- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wheel of Time TV, Full Trailer Oct 27, show premieres Nov 19
Posted on 3/3/20 at 12:52 pm to luvdoc
Posted on 3/3/20 at 12:52 pm to luvdoc
quote:
I have read that the show's writers think that Rand's 3 women "just will not work on screen", what ever that means. It is a shame, because each of them embody a crucial phase of Rand's required development from sheep herder to World Savior.
Started to write a summary of why each of them is crucially important to Rand's growth, and in checking the spelling of his warrior Queen, I came across this link which far better explained the importance of each
LINK /
This is just horseshite - i'm going to have to see how they end up doing it but if they just cut Min out in some fashion its really going to hurt me trying to enjoy this show.
As long as they establish the Aiel Custom, it will work. They can go ahead and show Aiel women with two husbands or something to make sure everyone knows its not a patriarchy thing.
frick shows like Into the Badlands, Vikings, Marco Polo, all have this multiple women kind of aspect.
1
Posted on 3/3/20 at 12:58 pm to luvdoc
quote:
I have read that the show's writers think that Rand's 3 women "just will not work on screen", what ever that means.
He has said, explicitly, that all three will be on the show. We just don't know if any of them will appear Season 1.
What he said about them not working on screen was the polygamy angle. He thinks its a bit of a tough sell as currently written in the books to translate to the screen, and wants to shift it somewhat more of a polyamorous situation, possibly meaning that the girls will be more involved with each other as well (which definitely makes sense in the Aviendha/Elayne relationship).
That's all he said. Not that it would be eliminated but that it would be more polyamorous than polygamist.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 12:58 pm to Sneaky__Sally
Veins of gold
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:04 pm to luvdoc
I was replying by memory, and did not recall the exact context of the writers remark, but I seem to have been pretty spot on, that changes will be made " to make it work on screen".
So three women married to one man will not "work on screen", but three women getting it on with a man and each other will "work on screen"?
Whatever
So three women married to one man will not "work on screen", but three women getting it on with a man and each other will "work on screen"?
Whatever
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:22 pm to luvdoc
Is it really that big a deal? Going from polygamy to polyamory isn't really that large of a change. There's already "pillow friends" and at least two of the girls have an extremely close and bordering on it relationship.
Those aren't the kinds of things I'll get my feathers ruffled about.
Those aren't the kinds of things I'll get my feathers ruffled about.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:23 pm to luvdoc
quote:
I have read that the show's writers think that Rand's 3 women "just will not work on screen", what ever that means. It is a shame, because each of them embody a crucial phase of Rand's required development from sheep herder to World Savior.
The shows writers don’t understand WoT and Rand then. All three women were essential to his success where others had failed.
I’m going just purely off memory, but Min had a lot to do with keeping him relatively sane and stable in his major depressive episodes as a result of wielding The One Power.
Elayne was kind of his tie to fatherhood and true love.
Aviendha had a lot to do with his understanding of the role of female Aiel and his unbridled rage when women were killed and or subjugated. It was her perceived death after all that had him going absolutely ballistic.
frick that noise. They’re the tri-force holding his shite together for the last third of the tale.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:26 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
quote:
I have read that the show's writers think that Rand's 3 women "just will not work on screen", what ever that means.
He has said, explicitly, that all three will be on the show. We just don't know if any of them will appear Season 1.
What he said about them not working on screen was the polygamy angle. He thinks its a bit of a tough sell as currently written in the books to translate to the screen, and wants to shift it somewhat more of a polyamorous situation, possibly meaning that the girls will be more involved with each other as well (which definitely makes sense in the Aviendha/Elayne relationship).
That's all he said. Not that it would be eliminated but that it would be more polyamorous than polygamist.
Ok, i don't mind any of that at all. Was just scared the rumors of min possible hitting the cutting floor were coming true.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:27 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Is it really that big a deal? Going from polygamy to polyamory isn't really that large of a change. There's already "pillow friends" and at least two of the girls have an extremely close and bordering on it relationship.
Those aren't the kinds of things I'll get my feathers ruffled abou
If they want to have attractive women take the next step in their relationship, which is already quite close and essentially the same thing in terms of its impact on the story, I fully support that decision.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:32 pm to Athos
quote:
The shows writers don’t understand WoT and Rand then.
Well, as I explained, that isn't what he said at all.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:34 pm to Fun Bunch
Also...its kind of an academic discussion as none of this would even pop up really until season 3ish when elements of books 4/5/6 pop up.
A lot of these streaming shows don't make it past the first season or two, so just have to hope Amazon has an instant hit or has patience.
A lot of these streaming shows don't make it past the first season or two, so just have to hope Amazon has an instant hit or has patience.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:35 pm to Fun Bunch
I think people were just getting caught up on the initial commentary.
That was the one issue that was making me concerned about the production, but I'm back to being quite confident that the final product should be a very worth effort.
That was the one issue that was making me concerned about the production, but I'm back to being quite confident that the final product should be a very worth effort.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:47 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
So three women married to one man will not "work on screen", but three women getting it on with a man and each other will "work on screen"?
Aviendha and Elayne... okay. Never got the sense Min swung for the opposite field at all though. And was often jealous of the other two. And yea.
Weird that polyamorous would be more acceptable. But then. Outrage cesspool Twitter community that will never read the booms will def decry toxic patriarchy regardless.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:47 pm to Sneaky__Sally
I agree with you, sneaky.
Most of the changes will not offend my WOT Fandom, nor flame my personal resentment at being preached to from the left.
I just think it is funny that the writers are personally offended with the idea of a solitary man married to 3 women, and disguise their concerns as being technically difficult within the chosen medium of television, while regarding an orgy of 4 an acceptable compromise that overcomes the alleged hurdles.
polygamy? unacceptable/immoral/unwoke
polyamory? peachy
So long as they do not change the crucial roles each of the wives play in the transition from sheep herder to world Savior, It is unlikely to rock my boat
Most of the changes will not offend my WOT Fandom, nor flame my personal resentment at being preached to from the left.
I just think it is funny that the writers are personally offended with the idea of a solitary man married to 3 women, and disguise their concerns as being technically difficult within the chosen medium of television, while regarding an orgy of 4 an acceptable compromise that overcomes the alleged hurdles.
polygamy? unacceptable/immoral/unwoke
polyamory? peachy
So long as they do not change the crucial roles each of the wives play in the transition from sheep herder to world Savior, It is unlikely to rock my boat
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:50 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
I think people were just getting caught up on the initial commentary. That was the one issue that was making me concerned about the production, but I'm back to being quite confident that the final product should be a very worth effort.
Fair enough. It sounded much worse in the sense they wouldn’t fully honor the essential plot and character developments stemming from all three women being conjointly romantically involved with Rand.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 1:52 pm to luvdoc
quote:
I just think it is funny that the writers are personally offended with the idea of a solitary man married to 3 women
I don't think Rafe Judkins has ever even remotely insinuated that.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 2:10 pm to Fun Bunch
I have and continue to concede that I do not recall the exact context of the remarks, but IIRCC, the comments were included amongst many that overtly addressed concerns of the interviewee regarding the politically incorrect shortcomings of the original work.
It may have been an error on my part that this specific concern was political/societal, rather than technical. But how can polygomy not "work on screen", but polyamory can?
I am sorry to have taken us so far off the beaten path here. This may well be, and hopefully will be, one of many meaningless necessary story–compressions, and it certainly can be done in a way that does not minimize the importance of all 3 women in the psychological growth of Rand
It may have been an error on my part that this specific concern was political/societal, rather than technical. But how can polygomy not "work on screen", but polyamory can?
I am sorry to have taken us so far off the beaten path here. This may well be, and hopefully will be, one of many meaningless necessary story–compressions, and it certainly can be done in a way that does not minimize the importance of all 3 women in the psychological growth of Rand
This post was edited on 3/3/20 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 3/3/20 at 2:27 pm to luvdoc
Here's the full comments:
20 seconds (literally) he clarified:
I believe that is the extent of his comments, besides at some point saying that it may just work better translating to screen.
He hasn't said anything else at all.
Now look...Rafe is gay and a Liberal/Progressive which is why people are inferring certain things in his statements. But he hasn't said it or really even inferred anything SJW.
quote:
“Question: Rafe, will Rand's romance plot remain close to the books? I mean, liking one girl at first but ending up with three in the end?
Rafe: No.
20 seconds (literally) he clarified:
quote:
Let’s just say I’m much more interested in polyamory than polygamy. And maybe give me a little more credit than assuming I’m gonna gut that entire story and ruin everything off a one word answer? ;)
I believe that is the extent of his comments, besides at some point saying that it may just work better translating to screen.
He hasn't said anything else at all.
Now look...Rafe is gay and a Liberal/Progressive which is why people are inferring certain things in his statements. But he hasn't said it or really even inferred anything SJW.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 2:30 pm to Fun Bunch
Again, he's saying he thinks Polyamory is more interesting for the screen.
And honestly, for character development and visual story telling, he is probably right. It adds an extra layer of drama and context.
Beyond that, you can pretend that polygamy isn't more problematic than polyamory in today's climate, but you'd probably be wrong I think. There definitely seems to be much more wide spread acceptance of polyamory than polygamy...for a variety of reasons.
And honestly, for character development and visual story telling, he is probably right. It adds an extra layer of drama and context.
Beyond that, you can pretend that polygamy isn't more problematic than polyamory in today's climate, but you'd probably be wrong I think. There definitely seems to be much more wide spread acceptance of polyamory than polygamy...for a variety of reasons.
Posted on 3/3/20 at 3:25 pm to Fun Bunch
Thanks for the clarification FB.
I would personally be more interested in a director that is more interested in WOT than in a director more interested in letting us know what his own interests are, and are not.
Mainly because I love WOT and want to see that story told
I would personally be more interested in a director that is more interested in WOT than in a director more interested in letting us know what his own interests are, and are not.
Mainly because I love WOT and want to see that story told
Posted on 3/3/20 at 3:29 pm to luvdoc
quote:
I would personally be more interested in a director that is more interested in WOT than in a director more interested in letting us know what his own interests are, and are not.
Rafe has been a fan of the books for almost 25 years now. He is a massive, massive fan.
But he also has to adapt this for the screen and he knows that a shot for shot visual retelling simply will not work. He has to work within the constraints of story telling, budget, and the visual media.
He also knows that he will get 6-8 seasons as a BEST CASE SCENARIO...so he has to put together an outline of the entire show based on that, cutting out a ton of things and focusing on things that enhance what he is going to get on screen.
The story is going to change. If you can't accept that, than you probably shouldn't watch.
Page 13 of 46
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News