I've been away, several issues not the least of which a de-laminating tyre causing 1000's in damage to my X5.

Paying work restarting, the boss away for 6 weeks and a desperate need to invest more time on my own writing.

I've had a quick perusal of a few messages here and it's clear this thread is going nowhere.

My final statement, anyone who has read the books and believes the TV series is an acceptable adaptation of the books is NOT a fan of the books and is in desperate need of psychological evaluation.

The books are awesome !

The show is barely average !

EVERY person who has influence over the scripting of the show needs to be PUBLICLY FLOGGED !

It's that simple !

Ciao for now.

On 4/20/2024 at 11:13 PM, Elder_Haman said:

I read what you typed. Words have no meaning if they are devoid of context. I’m not going to play the motte and bailey game where you come out making an argument that heavily implies something, then retreat to “but I didn’t actually say that” when you’re called out on the implication.

If you weren’t trying to argue that Harriet is contractually bound to refrain from criticizing the show, fine. Then your posts are meaningless observations, irrelevant to the conversation at hand. You can’t have it both ways. 

It's not me trying to have it both ways. You are not reading or not understanding. I really don't feel like dumbing it down this far.

In fact I don't have time now I'm back at work. I'll do it later, maybe.

Oh WTF is "the motte and bailey game" ?????

18 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

You heavily implied it. I pointed out that Harriet’s involvement in the series suggests that she doesn’t find it to be some sort of abomination that insults her husband’s legacy.
 

You responded that her public comments were tepid and then brought up her contractual obligations to Amazon. What difference does the existence of those obligations make to your argument if not to imply that they preclude her from making negative statements about the show?

 

Why talk about how difficult it would be to get her name removed from the project if not to imply that she is forbidden to do so by way of contract?

You need to go back and slowly read the original posts. Keep them in context and then read my responses.

Don't try and read between my lines, there is nothing there, I type upfront nothing hidden. Slow down, preferably stop, the knee jerk reactions. read only what I type, don't put words or thoughts that are not there in my mouth/typing. I'm reading what you are typing and responding to that. Please do the same for me.

7 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

You are claiming that there is a written agreement that she not say anything bad about the series.

At no stage did I say that. READ what is written.

7 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

I don't understand what point you think you're making. She was unafraid to protect the IP when she felt it needed protecting. Clearly, she did not feel any trepidation about handing the reins over to Amazon. Do you honestly believe she didn't have any idea what direction the show intended to go before doing that? The sheer audacity to think that you can speak to her personal feelings boggles the mind. 

Again READ what is written and refresh what you think you know about the suit in 2015. You are clearly confused about it.

On 4/16/2024 at 7:37 AM, Elder_Haman said:

Prove it. You have exactly zero idea whether there is a contract, much less what that contract says.

Wow it is clearly you who does not know what they are on about here.

Of course there is a written agreement, regardless of the form it takes. What you think they just shook hands do you?

On 4/16/2024 at 7:37 AM, Elder_Haman said:

It does not. It makes it. She had no problem calling out something she believed was an affront to her husband's work.

Again wrong, I thought you knew what the suit was about. It was regards whether or not she new about the production or not. She said she did not they said of course you did.

The fact that the production was utter garbage did not come in to it. ( read my reply above again after this and tell me there was no contract).

5 minutes ago, expat said:

What is statement even trying to say?  How is Amazon purposely dividing the fans?  That some fans like it and others don't?  Doesn't that go with the territory?  How about LOTR, is Amazon purposely dividing the fans on that show also?  How do know it's true, do you have an actual argument backing up this statement?

I must question this myself. I would expect the last thing Amazon "wants" to do is divide the fan base.

A large consolidated fan base has the potential to bring more viewers, just what Amazon wants.

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all.

 

So wrong it's funny. As I've pointed out I doubt Harriet could get herself removed from the project even if she wanted to. The producers love her name attached to the project and would even if she never did a single seconds work on it.

Can't fault her for joining in in the first place. It's Amazon, they've done good work in the past.

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

Has anyone claimed that? Harriet has publicly endorsed the series,

 

H: When?

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

has signed on as a consultant to it. She has given interviews and been on set with the cast and crew. The question is not whether she has been effusive with her praise.

 

I wonder if you have any idea how anything works. She signed on like 1000's of others before a single frame was shot. It's gold for the producers to the editor as a consultant. Sucks more book readers.

 

 

No one is arguing that the show is without flaw or that it hasn't made major changes to book canon. Literally no one is arguing that.

 

H: - Agreed, what's your point.

 

 

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all

Wow so naive. I'd day she is contractually bound. What is shown on paper often varies wildly from what a project ultimately winds up being.

Dune (1984) can act as an example again here. David Lynch was the director of this movie and left quite a bit of shot footage on the cutting room floor. He was pleased with the released version. Some time later (well after the successful release) the producers re-edited the movie and put a lot of what Lynch had cut back in.

The producers had the gall to call it the directors cut. Lynch had told them he removed those scenes to improve the flow, continuity and watch-ability of the movie. He was so incensed he insisted his name not be included in the credits.

If you are unfortunate enough to watch the "Directors Cut" of Dune (1984) you will quickly realise Lynch was right to do so. It's a dreadful version with the smooth flow and pace of the original completely lost.

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

Or maybe she's just a private person who isn't interested in causing controversy. There are people who simply do not want to garner the kind of attention that impolitic comments draw in fandoms like these.

Did you watch the interview on you tube. I'm pretty sure you know about the 2015 law suit. The law suit alone negates your argument here.

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

Has anyone claimed that? Harriet has publicly endorsed the series, has signed on as a consultant to it. She has given interviews and been on set with the cast and crew. The question is not whether she has been effusive with her praise. No one is arguing that the show is without flaw or that it hasn't made major changes to book canon. Literally no one is arguing that.

 

On the other hand, a bunch of self-appointed gatekeepers and white knights - who have absolutely no connection to the author - ride in to tell everyone else that the show is absolute trash and doesn't deserve to be called the Wheel of Time. When we point to Harriet, we are telling you that if your overheated, holier than thou, pronouncements about what deserves to be called the Wheel of Time and what does not were true, Harriet would not have associated herself with the project at all.

 

Or maybe she's just a private person who isn't interested in causing controversy. There are people who simply do not want to garner the kind of attention that impolitic comments draw in fandoms like these.

 

On 4/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, Elder_Haman said:

 

You've got to be kidding me. I don't know what world you live in, but it certainly isn't the real one. Guilt by association is all the rage on both sides of the political aisle these days. 

Sorry you've lost me with this. How is this relavent to what I said?

Before anyone jumps in. Harriet, if she wanted to, can not get he name removed from the show as a consultant unless the producers agree. Almost any word spoken from her mouth whilst on set could be argued as her consulting, " I like that costume" would be enough. Legally she did consult so there is no legal argument to force removal of her name. It could be argued that there is a legal requirement her name must be included.

I apologise for the formatting of the replay, It's clear I've had issues with this post, it would be great if a person could delete and start again. The software does not appear to support that.

14 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

What’s your point?

My point is I find nothing to support claims that Harriet likes what the series has done to the books!

Find me one Harriet quote made after the shows release in 2021 that supports this claim.

You will almost certainly not find one in either direction as it's clear she is being "legally" careful.

Possibly due to the 2015 debacle during which she was sued directly. If she had only good things to say she would be saying them. I've never heard of anyone getting jumped on or sued for saying positive things about someone else's work.

4 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

What is it that I’m supposed to see?

Hmmm. Simple I thought.

They are platitudes. A tactical response.

Meaningless words to sidetrack an awkward question.

Non specific, diversionary and placating.

Watching the interview again, the interviewer states she submitted her questions to Harriet before time.

It's not hard to see both of them dance around the TV series. The only direct question, asked in jest and as an after thought, about the TV series was "can you tell us when season 2 is coming out".

As for the YouTube video interview I especially like Harriet's response when asked what she thought was the overall message or her favourite theme or themes from the books.

"Good and Evil always fighting. Always going to rule the world."

4 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

But your posts on this topic don’t seem to echo that feeling at all. I’m confused. 

I disagree and would suggest that Harriet had her husbands books in her mind when speaking. Also this is a quote from a 2023 live stream.

In 2019 these platitudes were spoken by the show runner;

Showrunner Rafe Judkins has repeatedly praised McDougal's helpful involvement in the series, saying that she's been a "hugely helpful support".^[1] On her involvement in the series, Judkins said:^[2]

If you can't see that for what it is then .....

This is while it's being filmed. I haven't found anything from Harriet, directly related to the series, since the completion of season one.

Just to clarify Harriet's 2023 quote has no context from the source I garnered it from. We do not know what prompted this quote.

I just now found this. What a great lady.

Interesting. When I Googled;

"What does Harriet McDougal think of The Wheel of Time TV series" I got;

4 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

Yep. We got it. 

 

Shadow and Bone was just not good. Sorry. It was derivative, boring, poorly scripted and uninteresting. I’m not surprised in the least by its cancellation. And it gave me no desire to read the books. 

Again I disagree, I quite enjoyed it and was looking forward to seeing more. No TV or movie has ever inspired me to seek out the books. Curiosity about the differences brought me to listen to A Song of Ice and Fire. Which brought disappointment when I went looking for an audio book version of book 6 in that series, only to find that the printed version had not even been written yet. Ho hum, pull your finger out George !!!

4 minutes ago, Elder_Haman said:

I’m not surprised. 

Funny neither am I by you not being.

5 hours ago, expat said:

 

1. I think the books are unfilmable, where I've explained my reasoning in gory detail in other threads. Saying the equivalent of "just film the books" with no rationale is a cop out to avoid serious thinking about the problems with trying to film it.

As I've clearly indicated I believe the series can be filmed without deviating as far as this series has.

5 hours ago, expat said:

2. Congratulations on not having a life.  Most people are not going to rewatch 56 hours of TV to understand the nuances for the final season.  If you were the showrunner, would you assume most of your audience was going to rewatch previous years before each new season or design your show to accommodate normal people who don't have either the time or desire to rewatch previous seasons.  The WoT books have massive repetition in them because of the amount of time between books.  Jordon didn't believe most of his readers would reread the previous books to prepare for the next one.  He solved the problem of his audience forgetting concepts by repeating them, sometimes ad nauseum (see the Perrin/Faile/Shaido arc which stretched over several books where much of the time in each book was used to remind readers how Perrin felt about Faile's situation without moving the plot forward).

I won't write my first thoughts for this response. Yes I know about the repartitions in the books. As someone listening to them for the second time, one after the other it's only mildly annoying but completely understandable. Clearly the series does not have to do that, there are other means.

5 hours ago, expat said:

3. The production constraints don't stop you from filming a series, but they do limit/change some of the things that you can do.  The tEotW meeting of Elayne in Camelyn would have required a large cost for the set and actors for just a couple of scenes. Nothing in it was important to the rest of the season.  Skipping it and setting up a different introduction of Elayne made perfect sense from a production viewpoint. Agelmar Jagad appears in the first and last books.  From an actor viewpoint, it made perfect sense to kill him off in the first season because the character would need to be recast by the time he is needed again.  Easier to just invent another respected military leader for his second appearance. I can come up with numerous other examples where deviating from the books makes sense from a production standpoint. Is it better to use the money and resources on other more important elements or use them to maintain consistency on minor points?

Yeah completely in the dark with what you are on about here. Point 3 was;

"3. Accounts for filming constraints (time, money, actor availability, CGI capabilities, sets etc.) "

My response was;

3: GoT managed it. Why not this mob? (CGI in this era has only cost as a restraint)

GoT as in Game of Thrones. My answer stands and eliminates the point. If another company (HBO) can "Accounts for filming constraints (time, money, actor availability, CGI capabilities, sets etc.) ". Then why not Amazon!

5 hours ago, expat said:

4. Dune (1984) was terrible, so this isn't the best example to show how to film an unfilmable book.  Just saying that you don't understand why it's hard to film extensive internal monologues doesn't illustrate that you can film them while still being close to the books.  Have you ever considered that not understanding is a "you problem" and not a problem with the showrunners understanding on how to make a TV series?

You not read so good much ay! Dune (1984) was used as an example of how you can successfully film internal monologues. Nothing more. If it can be done once it can be done again. Not understanding that is clearly your problem, not a problem I have. I also quite enjoyed Dune (1984) as I do the remake.

5 hours ago, expat said:

5. Just saying "be closer to the books" is not really an answer.  Cutting significant portions of the inner monologues is not realistic since they contain much of the character development of the major characters and a significant amount of the world lore.  The series is already combining multiple characters (with almost of the combining leading to complaints by the closer to the books crowd), so it's following your advice.  So again, how would you "edit and script the books" in such a way that they are filmable?

Hmm again an issue with reading... or maybe comprehension.

I did not "just say" be closer to the books. What I said was;

5: Edit and script the books. It's accepted that a lot of pages will not be filmed and/or heavily compressed. Game of Thrones cleverly amalgamated several "less major" characters into one and it worked fine there because they were careful and clever. I often wonder what we would be watching if HBO had TWoT.

5 hours ago, expat said:

Playing out the series over 12 years is far from ideal, but that seems to be the schedule they are currently on.  I would love to have a season per calendar year and that would allow the showrunners more latitude and might mitigate some of the concerns about the casual viewer (maybe 95% of the audience) forgetting the nuances. But as it stands today, the showrunner has to script for a series that will last years in real-time, which requires, in my opinion, compromises such as new arcs allowing casual viewers to remember and understand the series in broad strokes.

 

Off topic - I've never understood why anyone suggests that Henry Cavill is a good actor.  He is the most wooden major actor I've ever seen and wouldn't cast him in anything above a local theater production.  After saying that, he works in Witcher since Geralt is supposed to be a non-emotive, wooden character, the perfect role for him.  

Well that seals it, if you are right, any show who's audience is 95% casual viewer is going to be canned for sure.

As for Carvil he is a good actor, not great just good. But that, again, was not my point.

5 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

Shadow and Bone was a poor show in comparison to WoT, in my opinion. The story was not engaging, the world building was weak, and the design was mediocre. 
 

I’ve not read the source material, so I have no axe to grind either way about whether it was ‘faithful’ as an adaptation. But there’s no question in my mind that WoT is a far better tv show. 

Yeah.. Nah. Disagree with everything you said, except I too have not read the source material for SaB.

3 hours ago, Elder_Haman said:

1-2? No chance. 5 years of filming, minimum. If you’re trying to do the whole story. 

Agreed.

2 hours ago, Kaleb said:

Ok, cool, all good.

 

The real genesis of Perrin's guilt over the axe in the books is the chapter where he wrestles with mercy-killing Egwene if the ravens catch them, immediately after he and Egwene leave the Tinkers with Elyas and before they meet the Whitecloaks in the stedding. In the books, his guilt emerges immediately after Perrin learns of the Way Of The Leaf,

 

I believe this is were we truly realise that two different people can read the same thing and draw different conclusions. IMHO Perrin is NEVER guilt ridden in the books. He has some guilt over the death of a couple of Whitecloaks but only some. His defining characteristics are humble, frightened, considered thought and physical presence. He is scared about his wolf powers and that he may forget himself and be trapped in the "dreams". He uses the Whitecloak deaths as a crotch later in book 4 as an aid to justify his secret plan to free Emond's Field from the pathological zealots by surrendering himself to them. He clearly has some guilt but it hardly "defines" him. His other characteristics define him far more than his mild guilt.

One thing is VERY clear, in the books Perrin is not the sniveling, cowed, sad sack he is in the series.

He has smiled once in the series, whilst Egwene danced with the tinkers, that's 2 seasons and one smile. A moment when he forgot himself amongst the music and celebration. He is not the same person as in the books.

4 hours ago, expat said:

1.  INTERESTING TV show

2. Viewers in 2032 will remember enough from the early seasons to appreciate the character/event pay-offs

3. Accounts for filming constraints (time, money, actor availability, CGI capabilities, sets etc.)

4. Appropriate character development from the internal monologues is filmed

5. close enough to the books to satisfy your desire for consistency 

 

1: Is a bland question with almost infinite answers but my mine would be to "Stick Closer To The Books!"

2: The very annoying "previously on..." covers a lot of this, but I for one, on complex story lines, re-watch previous seasons before the new. I know I'm not the only one. 

3: GoT managed it. Why not this mob? (CGI in this era has only cost as a restraint)

4: This one is easy, I've never understood why people believe "internal monologues" can not be filmed, check out Dune (1984). Good acting, clever editing and sound.

5: Edit and script the books. It's accepted that a lot of pages will not be filmed and/or heavily compressed. Game of Thrones cleverly amalgamated several "less major" characters into one and it worked fine there because they were careful and clever. I often wonder what we would be watching if HBO had TWoT.

Do they really expect to stretch this out over 12 years. For the human characters the books span only a few years. Poor Maisey Williams had her chest heavily strapped towards the end of GoT. We have already had one major character re=cast. If you think "The Witcher" will be as good with the loss of Henry Cavill, I suggest thinking harder. TWoT will be lucky to have a season 4 at this rate. If they can axe "Shadow and Bone" they can axe anything, good story, good acting, good scripts and excellent production value and it still got axed.

10 minutes ago, henrywho said:

As I've intimated before I'll give a clearer example, I hope.

2 people leave on trip from A to Z both people travel through the same 24 places in between, they do not travel together, both arrive at Z with one having enjoyed the journey and the other hating it.

I would not say they both had the same holiday. But you would. I say they didn't because the journey through all those points is what matters. What happened to each of them and how. The way events unfolded for each makes each one have their own story and they are completely different even though they both visited the same 26 points. I like the journey in the books and see little resemblance to it in the series. Aside from the metaphorical 26 points.

This example might been even better.

Would anyone say these events/stories are the same. Some people here clearly would.

The white settlement of North America.

The Spanish invasion of South America.

The English settlement of Australia.

The Movie Avatar.

These all have the same underlying story, except for Avatar, at the end, where the natives actually win.

A group of humans travel great distance to settle a remote land. Once there they enforce there will and beliefs upon the less technically advanced natives. Fighting and bloodshed ensues.

3 hours ago, Kaleb said:

So, a big part of the reason I'm reticent to discuss potential deal-breaker events in future episodes is because you are arguing that a show that has already included these key scenes and events somehow doesn't qualify as The Wheel Of Time:

 

As I've intimated before I'll give a clearer example, I hope.

2 people leave on trip from A to Z both people travel through the same 24 places in between, they do not travel together, both arrive at Z with one having enjoyed the journey and the other hating it.

I would not say they both had the same holiday. But you would. I say they didn't because the journey through all those points is what matters. What happened to each of them and how. The way events unfolded for each makes each one have their own story and they are completely different even though they both visited the same 26 points. I like the journey in the books and see little resemblance to it in the series. Aside from the metaphorical 26 points.

3 hours ago, Kaleb said:

A guilt-ridden Perrin becoming enamored of the Tinkers and their Way Of The Leaf

Woh, Gilt ridden. Perrin is NOT gilt ridden in the books. He is cautious and deliberate of thought in the books, mildly fearful of his size and strength when he was younger and that has an influence on him now but not guilt ridden. I ask this, what in the first 4 books has he to have guilt for.