ArrylT

https://bookriot.com/why-i-gave-up-reading-the-wheel-of-time/

 

Opinion article

On 1/20/2022 at 10:48 AM, Skipp said:

All depends on what you mean by badass,

 

Thom killing the darkfriend, 

 

Yeah that was one of the most badass scenes, without it appearing to be a badass scene, from not just Ep3 but the whole season.    I truly feel that a lot of people do not really understand how difficult that throw would be to make in real life.

 

Poorly lit, Dana is not standing at a straight angle, the braid is really thick and blocks part of the view of the neck & the distance was likely 20+ feet (count the number of full length strides Thom takes).  And the throw came in perfectly level, not at an angle.  A little higher the braid likely deflects it slightly, a little to the right it could have bypassed Dana and hit Mat, a little to the left it might have hit Rand.  If it comes in at the wrong angle of rotation  it might not even enter the throat but simply bounce off.

 

Based off of the distance the knife had to have done at least 2 full rotations, if not 3.

 

https://www.knifethrowing.info/how-to-throw-a-knife.html

 

 

17 hours ago, notpropaganda73 said:

 

I understand the motivation behind tracking the screen time but to be completely honest, there is more to centring a character in a story than simply having them on screen. Think about Silence of the Lambs - Anthony Hopkins was on screen for 16 minutes of that movie and won the Oscar for Best Actor! 

 

I think as people who are enjoying the show, we have to acknowledge that Rand simply being on screen for that amount of time has not worked for many. And so, why is that, and how can they improve on that going forward? For example of what I mean - Rand would have been on-screen for a significant portion of episode 3. The key scene in that episode is the climax with Dana - but what are many people thinking as they watch that scene? Is it about Rand the character, Rand's development - or is it the reveal of Darkfriends in this world and the danger that presents? Another example in episode 4 - Thom and Rand talking about Mat. While we all know the subtext here surrounding male channelers, the focus on the scene is actually talking about Mat,  and the episode as a whole while it has plenty of Rand in it, the feeling from that mini-story arc is Mat: what is happening to him? 

 

An example of good screen time for Rand (imo) is episode 7 and the much-hated love triangle scene. The whole argument about Mat and Rand's defence of him is excellent (imo). 

 

Maybe this would be better as its' own topic but I think it's good to think about the type of screen time the characters are getting. For example Siuan Sanche was present for a single episode in S1 but in terms of characterisation and all the rest, I would say she was one of the most memorable characters from the first season. 

 

Absolutely there is more to a character than just the screen time they get.   I do find it interesting though that Rand gets a lot of scenes with only 1 or 2 other characters (and a few on his own).   In the end it all comes down to how each person feels about Rands development. For me, Rand in the books develops pretty slowly in EOTW, and while I do not feel he develops any faster in S1, I do feel his development is more obvious to me in the show than in the books (I find his development becomes more obvious in TGH).  In part perhaps because of all those duo/trio scenes where you can focus more on each character.    I think the screentime stats simply show that Rand got a lot of time in which he could have a chance to develop, and whether or not a person thinks he did or not, well that is dependant on their perspective.

 

As for Siuan, quite agreed.  I would say she is more memorable in S1 than her appearance in The Great Hunt (but both appearances are very good). 

6 hours ago, Andra said:

I would downgrade the Two Rivers (not "EF" - he changed the name) attack further for three reasons.  

1: The trollocs spent far too much of their time after starting the attack simply standing around looking.  In book land, a trolloc with its blood up would never do anything like that.

 

 

Absolutely no argument there.   This is a case of what looks good on tv (imo) vs. what works in a book.  

 

I am going to have to re-watch the battle scenes in LOTR/Hobbit but I have a hunch I'll find similar scenes where there is plenty of posturing by Orc/Uruk-hai/etc on screen to build up the tension.   Having just watched Ep1 of The Witcher recently, that battle of Nilfgaard vs. Cintra I found several moments where I was "I just don't buy this as being realistic" .  In the end, as with most movie/show battles I just put that aside and enjoy it for its own sake.   Either way I really appreciate your take & SpiritWeavers.   

https://rationalnerd62.tumblr.com/post/673681725181788160/the-wheel-of-time-screentime-s1-rand

 

I've posted tumblr articles from this account previously - now they have done a deeper dive into Rands screentime and how much screentime he has had with each character & so forth.  ?

Don't think there is much here that we do not already know but here is another article to help re-orient the thread.  ?

 

https://epicstream.com/article/the-wheel-of-time-tv-series-vs-book-differences-explained

There was a video interview with Priyanka Bose today (or recently) and plenty of people are trying to speculate if her comments mean S2 will arrive sooner than expected (ie Summer or Early Fall) rather than  late Fall / early Winter.

3 hours ago, ilovezam said:

 

Think you're spot on with that example, in that Hamilton's cast seems universally loved without managing to come across as forced to just about anybody. I think that first of all LMM stated that he cast the crew for their rapping ability, and that the musical's genre has a strong cultural affinity with black people, and they knocked it out of the park. I don't think he set out to exclusively cast black people for just diversity reasons for many of the main characters. 

 

But I think a bigger difference for me is that a musical on stage is this hyper stylised thing where people overact things while they do crazy choreographed song and dance in a way you would not expect anyone to see in "real life". I remember picking up the biography for a bit after fanboying Hamilton for a few months, and while reading the book, I could not and did not visualize the characters from the more historically account as the same people from the musical adaptation - it's like the musical I love so much takes up a different space in my head entirely. I suspect it would look pretty darn ridiculous if they were featured in film as they were in the musical, costumes and hairstyles and all. 

 

Film and shows, on the other hand, seem to present a window through which we could look and immerse into a world as it's events are occurring. The vague imagination of the reader comes to life and it seems a lot harder to separate the adaptation and the prose. I suspect most of us imagine the cast as the actors from the films when re-reading LOTR, and so it's extra important for it to feel authentic and real, whereas Hamilton never had to quite worry about that. 

 

What? I'll admit I have no recollection of who Daise Congar was from the books before I Googled her more recently after the show, and I think that would have been true even if I did several rereads. 

 

The actress is 66. She is 100% shot to sound and look to old. That's what geriatric means. The fact that you manage to infer disrespect to actual rural people is telling and entirely on you. Try again. 

 

Also think it's neat that you care about her book feats in a discussion about the violation of the very same thing for a book blademaster. 

 

3 hours ago, ilovezam said:

 

Think you're spot on with that example, in that Hamilton's cast seems universally loved without managing to come across as forced to just about anybody. I think that first of all LMM stated that he cast the crew for their rapping ability, and that the musical's genre has a strong cultural affinity with black people, and they knocked it out of the park. I don't think he set out to exclusively cast black people for just diversity reasons for many of the main characters. 

 

But I think a bigger difference for me is that a musical on stage is this hyper stylised thing where people overact things while they do crazy choreographed song and dance in a way you would not expect anyone to see in "real life". I remember picking up the biography for a bit after fanboying Hamilton for a few months, and while reading the book, I could not and did not visualize the characters from the more historically account as the same people from the musical adaptation - it's like the musical I love so much takes up a different space in my head entirely. I suspect it would look pretty darn ridiculous if they were featured in film as they were in the musical, costumes and hairstyles and all. 

 

Film and shows, on the other hand, seem to present a window through which we could look and immerse into a world as it's events are occurring. The vague imagination of the reader comes to life and it seems a lot harder to separate the adaptation and the prose. I suspect most of us imagine the cast as the actors from the films when re-reading LOTR, and so it's extra important for it to feel authentic and real, whereas Hamilton never had to quite worry about that. 

 

What? I'll admit I have no recollection of who Daise Congar was from the books before I Googled her more recently after the show, and I think that would have been true even if I did several rereads. 

 

The actress is 66. She is 100% shot to sound and look to old. That's what geriatric means. The fact that you manage to infer disrespect to actual rural people is telling and entirely on you. Try again. 

 

Also think it's neat that you care about her book feats in a discussion about the violation of the very same thing for a book blademaster. 

 

I am not trying anything.   Simply mentioning how it comes across.   You said "geriatric farmwomen". 

 

Typically there are 3 definitions of geriatric, none of which tend to apply to healthy women who could be full of adrenaline and inspired by others fighting the Trollocs.

 

1 - pertaining to the field of geriatrics (study of diseases and disabilities of  the elderly)

2 - adjective describing someone as geriatric

3 - countable noun that casually insults them by suggesting old & weak.

 

There are actual studies that older people dislike certain terms when referring to them and geriatric is amongst those terms.

 

https://www.aarp.org/disrupt-aging/stories/ideas/info-2018/ageist-language-glossary.html

 

 

So yes, when you refer to a group of women of unknown age as a "bunch of geriatric farmwomen" it could come off as dissmissive or ageist, because you're using the word geriatric either as an adjective or a countable noun and those definitions can be deemed offensive, regardless if you know the age of one of the actors involved.  I still find it hard to believe geriatric is a word that is typically used endearingly when referring to people of the Two Rivers.  But if that was not your intent then it was not.  

 

Anyways as I mentioned, I like that scene as an example of the fighting spirit of the Two Rivers, something that is evidenced in the books, as early as Weep for Manetheren.   So no for me it is not about caring specifically for Daise Congar other than noting her ability to kill a Trolloc is in the books.

 

Regardless thanks for the response, even if it is likely we will have to agree to disagree. ?

3 hours ago, Andra said:

Rand killing the Trolloc doesn't make Tam weak.  Tam needing Rand to kill the trolloc for him does - at least weaker than even a retired blademaster should be.

 

While I disagree, I can now understand the perspective.  Thanks for your response. 

 

3 hours ago, Andra said:

 

 

The wound is simply a mark from being thrown back against the fireplace mantel.  The trolloc hasn't stabbed or clubbed him or anything else.  It shouldn't have been in any way debilitating, and in the show his movement doesn't seem affected by it at all.

 

Fair enough.  I've only watched the scenes at full speed - eventually I'm going to, like others have, watch it at half speed.  I think it could have hindered him slightly but feel that more in a way that that multiple factors occur.  Shoulder injury, misjudge speed & strength of top level Trolloc (Narg we assume) and choosing the wrong sword forms to fight a Trolloc, none of which I would punish Tam for since he's had zero life experience fighting Trollocs.  

 

Basically I think that the show levelled up, and maybe it was not necessary, certain Trollocs in certain scenes to amp up the suspense / action.   As I mentioned, I'd have liked to have seen more Trollocs attack the farm, not only for the opportunity for Tam to kill them,  but I can add that logically I don't think sending 1 Trolloc to the Farm and the other 99 (assuming it was a fist of 100) was something the Fade would have done.  But that is a case of real world fantasy logic versus what sells on tv to the average viewer.

 

Call it a case of it doesnt interfere with my enjoyment of the episode, but a way I can think of improving my enjoyment level.  

 

3 hours ago, Andra said:

 

Also: while he wouldn't have ever faced a trolloc before, he absolutely knew what one was, and how hard they were to kill.  He told Rand about them that night.  Nor was he really surprised by them showing up in the book, since he put on the sword before they broke in.

 

The Tam in the show and the Tam in the book aren't the same guy in this respect.

 

 

Very true, but that is part of the point I think.   Only the book readers know a lot of this information.  Since most viewers would not know - it therefore does not indicate any intent specifically to portray Tam negatively. 

 

So yes I would agree that Tam does not get the same opportunity to showcase his fighting skills that he did in the books.   I just would disagree that this lack of opportunity was due to anything other than the limitations provided (season length, episode length, adaptation requirements, etc), or that what I saw from Tam gave me a negative impression of him.  

 

I also want to be clear.   I would have been all for a longer S1 with 10-12 episodes*, where these scenes can be added to further flesh out certain characters and such.  I simply do not feel that the lack of these scenes, or how Tam is portrayed in the show is (a) intented to harm his portrayal as a character or (b) is done in a way that makes him appear weak. 

 

* - Several people have suggested that maybe one day a 12+ episode per season animated series would be nice, and I'd definitely want to watch that.

1 hour ago, ilovezam said:

I think most Hollywood shows would have jumped at the chance to show at least glimpses of badass action moments, and I cannot, for the life me, figure out why they wanted to make Tam lose to one. Is it to make Trollocs appear more scary? No, because right after we see a bunch of geriatric farmswomen kill one. Is it to make Tam be less competent because of old age? Maybe? But why?

 

 

 

Actually that is incorrect.  The very next scene, after Rand kills the Trolloc (so does Rand killing the Trolloc make Tam weak?), is Egwne & Nynaeve facing off against a Trolloc, whom physically overpowers both of them, but is destroyed by a weave by Moiraine.  Moiraine then goes on to throw her fireballs at other Trollocs, followed by other fighting involving her & Lan.  Then comes the scene with the people attacking the lone Trolloc.  To me, the scene of the women attacking the Trolloc as a group, is inspired by Moiraine & Lans actions.  

 

The fact that you call them geriatric farmswomen (which includes Daise Congar) suggests to me that perhaps you do not have a real love of the Two Rivers.  It also gives off an impression that you have a dislike of rural farmers & older women because of the definition of geriatric. Not that Daises age is listed anywhere or is it suggested she is "old".  Perhaps only in your head canon.  In any case the group is led by Daise, who is well described in the books as being quite capable of doing something like this..  

 

 

That alone could suggest she was "weakened" down.  Personally I take it as maybe the next time she sees a Trolloc she'll have enough experience to fight it 1 on 1 rather than as a leader of a group meant to showcase the stubborn fighting spirit of the Two Rivers, and hopefully foreshadowing the return of Manetheren.  

 

Also, the very first person, that I can seem way back at the beginning of the Winternight fight to defend themselves against a Trolloc in any way is a man (34:20-34:25).  

 

Plus it should be noted that Tam was already injured (you can see a wound to his back) prior to getting the heron marked blade. 

 

I am not going to discuss space, apart from saying that I think a smithy will have a lot more open space (remember it was room enough for 2+ Trollocs, the forge & Perrin & Laila), than a room in a typical farmhouse.

 

Personally I think that it would have been nice if Ep1 had been a little longer, allowing for say a group of 3 Trollocs (2 of which could have been killed by Tam), or edited in a way, that showed Tam having killed 1 Trolloc, but I simply do not see him as being weak for not having done so.  As far as I am aware, Tam never fought a Trolloc in his life prior to Winternight (as per Wiki), so expecting a man who last used a sword regularly 20 years ago (even if he may have practiced on occasion) to know how to remember all of his sword expertise and use it against a creature he never faced before successfully is a bit far fetched imo.  While I would have liked to have seen it, I can still see it not being portrayed realistically on TV.  Some things in books simply do not look as believable on TV, but that is for each to determine.

 

Not to mention the majority of people watching the show would have no idea that Tam was a soldier, since this does not get revealed til later, so there is no point in making Tam look "weak", even if that was the intent, for the show to do so.  If a person is unaware of a characters origin story, then how can they be shown as inferior to what they were.  We do not see Tam again until Ep7.   

 

Unfortunately I have no way of verifying but it seems implausible that the first thing non-book readers thought when they saw him (as part of Mins flashback vision) was "Oh this is the weakling who could not defeat a single Trolloc".  In any case, to me, that says more about the person viewing the show, if their first thought upon re-seeing a character was to think negatively about them.  I for one thought Tam Al'Thor came off as very well shown in the show, and quite enjoyed the reveal that he helped Tigraine give birth to Rand, giving him more of a connection to baby Rand.  So that is what I got from S1 re: Tam.   

 

If the show had started with Blood Snow, and/or we had seen Tam having success in battle and/or getting the heron marked sword from the King of Illian, then sure I could see how Tam was now portrayed in a negative light.   Actually, it could even be said that the show is doing Tam a favor, because all the new readers will see Tam as the EOTW book portrayed him after they saw him in Season 1.  

11 hours ago, Juan Farstrider said:

Jeff Garlin trashing his own show is a different thing altogether. Brian Cox, whose stage resume and career makes him very secure in his career, calling Johnny Depp over rated should not be surprising for many reasons. But you make fair points.

Saying people are going to be people cuts equally the other way too though. If you think they are genuinely calling it as they see 'em and not hyping the show (which could be for any number of reasons), then there you go. I can't imagine anyone, let alone a writer, hearing "she has a tell" in the last episode and not cringe. 

 

I have not gotten past Ep4 yet (just too much good WoT content out there) - anyways they have not posted an Ep8 podcast yet because they were/are dealing with covid.  So I guess we'll see. ?  For this podcast I am more interested in how they discuss the adaptation process, the predictions they make about future episodes (which I can then contrast to the how the episodes play out), and give me insight into how decisions involving the show could have potentially been made.  I focus less on whether they like or dislike such changes, so honestly I could not say if I recall if they like every change or not.    I've already learned more about the process of making a television show than I had expected.  

 

I certainly would not dissuade anyone who listens to the podcast and feels that the podcast gives a positive review of the show/changes made, only that I doubted that most people would avoid giving criticism over that kind of worry.  I mean Daniel Greene was brought to the official Premiere and he still gave a 5.5 to Ep 8.  WotsUp, who is quite vocal about loving the show, still gave Ep 8 a 5 based on their grading scheme, and (imo) he relies heavily on inside sources for his off-season leak videos.   

 

2 hours ago, Juan Farstrider said:

People in the industry are not going to rip apart the work of other people in their same industry. They have to always be looking out for the potential to work together. They can't burn a bridge they haven't even crossed yet. 

To be fair, they also know the real-world problems of writing for the actual screen as part of a big actual production and not what might get on the screen alone. I would take them the same way I take any Kevin Smith review of pop culture creations, or the way a local sports casting team covers the local team. 

 

Better tell that to Brian Cox then. ? His latest memoir calls Johnny Depp "overrated", Steven Seagal "ludicrous in real life" and Edward Norton ""a nice lad but a bit of a pain in the arse because he fancies himself a writer-director."

 

Here is Jeff Garlin trashing his own show.

 

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/jeff-garlin-leaves-the-goldbergs-comedy-show-1235137210/

 

Directors trashing their own movies (and remember movie sets involve dozens of people so when you trash your own movie you're not just trashing your own work)

 

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog//2017/10/14-directors-that-trashed-their-own.html

 

And here is famous directors dissing other directors

 

https://www.goldderby.com/forum/movies/directors-on-other-directors/

 

People are going to be people.  They cannot help it, even if staying silent would be better. So no I personally doubt that the people involved in any podcast would avoid saying critical or negative things about a show out of fear of loss of work.   

I've alwasy enjoyed the term 12 Days of Christmas so I'd certainly not object to Bel Tine or any holiday in The Wheel of Time being a multiple day event.   

 

Interestingly enough according to the wiki:

 

It is not set to a specific date, and comes later in northern lands than in the south. So unlike Christmas Day/Eve in this way.

 

https://wot.fandom.com/wiki/Bel_Tine

4 hours ago, Strahor said:

I'm finding it just sad, to be honest. There are a bunch of payed reviews, where people are applauding the changes, telling how ''first season had a better end then the end of the first book''. How? I knew that changes are coming and I did accept that. But, I didn't expect that writing will be so bad, that even if they form up a really good season 2, they would still need more time to repair the damage from the season 1. And seeing how Rosamund Pike is getting to be involved into the production and her character will be changed the most...I really don't expect much from a season 2.

 

I am always up for reading more WoT articles so please feel free to share all these articles you're talking about.  ?

5 hours ago, Strahor said:

It really is laughable how people are trying to defend bad writing and production, by saying that a character ''had more time''. Sure, more time means what, when you compare that with the storyline? Means nothing. Even in the episode 8, when we all ''knew'' that Rand is a ''Dragon Reborn'', we had no connection with him. So, when you're trying to defend a poorly written scenario, go from a point that Egwene or Moraine, had a lot more of interaction, based around the story, then Rand had. 

 

Not sure how you got that inference from their work since I do not see any discussion about writing or production but it wont be the first or last time people interpret things differently. 

https://rationalnerd62.tumblr.com/post/673512984165908481/the-wheel-of-time-screentime-season-1

 

A complete breakdown of S1 screentime.  Breakdowns by character, gender & episode and so on.   Extremely detailed imho.  Links in the post to all data and episode by episode breakdowns.  

 

When viewing through the lens of all screen time given to all WoT characters - Stepin got less than 3%.

 

My favorite revelation:

 

• Rand is the top character for solo scenes and duo scenes. He had 10min more duo scenes than Moiraine, and 27min more than Egwene. While it’s okay to be disappointed by his development in the show, especially for those who love book tEotW Rand, it’s factually wrong to say he had no more development than, say, Stepin or another recurring/secondary character (which is an exaggeration I’ve been told quite a few times).

 

However it is true that Perrin had the least potential for development due to limited # of solo / duo type scenes.   Mat looks like he would have had top 5 screentime if he had not been written out of the last 2 episodes (mostly) due to what occurred.

https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/the-wheel-of-time-review-a-ponderous-start-before-smooth-sailings/article38054449.ece

 

The Hindu gives Wheel of Time a Thumbs up.   This might not seem like much - but the Hindu is an english language newspaper in India with a likely larger subscription base than most US newspapers do in the US

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_India_by_circulation

 

1.45 million subscribers at end of  2019

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States

 

Only USA Today has a higher subscription rate at end of 2019

https://www.cbr.com/wheel-of-time-dangerous-characters/

 

4 Women

5 Men

1 DO ?

https://winteriscoming.net/2022/01/15/where-was-the-wheel-of-time-filmed/

 

Not much that might be new but an article on all the filming locations for S1.

15 minutes ago, Humbugged2 said:

 

But  they could be opened by channeling . When Loial shut tight the Manatheren Gate he said an Ogier Elder or an Aes Sedai could open it back up

 

And I think the Blacks gave Pain the key

 

It would seem pretty odd to me if the Aes Sedai who created the Ways would make the ways impossible to open by channeling.   Also I've just realized a potential way for Padan Fain to enter the ways behind the party and without (a) needing a key even though he had one in the extras or (b) a channeler opening it for him.

 

According to the Companion guide - if a waygate is opened by channeling, then it does not close completely.

 

So perhaps Padan Fain went to the waygate. took the leaf, forcing it to be opened by channeling.

 

So, as many are aware, apart from GOT, Wheel of Time gets compared and contrasted to Shannara Chronicles, Legend of the Seeker & the Witcher.   Any others?

 

Anyways I was curious, as it has been about a month since I last checked, and currently The Wheel of Time has 76 000 ratings.

 

Legend of the Seeker 34 000 (despite being around since 2008).

Shannara Chronicles has 58 000 

 

The Witcher has 433k currently.   I guess we'll see if in 18 months if The Wheel of Time can reach that.   Anybody know of a way to find out how many Witcher ratings were done only in 2019?

 

The Expanse has 135k (been on since 2015).

Hawkeye has 108k but interestingly enough, despite having 32k more ratings, only has 300 more 10/10 (while a lot less 1/10s).  Suggestive potentially that it has more broad appeal but less of a core fan base.

 

Agents of Shield (which some on this site seem to dislike because Rafe was involved) has 210k votes .

Chuck (the other show associated with Rafe Judkins) has 134k votes.

 

However in the end ratings doesnt always tell us viewership.   Here is Chucks US viewership

 

Season	Timeslot (ET)	Season premiere	Season finale	TV season	Rank	U.S. viewers in millions
1	Monday 8:00 p.m.	September 24, 2007	January 24, 2008	2007–2008	#65	8.68[24]
2		September 29, 2008	April 27, 2009	2008–2009	#71	7.36[25]
3		January 10, 2010	May 24, 2010	2009–2010	#82	5.99[26]
4		September 20, 2010	May 16, 2011	2010–2011	#101	5.58[27]
5	Friday 8:00 p.m.	October 28, 2011	January 27, 2012	2011–2012	#138	4.25[28]

 

So despite an audience in the millions less than 200k of that audience has chosen to vote on IMDB for it.  

So I have now watched 3 episodes of S1 The Witcher.   I'll get into more on that later.  Also skip this post if you do not want mild spoilers from any of the first 3 episodes.

 

But I have decided that it is not really possible to properly compare Lan to Geralt, for a few reasons.

 

1 - Most obviously, Lan is human whereas Geralt is not.

 

Or as Wiki states:  He is a magically enhanced monster-hunter known as a "witcher", who also possesses supernatural abilities due to his mutations. 

 

2 - In part because of their differences, Lan & Geralt are on quite different arcs

 

Lan, imho, is a character who thinks he knows who he is, and has chosen to wall off aspects of himself in order to live in a certain way. He has his 2 goals (basically roughly summed as support Moiraine & fight to the death in the blight).  Moiraine notes in Chp 22  TGH and I see this pretty much on point as how Lan is shown over the course of S1 (honestly compare Lan over the first 2 episodes and Lan once he meets Nynaeve).

 

 

Geralt rather is someone who is sort of like Data.   Different from, but wanting to become more human, and not really sure who he is other than he has a destiny to meet someone.   

 

I think this perhaps makes for an interesting dichotomy.   Plenty of people like Lan for what he represents in the books.   Whereas Geralt is like Lan in that aspect (Stoic aloof warrior) but I get the sense has an underlying maybe subconscious desire to become more human.*  The difference to me is twofold in that (a) as mentioned Lan is human where as Geralt is a mutated humanoid and (b) we get to see Lan change almost without Lan realizing while Geralt is motivated (imo) to change to fit in with humanity.  

 

3 - Powers

 

While Lan has the benefit of the bond, we already know that it also has its weaknesses.  The bond may help him heal faster.  On the other hand it could easily kill him or drive him mad if Moiraine was dead.   Geralts ability to magically heal from wounds has no negative risk.  Nor does Lan have magic powers he can use to control a situation in which he is fighting (Ep3 The Witcher Geralt vs. the striga) 

 

In the end there is no real comparison.   Perhaps one can argue that The Witcher makes Geralt appear more 'badass', but I would disagree.   In each of the 3 episodes of S1 Geralt has either been knocked unconscious, tied up, gravely injured or almost lost a fight to a female (of theoretically less developed/trained mutant skills).   

 

Heck here is what 1 review said about Ep3 

 

"The Witcher episode 3 recap: Geralt meets his match in the kingdom of Temeria"

 

More opportunity for Geralt to show off physical prowess?  Yes.

Proof that Geralt is actually more badass? No.

 

If I had to guess based off of just the 3 episodes. Lan would beat Geralt in a straight sword fight.  Lans bond would balance Geralts mutated physical benefits, and he looks to be the superior sword fighter. 

 

Now what would be interesting would be to see how Geralt did against multiple Trollocs or a Fade how Lan would do against a kikimora.  That can only be speculated on.

 

But going forward I am going to let Lan be Lan and Geralt be Geralt and not really judge one against the other.  IE I'll prefer Lan over Geralt but enjoy Lan for being Lan and Geralt for being Geralt. I'd rather not find Geralt lacking because I am starting to like the character now that I understand him better. 

 

* - Example from Ep1 - why would Geralt care if Renfri kills humans in order to get Stregobor if he did not have a care for humanity and its constructs like good vs. evil.  And if you're ok with spoiling yourself on book Geralt read up on his personality in the wiki 

 

 

3 hours ago, AdamA said:

They're in the EOTW comic and look much more like jagged, broken hilltops, much less like intact towers overtaken by invasive vines:

 

 

 

I have looked a lot of different Seven Towers of Malkieri images and they all have a similar look/feel to what was shown on the show.   I havent read the last GN of EOTW and now I learn there was a comic - guess that is next on my to find list.  ?