1. #881
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It makes sense when the audience the series is intended for is much more broader than people who have already read the books and are expected it regurgitated in another medium. That's effectively the difference here, and why Amazon put money into making this series when we all pretty much know it only exists because they want their own 'Game of Thrones', and not because they have any active interest in preserving the story of the books.

    And in the eyes of whoever is in charge of the series, that Rafe guy or whatever execs we don't know of, they obviously have their own agendas to present a more 'modern' version that has more appeal to the casual non-book reader. Again, not my preference for what actually happened, but this is literally what we got and the reasons for it. This isn't a passionate fan's dedicated vision, like PJ's LOTR or Villeneuve's Dune that we're talking about, unfortunately.

    - - - Updated - - -



    So what is the better option? Keep it all male only, and have the female characters be unimportant-yet-powerful tag-alongs for the sake of it? The books have already been criticized for poor portrayals of females, and we're in a time when there is a greater demand for stronger female representation in entertainment mediums (whether coming from fans or from producers, for whatever reasons they have). While I'd agree that preserving the books would be a sensible thing to do, I mean... I just see a conflict of interest for a 8-episode series that has female characters that you have no reason to root for as opposed to how it's currently playing out where there's strong female characters and non-book readers have reasons to be interested in them, even if it's a 'bait and switch'. It serves the purpose of the narrative that this mini series aims to tell, even if it's absolutely twisting the original narrative.

    I'd just as much compare this to the introduction of a romantic subplot in the Hobbit where it was absolutely unnecessary. Does it deserve to be there? No. But it's not like we don't know why it's been added. We know. It sucks that it was added, but we know why it's there.



    Again, I'm not the one making the creative decisions, so I can't speak out on their choices. We simply know why they chose to do it, because that's pretty much how things are. I don't know if 'Girl Power' makes it easier to greenlight shows on liberal media TV platforms or what, but that's pretty much how it is with any series. I'm just gonna say I don't think anyone should be surprised at the changes, and that the changes themselves aren't really affecting the storyline of the TV series since there's been no establishment that people are generally afraid of the Dragon Reborn specifically because he is a male channeller prone to madness. This simply has not been established in the TV series, so I still consider this baggage from the books that doesn't really concern the TV series at all.

    Much like someone arguing Comic book origins of a superhero and making points of how MCU versions of Spiderman never talked about Power and Responsibility or really make mention of Uncle Ben. Like, we don't really need that in order to enjoy the new Spiderman as Spiderman. WHether someone thinks having it would make the story/character/world more coherent and immersive is really up to the individual, and it's not some flaw of the MCU for omitting Uncle Ben.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The TV show isn't the book, that's also the point.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    And with this drivel it's safe to disregard any further text walls from you. In no way whatsoever are the women unimportant in wheel of time. Moiraine is huge early in the series and gradually gives way to others Egwene and Nynaeve are massively important not to even talk about Lanfear Birgette Min or Aviendah or Tuon or even Elayne. Not to mention all the black ajah characters or Siuan or how Morgase's transformation throughout the series is increasingly brutal and causes other things to happen. Hell of the Aiel in general massive chunk of the most important characters are women. This isn't LoTR with like 3 women who matter in the world. The duality of the one power is also reflected in the cast of characters. If anything making the dragon a woman as well would massively overbalance it.

    The changes Rafe and co have made haven't strengthened the characters who are woman they have significantly undermined pre existing strengths and characterization.
    Last edited by Xath; 2021-11-29 at 05:25 AM.

  2. #882
    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    And with this drivel it's safe to disregard any further text walls from you. In no way whatsoever are the women unimportant in wheel of time. Moiraine is huge early in the series and gradually gives way to others Egwene and Nynaeve are massively important not to even talk about Lanfear Birgette Min or Aviendah or Tuon or even Elayne. Not to mention all the black ajah characters or Siuan or how Morgase's transformation throughout the series is increasingly brutal and causes other things to happen. Hell of the Aiel in general massive chunk of the most important characters are women. This isn't LoTR with like 3 women who matter in the world. The duality of the one power is also reflected in the cast of characters. If anything making the dragon a woman as well would massively overbalance it.
    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'.

    The changes Rafe and co have made haven't strengthened the characters who are woman they have significantly undermined pre existing g strengths and characterization.
    I agree.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-11-29 at 05:32 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  3. #883
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And in the eyes of whoever is in charge of the series, that Rafe guy or whatever execs we don't know of, they obviously have their own agendas to present a more 'modern' version that has more appeal to the casual non-book reader. Again, not my preference for what actually happened, but this is literally what we got and the reasons for it. This isn't a passionate fan's dedicated vision, like PJ's LOTR or Villeneuve's Dune that we're talking about, unfortunately.
    Right. It is a poor adaptation because of the core changes they have made to the lore.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  4. #884
    Such a shame. So many good things about the series.

    Some awful ones too.

    1. It needs a full season for sure. Not 10 episodes
    2. It may have been better to animate
    3. It need to follow the book more closely. Book had such a cool style to it.
    4. It needed to better translate the lore and thoughts of the characters the writing fleshed out well.
    5. Avoid making unnecessary changes - it’s woke enough, did not need to change script to make women in particular Egwene and any we’ve dragon reborn possibilities.


    It changes something important about the dynamic that is t necessary to do so and ribs from the story leaving it worse, cheaper and. More generic.

    Egwene has a powerful destiny and her reasons for coming a long we’re strong enough - she is a channeled - discovering that for me felt very powerful - it’s like you can be a wizard. You don’t also need to be Ta’veren and potentially the dragon reborn on top of that. It’s like trying to shove her more in my face when I already know she is incredible and has an incredible Dre all her own, not wheel or destiny dependent.

    By a eve also has powerful reasons too. To join then and discovering who she is and her power levels was also quite enjoyable.

    Making them also ta’veren and potential dragon reborn just really ribs from the boys in particular Mat and Perrin. In a way that smacks of current polarising social politics most readers of the series will instantly spit and it would sour things.

    Face it, the book was already more than woke enough to please all the left without angering the right having elements for both.

    Knowing the original story just detracts from what was a great fantasy.
    Last edited by Mace; 2021-11-29 at 05:56 AM.

  5. #885
    Epic! Malania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newcastle, UK
    Posts
    1,551
    Speaking as someone who hasn't read the books, it's fine if a slow start with main characters who seem to bounce from one end of the spectrum to the other which is distracting sometimes as I can't decide if I like them or they're acting like children.

    It did catch me out with the innkeeper as I didn't expect the people to follow the dark one. I kind of liked her too.

  6. #886
    Dreadlord Smallfruitbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Khadgars' Tower
    Posts
    971
    For me, the heart of the Wheel of Time is

    The One power is divided in to two gendered halves, women can access it with minimal issue (although accidents can an do happen). Men who touch it go mad. The two sexes interact differently with the power.

    The world was broken by LTT, who was essentially a good guy, driven mad. He has been reincarnated multiple times.

    The Dragon Reborn has the power to break the world again or "fix" it. Not only does he have to contend with this but he also knows he will probably go insane, with a high chance of destroying the world again. He has no one to teach him how to use the power, until Asmodean appears and he's not around for long. On top of that, it is highly likely that he will have to give up his life in the process. Meanwhile, his closest friends have their own destiny to fulfill in order to help him (and the world) get to the Last battle ready to go.

    All the cultures of the world know this guy is coming and have their own series of prophecies surrounding him -and their own cultural baggage to deal with (Aiel and Tinkers especially).

    The White Tower are trying to prepare in their own ways for his arrival and The Last Battle. Meanwhile The Dark One has servants working actively against the Dragon.

    Does it matter if there are only 3 forsaken instead of 13 -not really, although there is some significance to the number?
    Does it matter that Siuan has brown eyes instead of blue? -Not to me, as long as we get a semblance of her character. It does however matter that she has spent the last 20 years operating in secret trying to ensure the Dragon is kept safe on an increasingly hostile playing field.
    Does it matter if Nynaeve over powers Logain significantly and doesn't have a block? -Actually yes. Because losing her block is a major part of her character development. As to power level, she's impressive against the other Aes Sedai, but nowhere close to the Dragon Reborn. What we saw at the end of episode 4 felt like a Chodean Khal level feat -they will have very few places to go with her gaining strength if the first thing she is able to do is a mass heal. It changes the stakes for every battle she is close to. -Lost a lot of soldiers, don't worry lets poke super-woman. It also changes the dynamic of her relationship with the other Aes Sedai from the outset.



    There's a lot of side stuff that is pretty damn important but losing the fundamentals turns it into just another generic fantasy series. As to the comments on Robert Jordan's writing of women -I believe a lot of the distaste comes from the fact we don't like having our flaws waved in our faces. He gets more right than wrong, we just don't like to admit it.
    Last edited by Smallfruitbat; 2021-11-29 at 01:21 PM.

  7. #887
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Do non-book readers understand this gender dynamic from the first 3 episodes? Has it been illustrated in this way? No, it hasn't.
    Because the people running the show haven't even attempted to address it. They literally tossed it, which in turn makes for a shitty "adaptation" of the series when those things are a core element of what makes the IP Wheel of Time.

    I mean, there is absolutely no reason the showrunners COULDN'T have included it, and it would have gone a long way towards adding some unique flavor to the generic fantasy theme they currently have going on.

    I mean, Removing the whole Gender divide of the One power in WoT is kind of like doing Lord of the Rings where you just cut out the backstory about the lesser rings (like, pretend they don't exist at all) and just focus on building a story around the One Ring as an object of power.
    Last edited by Surfd; 2021-11-29 at 12:10 PM.

  8. #888
    Quote Originally Posted by Smallfruitbat View Post
    For me, the heart of the Wheel of Time is

    The One power is divided in to two gendered halves, women can access it with minimal issue (although accidents can an do happen). Men who touch it go mad. The two sexes interact differently with the power.

    The world was broken by LTT, who was essentially a good guy, driven mad. He has been reincarnated multiple times.

    The Dragon Reborn has the power to break the world again or "fix" it. Not only does he have to contend with this but he also knows he will probably go insane, with a high chance of destroying the world again. He has no one to teach him how to use the power, until Asmodean appears and he's not around for long. On top of that, it is highly likely that he will have to give up in the process. Meanwhile, his closest friends have their own destiny to fulfill in order to help him (and the world) get to the Last battle ready to go.

    All the cultures of the world know this guy is coming and have their own series of prophecies surrounding him -and their own cultural baggage to deal with (Aiel and Tinkers especially).

    The White Tower are trying to prepare in their own ways for his arrival and The Last Battle. Meanwhile The Dark One has servants working actively against the Dragon.

    Does it matter if there are only 3 forsaken instead of 13 -not really, although there is some significance to the number?
    Does it matter that Siuan has brown eyes instead of blue? -Not to me, as long as we get a semblance of her character. It does however matter that she has spent the last 20 years operating in secret trying to ensure the Dragon is kept safe on an increasingly hostile playing field.
    Does it matter if Nynaeve over powers Logain significantly and doesn't have a block? -Actually yes. Because losing her block is a major part of her character development. As to power level, she's impressive against the other Aes Sedai, but nowhere close to the Dragon Reborn. What we saw at the end of episode 4 felt like a Chodean Khal level feat -they will have very few places to go with her gaining strength if the first thing she is able to do is a mass heal. It changes the stakes for every battle she is close to. -Lost a lot of soldiers, don't worry lets poke super-woman. It also changes the dynamic of her relationship with the other Aes Sedai from the outset.



    There's a lot of side stuff that is pretty damn important but losing the fundamentals turns it into just another generic fantasy series. As to the comments on Robert Jordan's writing of women -I believe a lot of the distaste comes from the fact we don't like having our flaws waved in our faces. He gets more right than wrong, we just don't like to admit it.
    While everyone is entitled to like and dislike someone’s work for their own reason. Too many in our generation criticises everything regardless giving off such an air of victim mentality - which is terrible. Jordan bad on women? That is laughable. I think he was very realistic and women are more flattering than men in this series.

    Also his wife pretty much co-wrote the series.

    It’s incredible how often the flaws of men are exposed but even when women are miles better - some would write that they hate his treatment of women. Sigh

    They are entitled to their own opinions but I just suspect they are saying that because he is a man and how dare he try to write the opposite sex. or whitewash a gender (these usually expect all women to be flawless and are totally unrealistic)

    A lot of totally deranged and insane reactions and comments from readers that make no sense and do not deserve to be treated with an ounce of respect for the utter nonsense they are saying.


    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.

    If people think that men are stronger in the one power is some anti woman rhetoric from Jordan. Again I say = insane. It’s like how dare you mention men are physically stronger than women, more powerful too in terms of raw strength.

    Hate it as you might, this is just how it is. It’s the reality of things. While not every man is stronger than every woman off course, but the genders are different and strength has always been for men. Men regard this a lot and while important they boost it’s significance and value all around. Women who think strength is everything simply covet men and what the men have not realising they have strengths (to use the word) that are just as important and equally valuable - to be honest, these women just want everything, they want all the bonuses women have over men, and all the ones men have - it's called greed and covetousness. you want to have everything over the other - don't know and understand that in life as humans it's about sharing, and none of us have everything, but together we can compliment and fit together to form a complete picture. Some men are obsessed with having everything, the same is for women who want and covet whhat men have.

    Part of the problem is also that in this world men don’t think highly of many female qualities - or at least it appears that way to these women (it actually is not the case, it's just that men show their appreciation in different ways, while bragging about the things they find important) but some women are so trapped in victim mode they've literally been warped perception wise, resulting in groups of women angry and thinking things like men being "stronger" is some great cosmic injustice, unfair and hate men for it while trying to be more like men. Because for all their hate they are the most male centred women out there. And often enough they're just lashing out at men (usually because the men are the source of their misery, the great shame is those women who follow them.. making women just as flawed as the idiot men who follow crazy men in destructive and evil behaviour.

    [so Jordan writing men are stronger - becomes unacceptable because of these crazies, and it's worse when director's/producers will change this not to offend people - it's so annoying, you are entitled to hate this about his work, you are entitled to hate the fact that men are stronger - I think you're greedy and foolish to focus on another's positives instead of your own or wanting everything including that which is not part of you. but hey.. somehow it is now acceptable for women to do so, but not for men, and un-natural almost to some crazies out there that we have a different gender.. and they should never be pandered to - because they've gone crazy, lost the plot on life and lost any iota of wisdom)

    The greatest and best women don’t try to cover what men have and envy their positives, they can admire and find sexy the positive attributes of men but they understand the positives of women and accept themselves using it to astonishing and beneficial effect that when the true accounts of history are told you will find women amongst men as equals but different.

    Sure if men write the history books then it’s going to focus on all the things men find important. If women don’t teach their daughters to look beyond the bravado and the “hairs on my chest” mentality of men they will be swept up in a man’s world like some feminists have succumbed. When it had stopped being about equality with men and about being men themselves. Equity not equality.

    One if the greatest charms of Jordan’s book was how incredible women were without turning them into men. Women controlled the world, yet men were still physically stronger and stronger in the power.


    That’s a stunning presentation perceiving the truth about the genders and yet presenting an alternate reality where things were different without changing women into men.

    But we live in an insane age where the rhetoric of crazy people seem to have a lot more power and influence.
    Last edited by Mace; 2021-11-29 at 01:20 PM.

  9. #889
    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.

  10. #890
    Dreadlord Smallfruitbat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Khadgars' Tower
    Posts
    971
    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.

  11. #891
    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.

  12. #892
    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.

  13. #893
    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

  14. #894
    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.

  15. #895
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  16. #896
    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.

  17. #897
    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.

  18. #898
    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.

  19. #899
    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

  20. #900
    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.

Posting Permissions

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