[TV] The Wheel of Time

[Kreuger]

Ok my memory must be fuzzy now. What is he on about there being female dragons? The story states the Pattern requires the Dragon to be a male channeler

THe few interviews and chats ive looked into today regarding this its pretty clear that Robert Jordans dragon is a male and allways should be a male.

https://dragonmount.com/forums/topic...dragon-reborn/

"Q: It would be the same soul, or it would be a different soul?

RJ: It would be the same soul. That is, that is the belief of the world that I've set up, that it's the same soul. It's a soul of someone bound to the Wheel, which is spun out for the purposes, for the Wheel's purposes really, to attempt to re-balance the Weaving of the Pattern.

But the soul would always be male. Souls don't change gender, so . . .

. . . so the soul of the Dragon Reborn is always going to be male, just as Birgitte's soul is always born as a woman, just as Ameresu's soul . . . is always born as a woman. There are divisions here, and they are not interchangeable."

[Grimbold21]

Correct there is a female adversary but she isn't born in cycles the dragon is

- - - Updated - - -

io9: While Jordan rarely mentions anything regarding race in the novels, the show’s incredibly diverse casting feels like an update as well.

Kehoe: I think you’ve got to. We absolutely have done that and tried to keep it up to date and make it organic, which I think we’ve done very successfully. It doesn’t feel like you force those characters into that situation. As Mike said on various other calls, the [show’s] physical Breaking of the World allowed us to have cast diversity from all over the world. In Emond’s Field, for example, there are people who come from all these different countries. So that’s the way we portrayed our world

Holy crap the level of stupidity being exhibited is amazing

An adversary, or more accurately, a counterpart isn't the same as being the, or one, Dragon Reborn. The only thing that pops up is Amaresu, that's it.

[Katchii]

Seeing those interviews, these people have no idea what the fuck the book is about.....

Still going to watch the first couple episodes to make sure, and to say I gave it a chance, but holy hell...this is looking like a train wreck already. Why can't anyone just stick to the source material anymore?

[Biomega]

Judkins: I think—well, I can’t tell you all of them, but in the books, there’s an idea that if you’re born as a man in one life, you’d be born as a man in the next life in the show.

Wasn't Balthamel reborn as a woman after he died?

But in any event, the fundamentally different nature of saidin and saidar makes the gender of the Dragon Reborn TREMENDOUSLY important. It's a fundamental plot point of the entire series. Changing that is akin to adding a 10th human ring of power to LotR or whatever. This is just a terrible, terrible idea.

[Graeham]

Parasites cannot create. They can only thrive off of a host. It's a shame, but this isn't the first or last setting to be treated with contempt by those who think they can 'improve' something that somebody else already found success with.

I don't believe that everything needs to be made more 'diverse' either. I'm gay, but a story isn't inherently more interesting to me just because it has gay characters or decides to change the sexuality of a character for no reason than to fulfil a quota. It's fine for a story not to have any, in fact. It's up to the author as far as I'm concerned.

[Katchii]

Wasn't Balthamel reborn as a woman after he died?

But in any event, the fundamentally different nature of saidin and saidar makes the gender of the Dragon Reborn TREMENDOUSLY important. It's a fundamental plot point of the entire series. Changing that is akin to adding a 10th ring of power to LotR or whatever. This is just a terrible, terrible idea.

Not to mention that the entirety of the story is based on Rand being the Dragon. If he's not the Dragon, the story changes, tremendously. Callandor, the Aiel Waste where he gets his dragon tattoos, the entire book he spent in a box because he was a male channeler, the cleansing of saidin, and many others.

They can't just switch characters and expect to tell the same story. It would be fundamentally different

Like, if Egwene becomes the Dragon Reborn...wtf happens to her entire White Tower story arc?

This idea that they can seemingly make a change THAT big and they're just going to continue trying to tell the same story is absolutely ludicrous.

[Biomega]

Oh, and: if they're just going "well maybe one of the girls COULD be the Dragon WHO KNOWS!" and then bail it out with "PSYCH it was Rand all along" that's honestly even worse.

[Egomaniac]

Jesus christ...

That view only works if you start with the false premise that men's bodies aren't showcased in media as well. As I said, it's the whole thing about it not mattering because apparently men aren't sexualized in the same way. What in the world is it then, when their bodies are plastered all over media?

Not going to weigh on this being more "progressive" or not...but women are asked to go naked in film and TV far more often than men are. That's not to say men aren't also expected to look their best as well...but there is an imbalance when it comes to actual nude scenes.

I don't believe the solution to that is "make men get naked more" though. The solution is to not add gratuitous nudity just for the sake of it... but, as they say, sex sells. So, if there is going to be gratuitous nudity, I guess making it equal is fair.

[Xath]

Wasn't Balthamel reborn as a woman after he died?

But in any event, the fundamentally different nature of saidin and saidar makes the gender of the Dragon Reborn TREMENDOUSLY important. It's a fundamental plot point of the entire series. Changing that is akin to adding a 10th human ring of power to LotR or whatever. This is just a terrible, terrible idea.

The dark one twisted the pattern to "punish him" and he still channeled Saidin.

- - - Updated - - -

Not going to weigh on this being more "progressive" or not...but women are asked to go naked in film and TV far more often than men are. That's not to say men aren't also expected to look their best as well...but there is an imbalance when it comes to actual nude scenes.

I don't believe the solution to that is "make men get naked more" though. The solution is to not add gratuitous nudity just for the sake of it... but, as they say, sex sells. So, if there is going to be gratuitous nudity, I guess making it equal is fair.

There are probably equivalent numbers of topless scenes it's just male toplessness isn't treated the same. Very little full front for either gender.

[Egomaniac]

There are probably equivalent numbers of topless scenes it's just male toplessness isn't treated the same. Very little full front for either gender.

More full frontal of women than men. More ass shots as well. And, as you said, male toplessness isn't considered nudity.

[Grimbold21]

Not going to weigh on this being more "progressive" or not...but women are asked to go naked in film and TV far more often than men are. That's not to say men aren't also expected to look their best as well...but there is an imbalance when it comes to actual nude scenes.

I don't believe the solution to that is "make men get naked more" though. The solution is to not add gratuitous nudity just for the sake of it... but, as they say, sex sells. So, if there is going to be gratuitous nudity, I guess making it equal is fair.

To put it politely, I'm very suspicious of that premise, and I'm frankly more ready to accept the idea that both sexes are paraded and mediatised: the caveat is that it may be done so differently, and the reception varies. By reception, I mean the point that men, in general, do not victimize themselves on account of an ideal male form being promoted via media.

[Tyris Flare]

Not going to weigh on this being more "progressive" or not...but women are asked to go naked in film and TV far more often than men are. That's not to say men aren't also expected to look their best as well...but there is an imbalance when it comes to actual nude scenes.

I don't believe the solution to that is "make men get naked more" though. The solution is to not add gratuitous nudity just for the sake of it... but, as they say, sex sells. So, if there is going to be gratuitous nudity, I guess making it equal is fair.

This is obviously true and there is a big gender bias with sexuality in many ways. Not even debatlable.

But!

My only point is that the idea that men "don't even need to workout" or whatever is incredibly disingenuous. Male actors do crazy routines and literally dehydrate themselves to the point of exhaustion just to get in a muscle shot. It's actually insane.

[Biomega]

My only point is that the idea that men "don't even need to workout" or whatever is incredibly disingenuous. Male actors do crazy routines and literally dehydrate themselves to the point of exhaustion just to get in a muscle shot. It's actually insane.

Totally agree, but did someone claim that men don't need to work out for nude scenes? Seems a little non-sequitur to me here, despite being truth.

[Tyris Flare]

Totally agree, but did someone claim that men don't need to work out for nude scenes? Seems a little non-sequitur to me here, despite being truth.

Just her quote that the men finally started dieting

[Biomega]

Just her quote that the men finally started dieting

But the implication there wasn't that men don't need to work out for nude scenes - the opposite in fact. It was about the fact that because there ARE so many MALE nude scenes here, the men now need to work hard; while the women (who usually have the nude scenes) get to slack off now because they're featured less. The implication there is clearly that both need to work hard for nude scenes, and it's just a poke at how this time around it's more male than female nudity. Not that men don't need to work out for nude scenes.

[Egomaniac]

To put it politely, I'm very suspicious of that premise, and I'm frankly more ready to accept the idea that both sexes are paraded and mediatised: the caveat is that it may be done so differently, and the reception varies. By reception, I mean the point that men, in general, do not victimize themselves on account of an ideal male form being promoted via media.

There's actually a large male suicide rate because men feel like expressing their victimization is "unmanly"...which is a hallmark of "toxic masculinity"...but that's neither here nor there.

But its just factual that there is more gratuitous nudity of female actors than male ones. Again, that's not saying that men can not, and have not been sexualized...but they are typically only asked to show what society deems as "acceptable"...which is usually just showing a bare chest. Our society treats a bare-chested man in public as normal...whereas there is a much more negative view on public female toplessness....to the point where it is often illegal.

If we want to talk about equal level of exposure...the best thing to talk about is naked ass shots. We do, on occasion, see the male buttocks...but it is far less common than the rate we see the female.

Full frontal nudity is also more common with women than men.

[Shadowferal]

he's a complete idiot glad that is clear

Yeah, moving towards that feeling aswell.

Double ditto.
He should have at least tried to win fans of the books over. But it's clear he knows little about them to begin with.

[Tyris Flare]

But the implication there wasn't that men don't need to work out for nude scenes - the opposite in fact. It was about the fact that because there ARE so many MALE nude scenes here, the men now need to work hard; while the women (who usually have the nude scenes) get to slack off now because they're featured less. The implication there is clearly that both need to work hard for nude scenes, and it's just a poke at how this time around it's more male than female nudity. Not that men don't need to work out for nude scenes.

Yeah that is not at all how I interpreted that. /shrug

[Biomega]

Yeah that is not at all how I interpreted that. /shrug

There's no shame in just saying "I read it wrong, my bad"

But in any event, the way that representation seems to overrule important story elements - and that in a work already very high on the female empowerment scale - is just deplorable. I'm all for representation, empowerment, etc. But that's not an ends onto itself. It should be PART of a good story, not SUBSTITUTE for a good story. You can't just do shitty writing and point to all the virtue signaling you put in as though it fixes everything. That's a really bad tendency in modern media production.

And to be clear: I'm talking about RELEVANT story points. Ariel the mermaid being black doesn't change anything relevant. The Dragon Reborn being a woman DOES.

[bledgor]

Man every bit of media about the show is making me less likely to watch it. Feels like they are changing sooo many things in the name of SJW, some of them fundamental things. Really sad.