1. #881
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    okay.

    Do non-book readers understand this gender dynamic from the first 3 episodes? Has it been illustrated in this way? No, it hasn't.

    This is clearly not a purist adaptation, so why are people still 'wishful' that it should be? It will never be the book, at least not this particular Amazon adaptation.

    Realistically speaking, I have no interest in Egwene's character in the TV series even with her 'elevated status'.



    I agree.
    No they don't because it was immediately axed. Compare Egwene and the three in the books. Egwene is excited to be going on an adventure she soaks up everything Moiraine wants to teach her especially channeling while Rand worries that he is losing her. The doubts are completely manifested by the three who are forced to be going and Thom who goes because of his history and mistrust of Aes Sedai. Nynaeve tracks them down for similar reasons. Her tracking is taught to her by her father because he never had a son to pass his skills onto not just something Wisdoms learn. She comes upon them and hides a way off in a clump of trees Moiraine senses her because she can channel. She doesn't pull a knife and walk up to a warder without being noticed. She is empowered without emasculating Lan and making Warders a joke. There are so many bad changes that hinder characters.

  2. #882
    Bloodsail Admiral Smallfruitbat's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Khadgars' Tower
    Posts
    1,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Mace View Post
    Saying that. I like your analysis. I’m not sure the changes you mentioned would be quite as big as you think. But I was wondering if they would ever mention the relative power strength gap between men and women regarding the one power.
    For me if you take away the very real sense of danger that a male Dragon creates, you lose the essence of the story. If Nynaeve (or Egwene for that matter) is revealed as the Dragon, then we have a woman who is less likely to go mad -let's face it having that amount of responsibility dumped on you is going to have some adverse reactions no matter how balanced you are.

    She would be surrounded by people who were able to teach her to use the power, without having to deal with the prejudice of being a male channeler. She might be pushed and pulled by the politicking of the White Tower, true.

    There would be no need for the cleansing of Saidin or the formation of the Black Tower. There would be no path to accepting male channelers into society.


    Personally, I loved Robert Jordans' portrayal of women, its what kept me hooked. He recognised that we have different strengths and without the input of the many women with their own varied skill sets in the story, Rand would not have been able to get to the Last Battle.

  3. #883
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallfruitbat View Post
    For me if you take away the very real sense of danger that a male Dragon creates, you lose the essence of the story. If Nynaeve (or Egwene for that matter) is revealed as the Dragon, then we have a woman who is less likely to go mad -let's face it having that amount of responsibility dumped on you is going to have some adverse reactions no matter how balanced you are.

    She would be surrounded by people who were able to teach her to use the power, without having to deal with the prejudice of being a male channeler. She might be pushed and pulled by the politicking of the White Tower, true.

    There would be no need for the cleansing of Saidin or the formation of the Black Tower. There would be no path to accepting male channelers into society.


    Personally, I loved Robert Jordans' portrayal of women, its what kept me hooked. He recognised that we have different strengths and without the input of the many women with their own varied skill sets in the story, Rand would not have been able to get to the Last Battle.
    Same here to be honest. And I know his wife co wrote the books with him, and while she eventually took over when he got ill, she was a major influence on the first 6 books, he revealed a lot of things also came from her.

    Together they presented the genders as they actually are, not with any of the nonsense extremist groups today hold too. All the flaws and strength of both genders, and of people. Not the current "let's hate on and beat down men and trash them, and pretend women are flawless" crap that is going around from people with just rage and anger and no sense to them.

    Women definitely come off better in the series, but you don't feel spat upon and relegated as a man, there is quite the sense of this in the tv series, and the changes they make increase the imbalance.making the work worse, not better.


    I loved the books, I felt it was so cool to see the Women's circle in the opening books. The men were "the leaders", but we all knew who held the real power and regardless of what the Village council said or did, the Women's circle were the ones' that made things right.

    What's wrong with them, it's things from the perspective of women. Women who understand who they are, what they are, and their various strengths, and how to wield them, -- the truth is that both bodies, both genders together is what makes things work, they have different strengths and functions.. women can't go and do the hunting, ploughing or fighting feats men can, but they have their own type of strength and their own type of intelligence, without which the very fabric of society and all the reasons men hunt or even fight for would mean nothing, not to mention those village idiots would pull everything apart.

    It reminds me, in sense, of the feeling I get what Victorian women in Queen Victoria's era must have been like. The strong matriarch's, matrons, Head mistresses etc, some couples the men was definitely the leader, but in other couples it was certainly the woman who was the better half and kept the boat a float , but in some they were equals and incredibly dynamic, each knowing and confident in their own strengths, the woman not trying to be a man and certainly not coveting what men have or falling into a man centric view of the world that elevates the importance of strength and being given the title of leader which he brags is the most important thing, not realising that actually, without his wife he is nothing and it is actually the two of them that lead.

    Foolish men fight for titles and honours out of pride and foolish women who follow them think that is what is most important and feel that they have to have the titles to be worthy or worthwhile --or what so half the population can brag about them also? rather than concerning themselves with what is truly important the idiot man blinded by ambition cannot see in his egotistical pride that would have finished him off, fi the cunning woman who loved it wasn't sharp and discerning enough to see the hole he was walking into.

    Yet foolish women coveting men would only see the brag of the idiot man, and totally devalue, just like he does, the equally important role of his wife, without whom he'd be nothing and have fallen.. so the idiot woman take on a male centric view charmed by the things the boys brag about, maybe no one taught her that those aren't the only important and valuable things, or told her the things women do are just as valuable and important and she shouldn't spend so much time obsessed with the boys and how they think.


    Wanna bet some victim minded woman will only see me calling the woman foolish and totally miss the amounts of time I said idiot man or foolish man. Both men and women can be very foolish, we certainly shouldn't let the views of the foolish dictate our stories, but by all the changes we see in some of these shows, it looks like it has in some circles. I know some company's are doing it out of greed. They now have measurable metrics (they think) in social media clicks/likes/retweets etc and purposely change stuff to get more traction, publicity or ride the current wave amongst the social media crowd ..or what they think is the current wave.. this is why some of them are doing it, but some of them are also bat shit crazies in their views that have totally lost the plot and have lost sense and reason to envy, covetousness and plain ol'greed. Consumed by this, they feel they are on a righteous cause for equality and justice, but are instead actually just wanting revenge, lashing back, equity not equality, and injustice, not justice.

    Yet, some of them think, because they have power, wealth and control o x,y,z that they know everything and have got it all correct. Because they are good at their job this is what qualifies them - just like foolish males -who grossly over estimate their worth and how they got their. Arrogance makes a fool of the arrogant. They just never see how wrong they've got it and how they've lost the wisdom they may have had.

  4. #884
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The TV show isn't the book, that's also the point.
    The series is based on the books. I completely understand that things can and will change. Core lore, the stuff that defines the world and why it is the way it is, should not be one of them.

    What TV series has 1:1 exact same lore as its book counterparts? Is it sensible to bring up Game of Thrones book lore into GoT TV series discussions? If it's to make comparisons and criticisms of how one could be better, then sure. But if it's to criticize that the TV series has screwed up because it didn't stick to the book lore, then that's a different argument, and one that isn't really substantial since we're obviously talking about a TV adaptation that has taken creative liberties.
    While I understand the point you're trying to make, by completely separating the TV shows from the books, the problem is the books are the source material...it's why the TV show exists and is the actual story the TV show is trying to tell. Creative liberties, to allow the story to be told in a new medium, like combining minor characters, changing the locations where some things happen, or updating the dialogue so it's not some old fashioned mess, are all fine. Changing the story itself, is not. That's not "creative liberties" that's bastardizing an already popular story, and piggy backing off someone else's success to tell your own version of the story.

    Again, why should the TV series be regarded as a translation of the book? The lore being the same means it's a translation, and that's not what this is.
    It should be. There's a reason the books are written the way they are, why the lore is established the way that it is. Changing stuff like that, changes the story.

    As I said, I completely understand needing to make changes to tell the story for TV vs the way it was in the books. Changing core pieces of the lore, that help define the world, the narrative and the rules for how the world works is not one of them.

    The lore of LOTR movies isn't even the books, when you consider how many changes were made to characters (Tom Bombadil), plot lines (scouring of the Shire) and even the entire world. Yet when making sense of things within the narrative of the movies, there's no real point in reaching into the books and considering the lore as being one and the same. They aren't the same. They never will be. And this will be relevant in the near future, when the Amazon LOTR series arrives.
    We'll have to wait and see with WoT just how sweeping some of the changes are. The changes they made to LotR didn't alter the overarching story or the rules of the world.

    This isn't a #nochanges cry for purity. That's silly. And this all may end up being overblown, who knows, but the show is skirting disaster, IMO. If they stray too far from the source material, or change core pieces of it, they won't be able to course correct and then they'll lose both the fans of the show and fans of the books because the story they're trying to tell won't make sense. But again, we'll see.

  5. #885
    Just to add a tidbit from Dragonmount;
    Quote Originally Posted by SinisterDeath
    RJ had a military background. He went to an all male military college (The Citadel), and was a vocal opponent when asked about the first woman to attend the Citadel, and held some sexist views (in the early 90s) regarding segregating education along gender lines. (I'm almost 100% positive if you asked RJ about girls wearing distracting clothing, he'd side with the school)
    We know that RJ wrote the WoT as an exploration of a world flipped on it's head, that explored gender roles/dynamics and the balance there of.
    The current gender discussion going on wasn't anywhere on RJ's radar even on his death bed. They might have been talked about in some circles, but not to the scale it is today. We can't know what RJ would have written had he started writing it in 2016 instead of the late 80s.
    Obviously some are hopeful he'd pick up on the current debate and explore that.
    Some think he'd double down on binary gender to push back against the current narrative.
    Regardless, RJ's world building does have issues with any non-binary gender existing in his world. Even Min who dressed like a boy, just like pillow friends self-corrected as the story went along. Many of us, just take this as RJ was an old dude, a product of his time, with some outdated ideas and a good heart.
    From a world-building standpoint, given the current discussion on gender, gender roles, etc creating a trans character, or even an intersex character could be interesting counterpoint to the Halima issue.
    Degendering souls is a metaphysical concept that ultimately asks "How do people in universe even know these rules?"
    RJ's gendered souls was used to ultimately explain Saidin/Saidar and assuring that a male channeler could only ever be born into a male body and only ever channel Saidin. To an extent, this to justify Halima' as twisted joke by the DO, and to maintain the dragon as always born male, and to drive home the idea that men could never understand women because even in their past lives they were always male.
    The concept of Gendered souls, AFAIK is asynchronous with the real-world concept of reincarnation which doesn't seem to care about gender or species.

    /rambles

  6. #886
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Just to add a tidbit from Dragonmount;
    Is that one of the mods that has been editing posts lol? No point in posting on dragonmount atm since mods are literally editing posts without even telling users.

  7. #887
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    The series is based on the books. I completely understand that things can and will change. Core lore, the stuff that defines the world and why it is the way it is, should not be one of them.
    It's still based on the books no matter how far they stray from it, even to the point of just using names and everything else changes. It'd just be considered a much looser adaptation, like how Jodorowsy initially envisioned his Dune; or how Ridley Scott strayed from the source to create Blade Runner. The adaptations don't need to adhere to the source material at presentation. It should be taken at face value for what it is, and what it isn't. And it isn't the book.

    We'll have to wait and see with WoT just how sweeping some of the changes are. The changes they made to LotR didn't alter the overarching story or the rules of the world.
    Sure they did. Plenty changed with the world lore, we're just not nitpicking it right now. Elves at Helms Deep is a HUGE change to the world lore.

    https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Tolkien...s_in_substance

    There's PLENTY here that covers it, and this is just one article. This doesn't even address what Book critics have to say about the differences that PJ made to the onscreen adaptation of the world.

    Hobbit is probably a better example of sweeping changes, though I would say that the additions did more harm than help this particular adaptation (pacing issues, unnecessary romantic subplot, unnecessary cameos). It really did spread the butter thinly over too much bread. But overall, the Hobbit movies are still an enjoyable watch for what they are, as long as you accept that it's not a retelling of the books, and simply regard it as a trilogy of movies that are loosely based on the book.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    There are so many bad changes that hinder characters.
    They are not the characters of the book. Period.

    You could be talking about how GoT or LOTR characters changed from Book to Movie all the same. Aragorn of the movies? Is not Aragorn of the books. He's MUCH more confident and willing to take up the challenge in the movies than any time in the books, and the characterizations are very different. But at no point do you really look at the movies and think 'these changes hinder this character' because it's ultimately a different story being told, and the changes effectively become the lore of the movie universe. The characters are molded by what they go through in the movies, and what is important is whether or not those characterizations are consistent and sensible.

    For Lan, he's simply surprised that Nynaeve got the drop on him, as skillful as he is. Does it make a joke of the Warders? Only if you had preconceptions and put em on a pedestal expecting them to be greater than the show is presenting them as. The show establishes that the Warders are incredibly skillful, and yet still human, including all the fallibility and vulnerability. That's little different than how the MCU chooses to humanize some of their god-like superheroes with flaws or clumsiness, as opposed to a more serious depiction in the comics. For example, Thor being goofy in the MCU doesn't actually diminish or hinder him as a character in the MCU. The only way I can see someone having issue with it is if they came in with a preconception that Thor can't be goofy because he never acted that way in the comics, and that's really something that doesn't really apply to the MCU depiction. They're effectively different characters for a different universe entirely. That is the importance of treating this as a self-contained adaptation. Lan Mandragoran in the TV series is not the Lan Mandragoran of the books.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-11-29 at 09:01 PM.

  8. #888
    Quote Originally Posted by Redwyrm View Post
    The only thing big enough would probably be

    Egwene uniting the White Tower
    True. There are tons of side plots that can be left out or put in as needed. I don’t think anyone really cares about the Shaido or Seanchan.

  9. #889
    Quote Originally Posted by Coniferous View Post
    True. There are tons of side plots that can be left out or put in as needed. I don’t think anyone really cares about the Shaido or Seanchan.
    I agree that the Shaido can easily get cut. Light knows we don't need another bad guy(s) in the mix. Although that would destroy Perrin's arc. As far as the Seanchan, I don't think you could remove them as easily. The Trollocs and Fades are basically a non existent threat in the later books. The Seanchan basically become the opposing army/threat to fight against. Besides that, the Seanchan design is so distinctive from all of the other medieval designs that you usually see in fantasy that, cutting them would be sad.

    Edit: To use an RPG metaphor. The Trollocs and Fades (among the other darkspawn not including the Forsaken) are like the slimes you fight in the starting area of any RPG. They give you a bunch of trouble early on, especially when encountered in groups. And they even kill you once in awhile. But once you hit max level (Rand) and go back to the starting area, you can't push them out of the way fast enough.

    Basically there isn't any level scaling in WoT.
    Last edited by Redwyrm; 2021-11-29 at 09:41 PM.

  10. #890
    Quote Originally Posted by Coniferous View Post
    True. There are tons of side plots that can be left out or put in as needed. I don’t think anyone really cares about the Shaido or Seanchan.
    That throws away about half of the books.

  11. #891
    Now that I am thinking about it, WoT had way too many bad guys running around. It works fine in the books but I would have no problem with the show condensing/merging/deleting some.

    Here's a list, let me know if I missed any

    spoiler tag just in case

    Dark One
    Shadow Spawn (Trollocs/Fades/Darkhounds/etc)
    Super Fade
    Padan Fain
    Black Ajaj
    Elaida
    Shaido
    Masahadar
    The Black Wind
    Forsaken (all thirteen)
    Seachan
    Gholam
    Gray Man
    Mazrim Taim

  12. #892
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It's still based on the books no matter how far they stray from it, even to the point of just using names and everything else changes. It'd just be considered a much looser adaptation, like how Jodorowsy initially envisioned his Dune; or how Ridley Scott strayed from the source to create Blade Runner. The adaptations don't need to adhere to the source material at presentation. It should be taken at face value for what it is, and what it isn't. And it isn't the book.
    An adaptation that loose would be a sad mockery of the story and a sorry excuse of an adaptation and would get rightly ridiculed for it.

    Sure they did. Plenty changed with the world lore, we're just not nitpicking it right now. Elves at Helms Deep is a HUGE change to the world lore.

    https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Tolkien...s_in_substance

    There's PLENTY here that covers it, and this is just one article. This doesn't even address what Book critics have to say about the differences that PJ made to the onscreen adaptation of the world.

    Hobbit is probably a better example of sweeping changes, though I would say that the additions did more harm than help this particular adaptation (pacing issues, unnecessary romantic subplot, unnecessary cameos). It really did spread the butter thinly over too much bread. But overall, the Hobbit movies are still an enjoyable watch for what they are, as long as you accept that it's not a retelling of the books, and simply regard it as a trilogy of movies that are loosely based on the book.
    I'm not nearly as well versed in LotR lore as I am WoT lore. So I'll concede that because I'm more connected to the WoT story I'm seeing the changes more keenly with WoT. Some changes may not affect the overall story of the books, but IMO, the changes they seem to be hinting at in WoT destroy some of the core tenets of the world lore. Again, we'll have to see just how much those changes affect the overall narrative.

    If they change too much I may or may not still enjoy it, depending on how well the show does in telling it's own story.

  13. #893
    The problem with this comparison is that the original LOTR movies are beloved classics and the Hobbit movies are unwatchable garbage.
    A better way to think about Casual v Hardcore: https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...asual-Hardcore

  14. #894
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    That throws away about half of the books.
    Honestly, the series would have been better if it were half as many books as it ended up being

  15. #895
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Honestly, the series would have been better if it were half as many books as it ended up being
    You agree that there shouldn't be Seanchan or Shaido? Tossing Perrin's arc and no Raven Prince...?

  16. #896
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Honestly, the series would have been better if it were half as many books as it ended up being
    Yeah at some point he clearly decided to just drag it out as long as possible. You can mostly skip books 6-10 other than a few key events, and the other books aren’t exactly fast paced either.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    You agree that there shouldn't be Seanchan or Shaido? Tossing Perrin's arc and no Raven Prince...?
    The Seanchan stuff was incredibly annoying, and the Shaido story was slllooooowww. It’s all fluff.

  17. #897
    Quote Originally Posted by Coniferous View Post
    The Seanchan stuff was incredibly annoying, and the Shaido story was slllooooowww. It’s all fluff.
    Seanchan collared Aes Sedai...had an invincible army that even the Aiel refused to fight... Both Shaido and Seanchan created an epic dynamic that showed most of the existing. The only thing we didn't get to see were the lands of the Shara. I find it interesting that the complaint is now "too many books."

  18. #898
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    You agree that there shouldn't be Seanchan or Shaido? Tossing Perrin's arc and no Raven Prince...?
    I'm just saying for a series that was originally planned to be 6 books to end up going over double that...there's some bloat there.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    I find it interesting that the complaint is now "too many books."
    It's not exactly a new complaint.

  19. #899
    Hmf..
    Rafe says readers already know who the Dragon is...
    But that's in the book.
    What better way to "subvert expectations" than by making it someone else in the show?

  20. #900
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    I'm just saying for a series that was originally planned to be 6 books to end up going over double that...there's some bloat there.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It's not exactly a new complaint.
    To use an analogy

    One book is basically telling the events of JFK's assassination
    And the next book is "what were you doing when JFK was assassinated"

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Hmf..
    Rafe says readers already know who the Dragon is...
    But that's in the book.
    What better way to "subvert expectations" than by making it someone else in the show?
    The show has already shown hints of the original Dragon using the one power (episode 3)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •