MovieChat Forums > The Wheel of Time (2021) Discussion > Holy shit! This is actually happening!!

Holy shit! This is actually happening!!

posted 6 years ago by Burk48917 (11365)
35 replies | jump to latest

After the weird Billy Zane 5 minute,3 a.m. movie, I thought this would never develop. I am so excited to see how this turns out. It is a loooong series.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

What network is it going to be on - HBO or some other outfit that has a budget?

Because yeah, this is a story that could only be told in series format. They'd never be able to make it into feature films, so it sounds like they're doing something right from the get-go.

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 6 years ago

Amazon is producing this. They sank some money into Jack Ryan and it paid off. Hopefully they don't mind giving this a big budget.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Damn, I was hoping it would be HBO, and I could find an excuse to not quit once "Game of Thrones" finishes.

I hate to give Amazon any of my money, considering the way they treat their employees.

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

I thought this would never develop

This will happen, but it won't last.

That's the current state of business. They're burning franchises one after another. It's the same repeated loop
(1) pick a new franchise
(2) make it feminist and diverse
(3) people reject it
(4) go back to (1)

It's happening again and again. Less known franchises (as this one) will be chosen since they're running out of them. Doctor Who? Burnt. Star Wars? Burnt. Game of Thrones? Burnt. Charmed? Burnt. Sabrina? Burnt. The Witcher? Burnt... even before start shooting! XDDD

So this will happen, and this will die after a while. A short while. The whole Wheel of Time saga? Not this time.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I hate to break it to you, but the books could fairly be called "feminist" even though they were written by men.

Perhaps it's not for you.

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

If they're adapting it as usual (nowadays), of course, it won't for me... or for lots of other people who don't like the politically correct stuff neither.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

May I ask if you've read any of the books?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

It's very obvious he has not read the books.

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

Yes, and I don't remember having almost every white male portrayed as a psychopathic villain, a violent abuser or a clown.

It seems that it's YOU the one that didn't read the books.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Oh, were those the books where the white male protagonist was doomed to a future of destructive madness, because in that fantasy world only women can wield magic safely and that gives women tremendous power? And you can't even blame that setup on women because a man wrote it?

I think you'd be happier watching something Batman for the millionth time.

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

And?

Women have been traditionally associated with magic. The witches were usually women. Men were usually associated with warriors (physical) and builders. Women were associated with motherhood, fertility, healing, safety and magic. Both handled different kind of power, but magic in particular was traditionally associated with women. The 'male mage' archetype was rare until Sword&Sorcery pulp and Tolkien's high fantasy, some decades ago.

Wheel of Time (the books) is not feminist. It's actually extremely traditional.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

You seem to have an extremely narrow view of feminism. But yes, a book where female characters are treated as being as interesting and important as male characters, where they have social, political, and magical power, throughout that world, could fairly be called feminist.

Remember the old slogan "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people", which applied to the Fantasy genre means that any book where the female characters are more than pretty rewards for the male heroes (Arwen Undomiel) could be called "Feminist". It's not just unrealistic woman warrior characters.

[–] kuku (3510) 6 years ago

- «But yes, a book where female characters are treated as being as interesting and important as male characters, where they have social, political, and magical power, throughout that world, could fairly be called feminist.»

Nope. It couldn't.

That could be labeled as feminist if we were in the 60s. Or if this thread was about the 60s, but this is not the History Subreddit. If we're not talking about some very specific historical context, the label 'feminism' (without any adjective as 'classic feminism' or 'liberal feminism') should be understood as the current mainstream feminism aka modern feminism. This is not a 'narrow vision', this is being precise.

- «Remember the old slogan "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people", which applied to the Fantasy genre means that any book where the female characters are more than pretty rewards for the male heroes»

Women being 'pretty rewards' is actually a very specific trope in movies. It was never common in TV series neither in literature (except pulp stories, chivalry literature and maybe some other subgenre). It happened in American movies since American cinema needs a very short and straightforward story and used to be

main character (white male) -> villain (white male) -> conflict -> pretty reward (white female).

Calling a book 'feminist' for doing what most books have done through history (telling a complex story with complex characters) is ludicrous. Less movies, more reading, please.

Actually, modern feminism didn't solve the problem of simple straightforward stories in movies. It just shifted the roles to:

main character (white female or non-white male) -> villain (white male) -> conflict -> pretty reward (power)

And this is actually worse, since it associates a very specific ethnic group (white males) to evilness, something that didn't use to happen before. It's like a modern iteration of a nazi movie:

main character (german male) -> villain (jew) -> conflict -> pretty reward (german female).

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

There's really no point in talking to people who know nothing, and think they know everything. And who put so much effort into making that clear.

[–] asom (6835) 6 years ago

i Had no idea that Dumas was a feminist ... or Zevaco. Or any "ancient" writer that had strong female characters ...

And he is actually right.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

like kudu you are an Intel. so any of the real definitions of feminism has to be ignored in favour of one where men are constantly the victim and women just get special treatment in your mind.

WOT clearly has aspects of feminism.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

so any of the real definitions of feminism has to be ignored in favour of one where men are constantly the victim and women just get special treatment in your mind

There's no 'real definitions'. Definitions either describe accurately the way a word is used or they don't.

An accurate definition of feminism is a female lobby combined with white-guilt elements. That's is what we call 'woke feminism', or simply 'feminism'. That's basically feminism during the last decades. WOT is not particularly feminist. It lacks key elements of feminist works like portraying negatively white males.

Of course, it's not the only definition, just the accurate one right now. You could define feminism (too) as a equal rights movement, but that should be better labeled as 'early feminism', 'classic feminism' or 'wollstonecraft feminism', as it describes feminism during XIXth and early XXth centuries.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

omg this kudu guy is a joke

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 6 years ago

I'll bet a sweet bundle of optimism like yourself is a delight at parties. Despite all of your predictions, the only guarantee is that this won't get finished or be good if it never gets started,so they are off to a good start with at least making the attempt.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

lol did you even read WOT? it is chalk full of strong in charge women... literally the most powerful organization in the story (at least at first) is a women only group. please stop talking

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Seriously, the book is about a world where only women can use the power of magic, where world events are manipulated by organized women, where village girls feel free to take off on quests, where hereditary monarchies can pass from mother to daughter and bypass sons, where female nobles have monumental power, etc. It could fairly be called a feminist work, a man's feminist take on the Fantasy genre.

But it could also be called anti-feminist, in a way, because as the story progresses the male characters gain power in a world dominated by women and the sexes become more equal. But if the story is anti-feminist it's not mean-spirited, there's no hatred of women or any sense of men putting women in their place. I do hope the latter carries over to the TV series.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

it is chalk full of strong in charge women

Nope. They're not particularly strong.

People use to confuse 'strong' with 'powerful', and it's not the same. Indeed, it's the opposite: for a character to prove he's strong, he must stand up against adversity, he must struggle and suffer every day and despite it, he won't give up. That's 'strong'.

Powerful characters rarely prove they're strong: power makes it much easier for them. Modern Hollywood has near to zero strong female characters (no matter how much they repeat the 'strong female' mantra). As a beautiful paradox of modern times, it happens to be much easier to find strong female character in old cinema dramas, characters like Scarlet O'Hara in Gone with the Wind, or Katie Elden in The Sons of Katie Elder, even Milly Pontypee in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers!

it is chalk full of strong in charge women

That's not particularly feminist.

You can build a world where men are in charge, that's not anti-feminist. You can build a world where women are in charge, that's not feminist. You can build a world where robots are in charge! that's not pro-robotist or whatever. As long as you make a reasonable and serious worldbuilding, that's jut storytelling.

On the contrary, when you femwashes male characters, or you reverse gender roles just for the sake of ideology without creating any serious worldbuilding work (and what's more: usually making white males clearly evil or cucks): THAT'S feminism.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

again I see you never read the books

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

It seems you're projecting, mate. That's why you can't argue.

Whatever.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

I've read the entire series 4 times. again the fact you think there is only "powerful" but not "strong" female characters show you didn't read the book at all. your re clearly above the age of 50, angry and bitter at women. and can only look back at "the good ld films" where women knew their place.

I didn't realize there were so many inches on here.

I think talking out the last U in your name is more suitable. KUK

[–] nte1igentwon (956) 4 years ago

Haha! You're white alt-right tears are delicious! Hmm-hmm.

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Maybe some of those interminable descriptions of the women's dresses will be more interesting on film.

I really liked the books actually, but it was such a pity he didn't manage to finish them in time. The author who finished the last couple of books did a serviceable job but has a very different style and, obviously, didn't know all the details of how each story thread was meant to end up. I was glad we got an ending though!

[–] captainbucky (15252) 6 years ago

It’s a monkey face

[–] rudeboymurray (3271) 5 years ago

I struggled through the first book a couple of years back. The thing was huge and white it was quite readable, nothing about it compelled me to tackle the second. It was only later that I realised that there are, what, FOURTEEN of these doorstops in the series?

Game of Thrones, for all its flaws, has set the bar high -- interesting to see what happens with this.

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 5 years ago

I'd imagine they cut a LOT of the filler, of which there is plenty. This is closer to the tone of LOTR, so not nearly as dark as GOT.

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Yes, even if they just cut it to the bare bones plotlines they can easily get at least five seasons out of it, if not eight. Or twelve....

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

I'm hoping they'll do what the "Game of Thrones" show did, and did successfully for a while... give the books the ruthless editing they needed all along. I mean I read the first five or six books of the series, but they just went on and on and ON, the author let the story get away from him the way GRRM did.

The "GoT" writers actually did a great job of editing books that had become a meandering mess as the writer lost the plot, they cherry-picked out the good stuff and imposed pacing and direction where GRRM had forgotten that they mattered. It was only after they ran out of books that things really went to hell, let's hope they do a more consistent job on "WoT".

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

They'll have to do what Brandon Sanderson did, basically. I wonder if they'll have access to Robert Jordan's notes.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Well it's my understanding that the books were finished, that after Robert Jordan's death someone else finished the whole shebang from its notes. I gave up on the series after it lost the plot, and I assume that the whole thing is as sluggish and meandering as the books that drove me away, because even reading a capsule description on Wikipedia was a bore.

So they won't need to work from Jordan's notes, they'll need to take the whole existing thing and cut it down to a coherent story that can be told in a few years of TV episodes. I don't envy the staff writers hired to undertake this monumental task, because for a start, they'll actually have to read the whole mess!

[–] Iffy762 (1334) 4 years ago

Yup, Brandon Sanderson finished the series after Jordan passed away. He did a really good job wrapping it up in a clean fashion, especially considering he had his own projects he wanted to write. His prose style is totally different from Jordan's. He left a lot of stuff out, which is probably what Jordan should have done, but of course I was interested in some of those minor plotlines so I wouldn't mind if they tied a few of those up in the series (hence my query about access to Jordan's notes).