might, to some, not be mutually exclusive. Just a heads up...

 

All that to say, obviously that kind of description as quoted above is inherently so subjective that I can't imagine a casting that pleases all, nor a casting that one person thinks is perfect automatically working for all.

16 minutes ago, Dead Warder said:

A very objective and solid basis, I do appreciate that perspective. Much thanks on your reply. While I definitely did not enjoy the WoT show, I occasionally do appreciate other works' adaptations and fan fiction. 

 

Thanks. I'm all for fanfiction, interpretations and adaptations, whatever we choose to specifically call them. It's something that's been occurring for millennia in whatever form. I mean, Dante's Inferno? Milton's Paradise Lost? Malory's Le Mort d'Arthur? Obviously not as beautiful or skilled as Rafe's attempt on Amazon, but still, eh. ?

 

Seriously, though, both properties can happily co-exist. It doesn't mean that every person will like both because there'll inevitably be differences and different people are drawn to different things. If, say, positive LGBTQIA+ representation in what you're consuming matters to you, you may find the show an improvement in some ways. If, however, you latched onto something like the description of certain battle scenes or Mat and Rand's many stops on the way to Caemlyn, there'll potentially be big gaps in your enjoyment when it comes to said show. For me, I enjoy both for different reasons. And for the aspects of the story I love that I want more of, well, yes, there's fanfiction. It all builds on something I love, grows it out, and that doesn't negate or disappear the original text! 

23 minutes ago, Dead Warder said:

My only fear is that someday, someone(s) will take property of the novels (or any novel for that matter) and have the freedoms to rewrite e.g. adapt them into changed storylines. Following actions with taking Jordan's original work and labeling that as non-canon - much alike what Disney's pseudo attempt was at erasing history but settled with dividing Star Wars Canon from Legends.

 

One day, if we continue our current course of rewriting history, it may become legal to do just that... buy out IP from a novel series, rewrite it and then attempt to make the original obsolete.

 

Just an unfounded fear that keeps me up somewhere between 2.3 - 4.1 hours every night.

 

Or you end up with two classics ala Wuthering Heights and Wide Sargasso Sea - both of which stand well on their own as pieces of artistic literature, but also work in concert in a way that allows us to examine social mores, commentary on changes in attitude to colonialism and other issues, etc. 

 

While I understand the concern over IPs and making sure original works are kept and preserved, I don't particularly see any reason to fret when it comes to WoT. Fanworks and adaptations will always exist and more often than that are created out of love of the original work, even if exceptions occur if a property is very commercially viable. And even if we choose not to accept that love because it's visibly different than our own or the result of it is something that we find frustrating and/or an anathema. 

2 hours ago, VooDooNut said:

I appreciate what you've said here, especially the remarks about Robert's original series remaining successful regardless of how the show is received. Whether a person finds the TV show to be good, bad, or ugly, there shouldn't be any reason to feel like the original books written by Jordan are under any kind of assault. On the contrary, as you noted, I find it refreshing to have a TV adaptation to compare/contrast to my favorite fantasy book series.  And I agree, the casting/acting was my favorite part of the show (so far).

 

Thanks. I sort of get it if people bristle at the idea that it somehow 'taints' the original work, but that's just not how I see adaptation, personally. I can't understate how much I love being able to go into my local small bookshops and seeing literally the entire series lined up and displayed prominently. That hasn't been the case for me for a long time (they'd often have EoTW but that's it), so I'm all for increased interest in the books, even if that comes through an adaptation that some aren't keen on, tbh.

 

For me, a lot of the enjoyment is because of the changes not in spite of them - in two ways. The books, while I adore them, aren't perfect pieces of literature and so some changes I see as improvements while others very much aren't. However, having changes to different aspects of the books (for whatever reason) also means that there's also more to discuss, and reading discussion, even arguing over certain choices and possibilities for future plot, is a huge part of the fun for me. 

On 4/18/2022 at 5:10 AM, RGD 675 said:

Have you thought about how badly the writers are going to have to omit from the books or outright make up more lies since they began lying from the start? ie. Perrins character? He wasn't married, didn't kill his wife, accidentally or otherwise, didn't have a beard, wasn't the village blacksmith, merely an apprentice, etc. How are they going to write Faile into future episodes? Just make up even more lies? Why base the series on the WOT at all?  

Every major character has been twisted into someone else.

It's barely recognizable and the casting is way off. RJ was quite specific in describing everyone.

GOT at least stayed mostly true to the written word. This series I just see an endless series of future lies.

 

You do know that altering storylines, adding or removing characters, changing a plotline, etc, when adapting for a television show isn't a 'lie', right? Nobody is trying to intentionally mislead or tell a false statement, for crying out loud. The books still exist and are being promoted through the existence of an additional piece of media, one which is designed to complement, not negate. 

 

It was always inevitable that things would change, and while I can totally understand if some fans can't bear the changes they have made (whether character, plot, or even change in perceived emphasis on a theme or trait), I maintain that saying it's 'barely recognisable' isn't accurate. Certainly, for me, the casting - for the most part - is one of the stronger elements of the show, and I've not had any huge moments of despair that what I'm seeing doesn't match what 13 year me imagined in my head at the time. We all imagine differently, and, after all, even some of the now quite old fancastings Jordan himself engaged in don't match the specificity you describe from the book. 

 

I tried watching GoT and frankly, while it may be more 'true to the written word', it's not the type of show I have any interest in, especially the later seasons, and I get far more enjoyment from WoT. I certainly don't feel 'lied' to. 

On 4/16/2022 at 3:28 AM, DojoToad said:

Hard to know.  If your first exposure was to the show you might not like the books - they are too different.  I imagine that some people like both, but am guessing that is rare that people actually love both.

 

*raises hand* Tis me, someone that loves both. Genuinely. Became a fan of the books when I was thirteen, fourteen, thereabouts (and re-read more recently), and managed to enjoy every episode of the television show, though obviously some more than others. Wasn't particularly difficult to do, nor did the enjoyment give me any confusion or headaches. Have rewatched all episodes again, plus E4-6 thrice, and enjoy consuming content and discussion of both media. It becomes a little tiresome to continue seeing the presumption that one can't be a fan of both, that one simply must be disappointed in the show if you truly like the books, etc. I don't find that to be the case, personally, though I have no problem whatsoever if that's true for others. 

12 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

No it doesn't have to be the same.

 

But let's take egwene for example.

She went from someone who saw a chance at power and was willing to throw her old life away from it pretty much right out of the gate by her own choice and forced her way into the fellowship leaving EF.

 

too someone who had to leave no matter what, and near the end season 1 and even was the cause for a very poorly written scene that reads like a cw show love triangle.

 

Perrin went from someone who was deliberately thoughtful because of his large size, but willing to protect his friends

 

To someone who fridged his wife and didn't do a single thing while egwene busted them free of the white cloak camp. 

 

Neither of these changes were an improvement of the source material in the slightest.

 

Is it possible that the same character trait can be seen in multiple scenes or scenarios? If so, does it hurt the story or development that whilst the characterisation is still there (it's made very explicit that settling down with kids in EF like Rand wants isn't what she saw for herself - I certainly don't see her initial desire to leave being her wanting "a chance at power"), being ta'veren is in ADDITION to her wanting to go along on the journey? I know there were complaints about the mention of Jain Farstrider in the context it was made, but again, it's part of that same attempt to show Egwene's character so that it's consistent with what you seem to think was stripped away by making her ta'veren. 

 

I'm personally not a fan of the choice they made re. Perrin/Laila, but I also don't think it was character assassination, nor do I think his behaviour in the camp somehow means he's no longer 'willing to protect his friends' and that trait isn't or won't be shown in other contexts. One doesn't necessarily negate the other. I guess, for me, these changes are more on a spectrum. There are ones I strongly like or dislike, but some, while I don't see as an improvement per se, they also don't change things majorly for me. In those cases, usually I can see why it as done - whether to change the pace of character development or because of the visual medium, etc. 

2 hours ago, Andra said:

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.

 

Judkins addresses both uses. He explicitly says what you're saying, but also discusses the comparisons in terms of 'blockbuster':

 

 "I think when people say they're looking for the next Game of Thrones, often they mean something that pops the cultural bubble and exists in a hugely global space... I think the next thing that does that will be a totally different kind of show. It could be about Danish soccer players, I don't know what it'll be."

 

Implicit in that is an acknowledgement that WoT isn't going to be that, regardless of how many meetings Bezos said he wanted it in, surely? I just think there are plenty of ways to critique the show without dragging the showrunner for not achieving something he's never, as far as we can tell, tried to achieve. 

12 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.

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."

 

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? I mean, in terms of wanting audience numbers and buzz, yes, of course it wants that. Any property would. But wanting that success doesn't drive the methods behind decisions regarding character or plot anymore than it would in any other television show, I don't think. It's not being arrogant, from what I can tell, and it's not special in that regard. Of course Bezos will have a different view of things, though. I don't think it's a blockbuster at all, but I think it has good roots and room to grow, and I enjoyed it as something quite a lot more than 'fine', personally. It's the blanket statements and professions of objectivity that sometimes frustrate. 

 

Regarding the below, Rafe very clearly and explicitly says when he pitched it, it wasn't as "the next Game of Thrones" and implicitly states that even in terms of phenomenon, WoT won't be that. So I can't see the hubris others seem to, frankly.

 

https://www.cbr.com/wheel-of-time-rafe-judkins-game-of-thrones-comparisons/

 

In a Nov. 19 interview with The Ringer, Judkins was asked whether all the talk about Thrones in reference to The Wheel of Time was helpful or whether it was a burden. "I find it exclusively an oppressive burden," he laughed. "To be honest, the show is really not, and the books are not like Game of Thrones, and I said that to Amazon right up front. I was like, 'If you are looking for the next Game of Thrones, this isn't it. What I'm going to pitch you is a series that is really different.'"

 

Judkins also shared his thoughts on what it meant to replicate the success of a TV phenomenon, and how it's more than copying the same genre. "I think when people say they're looking for the next Game of Thrones, often they mean something that pops the cultural bubble and exists in a hugely global space... I think the next thing that does that will be a totally different kind of show. It could be about Danish soccer players, I don't know what it'll be."

 

As a fan of fantasy literature, Judkins didn't show any distaste for George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire books or the HBO series based on them. "I loved the Thrones books, and then loved the adaptation too. So I was like, 'I love this, but it's not what this is, and I'm not going to make it this. So if we engage in this together, do it knowing that you're bringing something else that's really amazing to life, which is The Wheel of Time, which is in so many ways a pillar of fantasy literature that has never been adapted.'"

 

1 minute ago, Andra said:

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.

 

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. 

32 minutes ago, SharSheen Veren said:

Welcome psmith1990!  American (about half UK- English, Irish, Welsh and Scotch)  There are many here on Dragonmount who know so many details of the series so I generally lurk and pop in here and there.  Looking forward to your contributions.  

 

Thanks! Ha, a veritable blender. My genes are a tad more boring - one grandparent was from Manchester, another from Dundee, and my Mum spend some of her childhood growing up there before moving back here. 

 

My brain has pretty poor recall on a lot of things, so I'm definitely less likely to go charging into book discussions, tbh; a lot of my reading took place a long time ago and there are many on here who could probably write twenty dissertations on material I forgot even existed... 

9 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

...and actually from perrin and egwenes perspective, a character regression from the books

Rafe was the one who said mat was the character who was the darkest despite 14 books to the contrary... 

 

When examining character progression (and regression), does it have to mirror the books in that each character should be at the exact same place at the end of S1 as in EOTW? Narratively AND in terms of development? If so, what happens if there are, let's say, later books with much slower or even repetitive beats to hit? Should the show mirror that or maybe is it okay, hypothetically, to either slow down or even change narrative in S1 so that the character progression is more evenly spread through the entire series? Personally, I think adding in the mystery of who the Dragon Reborn is was a decent decision to provide a hook to structure and new viewers, but the major downside was that I do think it sometimes negatively impacted the ability to provide insight into each character in the same way the books can, even allowing for the immediate differences of page versus screen. 

11 hours ago, Cauthonfan4 said:

Exactly. They billed this as the next game of thrones and got Shannara chronicles instead. 

 

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.