Wheel of Time TV Show 7: And There Shall Be Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth

[IFR]

Thread of Chaos was a good suggestion, but here we are at the gathering storm, and so I found the Karaethan Cycle passage rather applicable.

Let the discussion proceed!

[Lin Meili]

Ah a new thread. I think I'm getting fan fatigue from the teasers, trailers, spoilers, and such. I'll just stop worrying and wait until it's out. Keeping my fingers crossed it will be good. IDC anymore if its faithful or not, I just want a fun adaptation. Moraine's casting is perfect so at least I have that much.

[fionwe1987]

It does seem like we're at the point of taking single frames and giving them the weight of 5 minutes of footage to make broad conclusions. I'm referring to the Aiel and veils. Clearly, they have veils as part of their ensemble. It's unlikely they'll be veiled outside of battle, in a reversal from the books, so the likeliest explanation (to me) is the veil slips, and they use that to educate the viewers a little about ji'e'toh. If the Maiden refuses to kill, mid battle, because her veil slips, that would be a good way to introduce Aiel culture.

 

[Corvinus85]

46 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

It does seem like we're at the point of taking single frames and giving them the weight of 5 minutes of footage to make broad conclusions. I'm referring to the Aiel and veils. Clearly, they have veils as part of their ensemble. It's unlikely they'll be veiled outside of battle, in a reversal from the books, so the likeliest explanation (to me) is the veil slips, and they use that to educate the viewers a little about ji'e'toh. If the Maiden refuses to kill, mid battle, because her veil slips, that would be a good way to introduce Aiel culture.

 

I think educating the viewer about ji'e'toh and other cultural aspects should be done when the Aiel are properly introduced. So when the main characters interact with them, not in a flashback. I don't think there is time for that. 

[SpaceChampion]

6 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I think educating the viewer about ji'e'toh and other cultural aspects should be done when the Aiel are properly introduced. So when the main characters interact with them, not in a flashback. I don't think there is time for that. 

They probably need the concept right from the beginning to explain why the Aiel were at war in the first place. .

[SpaceChampion]

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

It does seem like we're at the point of taking single frames and giving them the weight of 5 minutes of footage to make broad conclusions. I'm referring to the Aiel and veils. Clearly, they have veils as part of their ensemble. It's unlikely they'll be veiled outside of battle, in a reversal from the books, so the likeliest explanation (to me) is the veil slips, and they use that to educate the viewers a little about ji'e'toh. If the Maiden refuses to kill, mid battle, because her veil slips, that would be a good way to introduce Aiel culture.

 

Sometimes this thread it like watching the next part of a conspiracy theory form on a Qanon forum.

[Corvinus85]

7 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

They probably need the concept right from the beginning to explain why the Aiel were at war in the first place. .

The books really don't do this, though. I liked how Jordan set up the mystery of the Aiel. The wetlanders just see them as barbarians who invaded Cairhien, because that's what barbarians do. I suppose it will depend on the flashback's context. Will it be Tam telling the story, will it just be a prologue intro? 

[Corvinus85]

16 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

Sometimes this thread it like watching the next part of a conspiracy theory form on a Qanon forum.

While the Prophet plot was too long, I hope Masema makes into the show. It would nice to highlight the crazies a bit. THE DRAGON REBORN SHALL APPEAR ON THIS STREET BY THE END OF THIS WEEK!!! 

[fionwe1987]

48 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I think educating the viewer about ji'e'toh and other cultural aspects should be done when the Aiel are properly introduced. So when the main characters interact with them, not in a flashback. I don't think there is time for that. 

I don't know that they want to do that when introducing the Aiel as the Dragon Reborn's heritage. I feel they'll want to give them a memorable intro.

33 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

Sometimes this thread it like watching the next part of a conspiracy theory form on a Qanon forum.

Indeed.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

If the Maiden refuses to kill, mid battle, because her veil slips, that would be a good way to introduce Aiel culture.

The image of her veil being down is as she's stabbing a Companion through the chest. So I don't think that's what they're going to do. IMO, again, I don't think an Aiel will fail to kill someone if it's life-or-death, especially a wetlander, if in the course of the fight the veil slips. 

My guess is that they will leave the gender of the Aiel ambiguous for as long as possible, and the veil slipping down is when you realize it's a woman, and then I suspect (because I think this is Tigraine) at some point we'll get a clear look at her midriff and realize she's also pregnant. I think I noted before how widely separated the straps that go around her midriff appear to be, possibly due to the pregnancy.

[3CityApache]

For once I can watch the series not knowing the source material whatsoever. I hope it will be for the better, as the opposite completely ruined any fun from watching The Witcher series for me. Constant comparisons to the books are probably not the best idea.

[fionwe1987]

15 minutes ago, Ran said:

The image of her veil being down is as she's stabbing a Companion through the chest. So I don't think that's what they're going to do. IMO, again, I don't think an Aiel will fail to kill someone if it's life-or-death, especially a wetlander, if in the course of the fight the veil slips. 

My guess is that they will leave the gender of the Aiel ambiguous for as long as possible, and the veil slipping down is when you realize it's a woman, and then I suspect (because I think this is Tigraine) at some point we'll get a clear look at her midriff and realize she's also pregnant. I think I noted before how widely separated the straps that go around her midriff appear to be, possibly due to the pregnancy.

I don't think we know the timing between the spear thrust and the slipping of the veil, but I also like the idea of us not initially knowing it's a pregnant woman, and then that being revealed. That would be a good reason for the veil to slip, too.

[David Selig]

According to Rosamund Pike there will be much more male nudity than female nudity in the show - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/09/amazons-answer-game-thrones-has-naked-men-women-says-rosamund/ .

Quote

Speaking to Radio Times, Pike said: “You see many more naked men than you see naked women, which is quite pleasing, since women have been asked to expose themselves forever and a day.

“We’ve got all the boys frantically dieting and working out hard for their naked scenes and all of the women going out for lovely dinners.”

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, David Selig said:

According to Rosamund Pike there will be much more male nudity than female nudity in the show - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/09/amazons-answer-game-thrones-has-naked-men-women-says-rosamund/ .

Its about time...

[IFR]

1 hour ago, David Selig said:

According to Rosamund Pike there will be much more male nudity than female nudity in the show - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/09/amazons-answer-game-thrones-has-naked-men-women-says-rosamund/ .

I'm of the opinion that if there has historically been a problem of objectifying one gender, the best way to correct this is not to go to the opposite extreme and objectify the other gender. How about we objectify neither gender, and instead focus on what makes a good story?

Besides, is male nudity really a significant draw? Having a bunch of penises on screen not only is uninteresting to me, but I really don't see how it contributes to the story.

Naturalistic nudity in baths and sweat tents is fine, but it sounds like they are going out of their way to be lurid and objectify the male body.

[fionwe1987]

19 minutes ago, IFR said:

I'm of the opinion that if there has historically been a problem of objectifying one gender, the best way to correct this is not to go to the opposite extreme and objectify the other gender. How about we objectify neither gender, and instead focus on what makes a good story?

Besides, is male nudity really a significant draw? Having a bunch of penises on screen not only is uninteresting to me, but I really don't see how it contributes to the story.

Naturalistic nudity in baths and sweat tents is fine, but it sounds like they are going out of their way to be lurid and objectify the male body.

You do realize that a)women and queer men are likely to watch the show who may have a different view of this, b)a penis is no less contributory to the story than breasts, and c)there are other parts to men that are considered attractive too?

If the objectification of women on TV truly were a "historical" problem, wiping the slate clean may have some value, but it's a very current issue. If we're under the operating assumption that feeding the attraction to female bodies is fine (and we very very much are), then let's make the point that this is no less true for male bodies.

But I dunno that anything Pike says implies they're going out of their way to objectify the men. It sounds more to me like the women just didn't have nude scenes, whereas the men had a couple, so there's a distinction in how they had to approach their look.

[IFR]

43 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

You do realize that a)women and queer men are likely to watch the show who may have a different view of this

Is this a significant crowd? I'm a woman and I can say that the presence of penises is not a selling point for me. I have one friend who collects dick pics, but she does it as a joke. I don't know anyone else who is demanding more penises on their show. I'm sure such people exist, but I can't imagine it being a very significant audience.

43 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

a penis is no less contributory to the story than breasts

Obviously. And both forms of nudity, when presented as objectifcation, contribute equally in that they contribute nothing other than to be somewhat creepy.

43 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

If the objectification of women on TV truly were a "historical" problem, wiping the slate clean may have some value, but it's a very current issue.

Objectification has been an issue. I can't agree that we should double down on this issue just because it's "current".

43 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

But I dunno that anything Pike says implies they're going out of their way to objectify the men. It sounds more to me like the women just didn't have nude scenes, whereas the men had a couple, so there's a distinction in how they had to approach their look.

Her quote:

"You see many more naked men than you see naked women, which is quite pleasing, since women have been asked to expose themselves forever and a day."

"We’ve got all the boys frantically dieting and working out hard for their naked scenes and all of the women going out for lovely dinners."

Undoubtedly you'll interpret this differently, but that sounds like objectification as a motivation because it's "their turn now".

[Lord Patrek]

38 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

You do realize that a)women and queer men are likely to watch the show who may have a different view of this, b)a penis is no less contributory to the story than breasts, and c)there are other parts to men that are considered attractive too?

I texted your reply to a gay friend of mine with whom I used to watch GoT.

He said that this is a dumb stereotypical heterosexual response (his words, not mine) that makes little sense. It's not about male nudity per se, or the fact that we'll see penises here and there. In and of itself, this doesn't necessarily appeal to gay men. Show them Jon or Robb naked and that will make them happy. Just random nudity or naked ugly/ordinary people are not likely to attract the queer crowds. As for my friend, he doesn't really want to see any of the leads naked.

As for female viewers, I asked all the girls/women who never missed an episode of GoT at work and none of them are planning to watch WoT. Though most of them did watch The Witcher for Cavill, those who did check out the WoT trailers claim that none of the leads are good-looking. One girl went so far as to say that production didn't even try to cast anyone halfway decent.

The absence of eye candy is deliberate, I believe, to set WoT apart from GoT. For better or worse, eye candy is important on television and does attract a certain type of people. I know many guys who watched GoT only for the tits and violence. Such people are not likely to watch WoT. The same girls/women who only watched The Witcher for Cavill are also unlikely to become avid viewers of WoT.

I've never been too keen on nudity that serves no purpose, but I do understand that it brings asses in the seats. Especially when it's beautiful, nubile female bodies. Not sure how seeing Mat's pecker will generate more interest in WoT. We'll have to wait and see. . .

[fionwe1987]

2 minutes ago, Lord Patrek said:

I texted your reply to a gay friend of mine with whom I used to watch GoT.

He said that this is a dumb stereotypical heterosexual response (his words, not mine) that makes little sense. It's not about male nudity per se, or the fact that we'll see penises here and there. In and of itself, this doesn't necessarily appeal to gay men. Show them Jon or Robb naked and that will make them happy. Just random nudity or naked ugly/ordinary people are not likely to attract the queer crowds. As for my friend, he doesn't really want to see any of the leads naked.

You might want to let him know the statement wasn't made by a heterosexual man...

2 minutes ago, Lord Patrek said:

As for female viewers, I asked all the girls/women who never missed an episode of GoT at work and none of them are planning to watch WoT. Though most of them did watch The Witcher for Cavill, those who did check out the WoT trailers claim that none of the leads are good-looking. One girl went so far as to say that production didn't even try to cast anyone halfway decent.

The absence of eye candy is deliberate, I believe, to set WoT apart from GoT. For better or worse, eye candy is important on television and does attract a certain type of people. I know many guys who watched GoT only for the tits and violence. Such people are not likely to watch WoT. The same girls/women who only watched The Witcher for Cavill are also unlikely to become avid viewers of WoT.

I've never been too keen on nudity that serves no purpose, but I do understand that it brings asses in the seats. Especially when it's beautiful, nubile female bodies. Not sure how seeing Mat's pecker will generate more interest in WoT. We'll have to wait and see. . .

I have no idea how to respond to this. Are we claiming the WoT cast is somehow objectively less good looking than the GoT cast? 

33 minutes ago, IFR said:

Is this a significant crowd? I'm a woman and I can say that the presence of penises is not a selling point for me. I have one friend who collects dick pics, but she does it as a joke. I don't know anyone else who is demanding more penises on their show. I'm sure such people exist, but I can't imagine it being a very significant audience.

Again, why is the assumption that nudity=penis only?

As for the rest, I'm uncertain how much of the difference in comfort with, say, collecting pics, or wanting to see naked men on screen, has to do with how it always has been as opposed to something inherent. Female nudity has been way more normalized than male nudity, which may contribute to this, though I can honestly say that there's also probably generational differences here.

33 minutes ago, IFR said:

Obviously. And both forms of nudity, when presented as objectifcation, contribute equally in that they contribute nothing other than to be somewhat creepy.

Or merely pornographic. There's definitely that element in a lot of recent TV, so this isn't something that'll be WoT specific. 

33 minutes ago, IFR said:

Objectification has been an issue. I can't agree that we should double down on this issue just because it's "current".

Is it a doubling down? 

33 minutes ago, IFR said:

Her quote:

"You see many more naked men than you see naked women, which is quite pleasing, since women have been asked to expose themselves forever and a day."

"We’ve got all the boys frantically dieting and working out hard for their naked scenes and all of the women going out for lovely dinners."

Undoubtedly you'll interpret this differently, but that sounds like objectification as a motivation because it's "their turn now".

It sounds like there's more naked men than women, but I'm not sure that translates to lots and lots of nude scenes. If the show ends up having as much gratuitous nudity as GoT, but gender swapped, I'd definitely say things are out of hand, but that's not what the quote implies.

[IFR]

3 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Again, why is the assumption that nudity=penis only?

Male rear nudity is very common. I didn't keep count, but if you include male rear nudity, I think Game of Thrones had gender parity with regards to nudity.

But certainly, we'll know better when we see the show, and this interview will better inform the intentions of the show when we watch it.

6 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Female nudity has been way more normalized than male nudity, which may contribute to this, though I can honestly say that there's also probably generational differences here.

The exploitation of female nudity for the purposes of objectification has been more normalized than the same for male nudity. Neither should be normalized. Objectification is not something we should be striving for.

8 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Is it a doubling down?

If the intention is to increase the amount of male nudity to correct the previous imbalance of the bodies of women used as titillating objects to draw a crowd, then I would say that is doubling down.

The opposite of doubling down is to present nudity if needed, but not as a draw that you tout in interviews.

13 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

It sounds like there's more naked men than women, but I'm not sure that translates to lots and lots of nude scenes. If the show ends up having as much gratuitous nudity as GoT, but gender swapped, I'd definitely say things are out of hand, but that's not what the quote implies.

We interpret the quote differently, as I thought we would, be it seems we agree that objectification is not a good thing.