DigificWriter

Love doesn't adhere to logic. Yes, Rand knows all of those things; they aren't going to stop his love for her, though, because you can't just cut love off like you're snapping your fingers.

I believe that Sony Pictures Television, not Amazon, is the primary rights holder along with iWot, which puts the onus of renewal in their hands.

I'll unequivocally apologize for characterizing some posters' tone and tenor as ignorant. I am sorry for that word choice.

Storytelling is not objectively good or bad in and of itself because those terms are not in and of themselves objective. The execution of certain things is not going to land for every single person who watches the show, but poor execution of a thing does not invalidate the thing itself or reflect negatively on the decision-making process that accompanied its inclusion. As an example, some of the book fans I follow had issues with the execution of the practical processes that were used to transform Josha into some of his ancestors, but that doesn't mean that it was a mistake to even ask him to play all of his ancestors in the first place. Because they come across that way to others. This viewpoint comes across as very ignorant because it is absolutely and inherently impossible for an adaptor to not infuse the thing they are adapting with their own personal interests, beliefs, interpretation of social Mores, and the constraints and mechanics of the medium they are working with.

The individuals who run this very website are not fools just because they hold a viewpoint that is different from yours. Nor are the likes of Rob (Malkier Talks), Mat Hatch (The Innkeeper from The Dusty Wheel), Jon from WoT Up, KritterXD, Winespring Cafe, Ta'varen Tavern from X/TikTok/The Wheel & Chill Show, Lezbi Nerdy, Kevin Angus, Rebecca from Reading the Pattern, Lauren from Unraveling the Pattern, Jess from The Amrylin's Study, Dani and Brett from The Wheel Weaves Podcast, and Rhuarc and Saimma (the book fan hosts of the Watch Party Wheel of Time Podcast).

Yes. And the majority of the die-hard book fans who produce WoT content online that I follow share that point of view.

You are assuming that those 4 characters' dalliances with members of the same sex absolutely and binarily defines their sexual orientation in a way that it does not. You also come across as being ignorant of the fact that Moiraine and Siuan's romantic relationship is absolutely present in one of the novels and that the novels also very heavily imply that there was a romantic and sexual aspect to Aviendha and Elayne's relationship in the novels. The tone and tenor of your posts quite frequently gives off the impression that you view each and every decision that the show's writers have made through a lens that is clouded by a presumption that said decisions were inarguably wrong. The tone and tenor of your posts also quite frequently gives off the impression that you do not understand - or are not willing to take into account - the ways in which each and every decision that the show's writers have made are shaped and driven by the same things - their own personal interests and beliefs, the social Mores of the time, and the medium in which they are working - that drove Robert Jordan and/or do not believe that they should be afforded the freedom to be driven by said things.

My personal point of view is driven by far more than my having taken creative writing courses. As I have previously noted, a large portion of my analysis of the series and the creative processes behind it - and, in turn, my dismissal of complaints that run directly afoul of and contrary to that analysis - is fueled by my having worked directly in concert with an experienced Freelance television writer and the numerous things that I learned from him. Also, none of my commentary is - or has been - a direct attack on posters whose complaints I disagree with or believe to be demonstrably bad-faith arguments borne of ignorance.

This comment demonstrates another common misconception about the Hobbit films and their development process, one that, again, can be dispelled through a deep dive into the behind-the-scenes Appendices material.

Which shows your ignorance (IMO) and also demonstrates an unwillingness to accept that the decisions that have been made were made in good faith. This comment demonstrates a common misconception about the Hobbit Trilogy that has sadly contributed to it being viewed as a 'lesser' work than the LotR Trilogy. If you dive deep and delve into the behind-the-scenes Appendices material associated with the Hobbit films, you will discover that only 1/4 of the Trilogy's cumulative runtime is filled by story ideas that were added through reshoots and Pickups, and that there is actually only a handful of material from that remaining 3/4 of narrative runtime that is filled by things that came purely from the imaginations of the filmmakers.

When the series was being developed, there was a point where the Yellow Ajah sister Valda killed was named Chesmal Emry, and when he found this out, Rafe went apoplectic and used the phrasing 'Chesmal Emry' in his response, and the fandom has turned said phrasing into a meme. My point, though, was that were the accusation that the show is just "tossing in changes for the sake of change" true, Rafe would not have responded the way that he did. Not having patience for complaints that i believe have little actual validity based on my own personal experiences and understanding doesn't make me an "apologist". Also, I will absolutely criticize the show if/when criticism is actually warranted, as I did when I commented in the discussion thread for " The Road to the Spear" that it had not been made clear enough in the show that Reincarnation was not explicitly tied to blood ancestry, which in turn led to my absolute confusion and cognitive dissonance vis a vis Rand's story in that episode both in general and in specific with regards to his seeing the Bore through the eyes of Charn. The difference, however, is that, rather than simply attacking the competence of the writers, I sought out explanations for the things about which I was confused, and then used those explanations to respectfully point out/comment on a way in which the writing had failed.

I can't believe I'm about to reference a fandom meme, but if the writers were truly "tossing in changes just to have change", Rafe would've let the Yellow Ajah Sister whom Valda burned at the stake in Episode 1x02 be named 'Chesmal Emry'. Every single thing that the show does is calculated and serves a purpose, be it to flesh out the world-building and Lore, serve as an Easter Egg, flesh out or develop characterization, or help facilitate storytelling, just to name a few considerations. Nearly every time someone with a negative view of the show makes a comment, they continually demonstrate just how ignorant they are when it comes to storytelling, and also that they've taken the way that Robert Jordan chose to tell his story - which was shaped and dictated by his own personal interests and beliefs, the social Mores of the time, and the Literary medium - as if it's some 'Holy' blueprint that can't be deviated from.

Thoughts and comments on the episode: * In-universe, it's been at least two years since the events of Shadow's Waiting, so Moiraine isn't wrong. * I'm not sure that I believe that the dreams of her friends that Egwene entered are actually things that they would've been dreaming about given the current circumstances that they're in, but that's entirely a 'me' issue. * The further we get into the season, the more convinced I'm becoming of two things: 1) Moiraine is dying permanently 2) Rafe and his team are saving the Tower Coup for a future season * Valda needs to die... slowly and painfully * I'm almost 100% positive that the Grey Man who attacked Elaida was Jaichim

Rafe and his team likely already know with certainty what the actual chances of a renewal are, and I honestly don't think they're as dire as some other people might be imagining that they are.

It isn't, though. Television shows being renewed either before or during the broadcast of their current seasons, while more common now than it has been in the past, is still not Standard Operating Procedure for the TV industry, which normally only makes renewal and cancellation announcements in May at the Upfronts.

It really shows how desperate some of the people who don't like the show are when they are grasping at 'doomsaying'. The show isn't nearly in as much danger as some people think - or are, unfortunately, hoping - that it is.

The show made it pretty obvious* what it was going for re: The Song through both its score (the Aiel harvest song plays underneath the scene where the ancestors of the Tuatha'uan break away from the 'True Aiel") and the fact that the Previously On very specifically included the discussions about The Song from A Place of Safety. * although apparently not obvious enough given the pushback on the subject that I referenced

Based on the way Natasha O'Keefe portrayed the character, I just don't see any of this as being true. And for all of the cognitive dissonance that her mention of Lews during their conversation initially caused for me, the overall context of the scene itself was crystal clear: she was genuinely trying to help the world - and all of its inhabitants - with her research and the project to Bore into the Pattern.

The context of their conversation and their respective postures conveyed a very close relationship, so I don't buy this argument. There was some pushback against this subject last night in the YouTube Chat for the Wheel & Chill Show, which is why it was on my mind.

I haven't seen a lot of discussion about the fact that the Aiel songs of harvest got mythologized into The Song by the Tuatha'uon over the course of generations. It's a great way to illustrate the truth of the passage "The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again".

I'm not saying that Charn and Rand are identical in appearance, merely that there is a definite physical similarity there that Lanfear has to recognize even if she's never brought it up.

Popping back in with a thought that was sparked by The Wheel & Chill Show: although we've only ever seen her talk about Rand in the context of him being a reincarnated Lews, Lanfear (Mieren) has to recognize his physical resemblance to her Aiel servant Charn.

The issue of cognitive dissonance that I'm concerned about could've been solved with Ingtar, but they either couldn't do that bit because of time constraints or Rafe got told that he couldn't do it by higher-ups. Either way, it's created a conundrum with a character like Verin that the show finds itself in and one that I can't see a way out of aside from not actually going in that direction. Though, again, we'll see.

Because her actions thus far are incompatible with what most of the audience understand about the dichotomy between light and dark as presented in the show. In the show, there hasn't as of yet been anyone sworn to the Shadow whose actions - however noble the motivations behind such actions might be - haven't been what most of the general audience are going to view as evil, and if you suddenly change that, it's going to cause issues. BTW, this observation/statement isn't meant to be a criticism, or at least not one that is show-breaking. It's simply an analysis of things as they are.

I still don't think you can give Show!Verin her book arc without creating cognitve dissonance for most of the audience, but we'll see.