Wheel of Time 4: Burning Threads [Book Spoilers]

[IFR]

16 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

The point is most of us here like the show and like discussion of it. We enjoy theorycrafting and thinking what might happen. You however hate/dislike the show and have said so repeatedly. There is no common ground with you so you’re just not worth engaging with. There are places who share your opinion however on this so I’m not sure why you don’t come in there instead of popping on here every three days to yuck our yum. No matter how much you tell us this is trash we are still going to like it. And at some point it’s hard to not take it personally when someone says what you enjoy is trash.

Edit: Why not go make a WoT show is trash thread and then you can go post in there alone to your hearts content. I can then ignore it and you can ignore us.

You theorycraft and talk about the qualities of the show you like. No one has tried to stop you. I theorycraft and talk about what I dislike. Plenty of people have tried to stop me. And now people are trying to stop ASOIAFrelatedusername.

Do you see the presumptuousness in this difference? This is a discussion thread. It's not a positive things only discussion thread, or a thread where people are vetted for whether they sufficiently toe the party lines before they are allowed to contribute their opinions.

Just as you're aware that I think this show is stupid, I'm very aware that others think it isn't - why? Because they say so repeatedly.

I'm sorry you feel that ASOIAFrelatedusername and I are poisoning the punch with our naysaying. But this thread is not just for you. This is a community, and not the Stepford Wives (I just read that book and Rosemary's Baby - pretty good).

Edited October 26, 2023 by IFR

[Arakasi]

Then you are a toxic poster and I’ll just put you on ignore.

[Myrddin]

I don't think anyone is 100% onboard with the show or the changes, or even 80%. But many of us have chosen to enjoy it anyway, flawed or not, and enjoy weighing possibilities and discussing areas of strength/weakness.

It's a fun way to pass the time.

Having people just take a virtual dump on the whole endeavor without any understanding how someone could hold a different opinion, makes this whole thread less fun and more of a sparring match. Some people truly like engaging others in a blow by blow online debate. I'm old. I've grown tired of arguments in my free time.

Debate, yes. Back and forth defense against unyielding distaste? Not so much.

In my own humble opinion, of course. I do not speak for the trees, 

[IFR]

15 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

Then you are a toxic poster and I’ll just put you on ignore.

Because we're so concerned about specifying subjectivity even when it's obvious, I'm a toxic poster in your opinion, as someone who requires adulation of the show.

You are free to do so. I do not view you as a toxic poster, because I am not offended when someone disagrees with me. I find engaging with someone who has different views than me is more interesting than sticking with a group who  agrees with me.

11 minutes ago, Myrddin said:

Having people just take a virtual dump on the whole endeavor without any understanding how someone could hold a different opinion, makes this whole thread less fun and more of a sparring match. Some people truly like engaging others in a blow by blow online debate. I'm old. I've grown tired of arguments in my free time.

This I don't understand. What makes you think I'm unable to grasp why someone would like something just because I disagree with them? They're literally telling me why they like something. It's hard not to understand.

Let's take an example. Fionwe and I had a dispute about the logic of the a'dam. Fionwe explained why they think it makes sense and why they enjoyed that scene in the show. To them, the logic of the a'dam works and therefore it didn't bother them. They spelled it out pretty clearly. I understand how one can think that and therefore enjoy the show. And I'm happy for them that they do enjoy the show.

I dispute their reasoning that the logic holds, and I'm not the only one. This is not dismissing their opinion, it's disagreeing with their assessment. Fionwe then responded by trying to not just disagree with my assessment, but entirely dismiss my opinion. 

I'm not trying to single Fionwe out here (like I told them, I enjoy their posts). It's just one example of many.

What about this indicates I don't understand the point of view of people here?

Edited October 26, 2023 by IFR

[karaddin]

It's just not an enjoyable form of discussion to me. You're within your rights to both hold the views of the show you do and to express them here, but (at least for me) there's no value in trying to discuss them with you because there's no room for either of us to sway the other on fundamental questions of what we enjoy.

So I mostly choose not to engage with your posts - to the point of barely skimming at this point. I think that works for me with my enjoyment of the thread, I don't need to use the ignore feature and it's a "this thread" thing rather than a "you" thing. I suspect others would probably find this a more amenable approach than continuing to bridge this particular divide.

I'm pretty sure you're entirely ok with this approach as well? You don't feel you're owed the debate.

[IlyaP]

55 minutes ago, karaddin said:

It's just not an enjoyable form of discussion to me. You're within your rights to both hold the views of the show you do and to express them here, but (at least for me) there's no value in trying to discuss them with you because there's no room for either of us to sway the other on fundamental questions of what we enjoy.

Times like this, I can't help but think that the training and education I've had in art/literary theory and what toolkits to use to discuss it, particularly when a piece of art doesn't "speak to me", as my art history professor used to say, has been beneficial. Like, you know I don't particularly agree with some of the decisions made on this show (notably the score - sorry Lorne, if you ever read this - it's not you, it's me), but despite not liking it, there's still room enough to discuss why certain choices were made, how they compare/contrast with the choices RJ, his editor(s), and publisher made in his books, etc., and analyse them. It also helps to be aware of one's cognitive blind spots.

It's an approach not dissimilar to FilmJoy's Deep Dives, where, as they state: "The Dive Box contains bad movies people send us to watch. We must find things to love about these films no matter what. Welcome to Deep Dive". I suppose also having worked in TV, film, and theatre (and having an incomplete film studies minor) a bit gives me privileged insight into the adaptation process (hell, I'd suggest people even just go listen to GRRM talk about the process, as he's worked in publishing and TV for years and have some really good insight into the nature of the beast). The unenjoyable discussion (which I've also mostly tuned out) is also far, far too prevalent on the WoT subreddit, which I've learned to avoid.

Anyways: carry WoTing on! And tell Judkins to hire Robert Berry to write music for the show already, dammit!

[IFR]

3 hours ago, karaddin said:

It's just not an enjoyable form of discussion to me. You're within your rights to both hold the views of the show you do and to express them here, but (at least for me) there's no value in trying to discuss them with you because there's no room for either of us to sway the other on fundamental questions of what we enjoy.

So I mostly choose not to engage with your posts - to the point of barely skimming at this point. I think that works for me with my enjoyment of the thread, I don't need to use the ignore feature and it's a "this thread" thing rather than a "you" thing. I suspect others would probably find this a more amenable approach than continuing to bridge this particular divide.

I'm pretty sure you're entirely ok with this approach as well? You don't feel you're owed the debate.

Sure. I participate in these discussions because I'm having a lot of fun debating the matters at hand. I go into it with the hope that someone can add additional perspective or change my mind, but even if that is not accomplished, it is fun to consider flaws in another person's arguments, or see flaws in my own argument pointed out - or even cases where flaws are incorrectly perceived on either side, which results in its own discussion.

I can see why people feel exhausted because they know they are set with their own point of view, and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they will be conviced otherwise, and so they would rather just enjoy the warm nirvana of an agreeable consensus.

That's not my perspective, but I can understand others having it.

I'm actually less interested in speculating about the show future because by my perspective, it's a bit of a futile endeavor. On the basis of season 1 and books 2 and 3, what could reasonably be anticipated to occur in season 2?

Rand encounters Lanfear. Rand was in Cairhein in some form. The Hunt happened in some form. Training at the White Tower and Liandrin's betrayal. Mat blowing the Horn. The Seanchan being defeated. Ishamael being defeated. Aviendha encountered in some form.

In the very broadest of strokes, some things from book 2 happened, and a couple of minor events from book 3 occurred. But the particulars varied so wildly that I don't see how one can reasonably anticipate what will occur. You can't even use logic to say that based on what has occurred, it makes sense that the following will then occur, because the show isn't written with the purpose of making sense.

At the end of season 1, who could have guessed that it would be Egwene who defeated Ishamael? (Actually a few people did guess that, since she and Nynaeve stole Rand's moment there, people predicted they would do it again in season 2). Who would guess that it would be Lanfear who essentially puppeteered Rand's every movement in order for him to be recognized as the Dragon Reborn? Who would guess that Callandor was unnecessary, or that Ingtar and Uno would be pointless, or that Rand would be visiting an asylum to get some fairly pointless lessons by Logaine, or that it would be Lan who gives Rand lessons not on the sword but on how to wield the One Power? Or that Min is a quasi-Darkfriend who was in cohoots with Liandrin to manipulate Mat? Or that Padan Fain would give Mat the dagger of Shadar Logoth, and Mat would use it as a proto-ashandarei/lightsaber? Or Siuan Sanche essentially becoming Elaida and Rand and Moiraine teaming up with Lanfear to oppose her, which included Lanfear killing potentially hundreds of people to aid them and Rand and Moiraine apparently having no problem with this? Etc.

I would be surprised if any of that was predicted because it's all insane. I have a sense the next season likewise will go into similarly unpredictable territory, and so speculating about it is less fun, because reasonable speculation is probably going to be well off the mark.

Edited October 27, 2023 by IFR

[Gertrude]

13 hours ago, IFR said:

I can see why people feel exhausted because they know they are set with their own point of view, and refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they will be conviced otherwise, and so they would rather just enjoy the warm nirvana of an agreeable consensus.

That's not my perspective, but I can understand others having it.

And you wonder why no one has any fun discussing the show with you. 

[IFR]

1 hour ago, Gertrude said:

And you wonder why no one has any fun discussing the show with you. 

Would you prefer if I didn't understand your perspective?

I'm not even criticizing. It is a very common behaviorism. People are drawn to that which validates their opinions, and repelled by that which challenges their reasoning.

How can Trump have followers who still believe the election was stolen and he's being persecuted? They want to believe in Trump and they put themselves in echo chambers that allow them to hold those beliefs. You can think virtually anything and feel confident in your beliefs if you allow them to be unquestioned. (I use this example as something I think people can relate to as outsiders observing what seems like incredible, inexplicable behavior.)

And it feels good to be right. To know - bringing this back to the topic - that you like this show and you like it for good reasons. Those bookcloaks are just being unnecessary purists, with suspect political affiliations to boot. Etc. The comforting feeling of knowing you are right to like this show, and your reasoning to justify your emotional reaction to this show is all correct too, because look at all these other people who are agreeing with you. Imdb is just filled with racist trolls, that's why WoT has a low 7.1, and critics generally don't appreciate fantasy as they should, which is why WoT is receiving lukewarm reations there. It's you and those in this pleasant echo chamber who are correct.

Edited October 27, 2023 by IFR

[Arakasi]

Wow you know this thread has been Godwin’d when you compare being a fan of a tv show to being a fan of a politician who threatened our democracy and bought into beliefs about the election being stolen. I mean seriously do you think for two seconds before you post this?

Can’t you understand we’re fans of the show and want to talk to other fans of this show in a positive way. (Despite issues everyone does have with this show no one here says it’s perfect) That having to defend ourselves constantly to a poster who calls what entertains us trash is draining and not fun? Being an echo chamber is fine here it’s a ****ing tv show. So what if you’re right and it gets cancelled. I’m still going to enjoy it til it does.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Arakasi

[IFR]

12 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

I’m still going to enjoy it til it does.

I'm glad you do!

13 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

Wow you know this thread has been Godwin’d when you compare being a fan of a tv show to being a fan of a politician who threatened our democracy and bought into beliefs about the election being stolen. I mean seriously do you think for two seconds before you post this?

Godwin has a far reach indeed if it's no longer limited to Hitler/Nazis, but applies to classic behaviorial phenomena when the subject of comparison disagrees with the connection. It seems you can invoke Godwin for anything now, and just like that you successfully invalidated the point you don't like.

[IFR]

I think I will take a break though. It seems people here are getting genuinely emotional and upset. It is just a tv show, so I suppose that is hard for me to understand.

Anyway, I always aim for pleasant discourse and try to be accommodating. So hopefully taking a little recess will help!

[karaddin]

Why on earth would you want to be convinced not to enjoy a show you currently enjoy? That's not a desire for an echo chamber, that's a desire for your entertainment to stay entertaining.

Pointing out major flaws like that is something to engage in when you're discussing how worthy something is as art, or trying to rank something against other shows/movies, but when you're engaging with something as a form of entertainment then looking for conversations to enhance your entertainment is a rational perspective. Insisting on tearing shit down can come across as intellectual masturbation to feel smarter than others/show creators and it's certainly something I engaged in when I was younger, so I've got a negative response to anything that comes off remotely like that as I know how annoying I used to be.

[fionwe1987]

2 hours ago, IFR said:

I think I will take a break though. 

Please do. That you think this is a political discussion where your voice matters and therefore needs to be engaged with is at the core of your problem. 

You can dislike the show. You can talk about it. But you have no business convincing people who enjoy it that they're wrong. 

[IFR]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

Why on earth would you want to be convinced not to enjoy a show you currently enjoy? That's not a desire for an echo chamber, that's a desire for your entertainment to stay entertaining.

We engage in entertainment differently. I would be absolutely delighted to have the perspective of someone who dislikes The Wire, or Chernobyl. I had a lot of fun discussing Oppenheimer with Fionwe, who perceived flaws in that movie, which I disagreed with.

That's not to say I would stop enjoying the show if flaws are pointed out. I love Game of Thrones, but will readily acknowledge the flaws it has, and it certainly doesn't bother me when I engage with people who don't like it (it does bother me the tendency detractors of the show have in gleefully insulting the creators, which I consider crass).

2 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

Please do. That you think this is a political discussion where your voice matters and therefore needs to be engaged with is at the core of your problem.

What makes you think that I believe this is a political discussion? Because I used Trump followers as an arbitrary yet relatable example of the echo chamber phenomenon? That is the only sense that relates to discussions here. I don't consider this a political discussion.

2 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

You can dislike the show. You can talk about it. But you have no business convincing people who enjoy it that they're wrong.

And I don't. Have I ever said "I hope you learned your lesson and no longer enjoy the show?" Or have I repeatedly said "I'm glad you enjoy the show!"?

Think of it like this. Someone announces that they love apples, and one quality of apples they enjoy is that it is one of the few vegetables they find tasty. Well, one can dispute the assertion that apples are vegetables, but still be happy for someone that they enjoy apples.

I consider a lot of discussions on the logic of the show in that sense. One can actually evaluate the merit of whether the show makes sense and such independent of the discussion of the quality of the show. I assert that for me, personally, that has an effect on the quality, but I do not expect those preferences of others.

If that clarifies matters. 

Anyway, I felt compelled to respond to inaccurate characterizations of my own position, but otherwise I'm content to let the discussion rest.

[fionwe1987]

12 hours ago, IFR said:

I had a lot of fun discussing Oppenheimer with Fionwe, who perceived flaws in that movie, which I disagreed with.

You didn't discuss Oppenheimer with me, where my criticism was political, and was based on real life events. You dismissed it,which I'm sure gave you great pleasure. This wasn't a discussion though, so please don't falsely label it. 

12 hours ago, IFR said:

 

What makes you think that I believe this is a political discussion?

Because you talk about your views on this show using the language of butthurt, wokeness, censorship... You're here not to discuss the show but prove us wrong for your entertainment. And when you've been given proof of it, you've invented excuses about not wanting to discuss these things in public. 

12 hours ago, IFR said:

 

And I don't. Have I ever said "I hope you learned your lesson and no longer enjoy the show?" Or have I repeatedly said "I'm glad you enjoy the show!"?

You've repeatedly said there can be no enjoyment of this show because the writers are awful, take pleasure in desecrating RJs work, and so on. 

You've said you're glad we enjoy the show, and you've said our joy in the show has made us band together, that we must be getting pleasure from banding together against you... I eagerly await you lying about all this, or dodging it in some way.

12 hours ago, IFR said:

Think of it like this. Someone announces that they love apples, and one quality of apples they enjoy is that it is one of the few vegetables they find tasty. Well, one can dispute the assertion that apples are vegetables, but still be happy for someone that they enjoy apples.

So you are scientifically accurate in your dislike of the show, but we heathens are too dumb to know what we're consuming, and we're to be glad you condescendingly allow us our enjoyment anyway? Gee, thanks!

12 hours ago, IFR said:

I consider a lot of discussions on the logic of the show in that sense. One can actually evaluate the merit of whether the show makes sense and such independent of the discussion of the quality of the show. I assert that for me, personally, that has an effect on the quality, but I do not expect those preferences of others.

No. Your interpretation of those merits is not a given. Nor do you get to assert their superiority without discussion, and when pressed to discuss, you've backed out. That's ranting. And we don't have to put up with it. 

12 hours ago, IFR said:

If that clarifies matters. 

Anyway, I felt compelled to respond to inaccurate characterizations of my own position, but otherwise I'm content to let the discussion rest.

I'm sure you are. 

[IFR]

3 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

You didn't discuss Oppenheimer with me, where my criticism was political, and was based on real life events. You dismissed it,which I'm sure gave you great pleasure. This wasn't a discussion though, so please don't falsely label it. 

It was a discussion. Your grievance against Oppenheimer was that it underrepresented the involvement of women in the development of nuclear science and the atomic bomb, particularly Lise Meitner. You brought this up as a retort to when I claimed Oppenheimer was an example of a faithful adaptation that was good.

I then pointed out that the book the movie was based on didn't mention Lise Meitner, and the subject was Oppenheimer, not a general historical survey of the atomic bomb, so Meitner was not essential to the narrative. 

You disagreed because you conceived that Nolan intended to expand the subject of the movie to be a general historical survey of the atomic bomb (or you believe he should have, at least) and therefore Meitner in your mind deserved mention.

I disagreed. It's a biography of Oppenheimer, of which the atomic bomb is only part of his narrative. The book is excellent and well regarded and it is not a flaw of the movie to keep faithfully to the book and not expand beyond it so more women of science can be mentioned.

This is a discussion.

3 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

Because you talk about your views on this show using the language of butthurt, wokeness, censorship... You're here not to discuss the show but prove us wrong for your entertainment.

We have a back and forth in our conversation. I disagree with a point you make, and indicate why, and you disagree with a point I've made, and indicate why. We carry on the discussion in the same manner.

Edit: It also bears mentioning that I've never said "butthurt"...I think ever, but I'm sure not in any discussion on WoT. Another person sarcatically used "woke", I quoted them and argued that I didn't like the word but that it applied to this show. So I guess I used "woke" in the same way you did: addressing another person's use of it and whether it correctly applied to the show.

I'm not sure about censorship. But is censorship considered inflammatory?

3 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

And when you've been given proof of it, you've invented excuses about not wanting to discuss these things in public.

You're referring to my willingness to engage with you via PM on an off-topic digression? 

I'm sorry you're upset that I didn't play into the spectacle you were hoping for, but the offer is still open (the window is limited, though, because I won't have much time soon). I am more than happy to discuss your views. In fact, on the above quote on Oppenheimer I think I fairly captured both of our positions in that discussion (you can correct me if I've mischaracterized yours). I'm a little skeptical that you understand my position, because you have exhibited a habit of mischaracterizing it.

3 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

You've repeatedly said there can be no enjoyment of this show because the writers are awful, take pleasure in desecrating RJs work, and so on. 

Case in point. I've repeatedly said that I'm enjoying the show. I do think the writers are pretty bad, and we've gone over in detail why. I never claimed that the writers take pleasure desecrating RJ's work. I've even said I believe them when they claim to love The Wheel of Time. I do think the writers are inadequate to the task of adapting this series, which is why they've made so many poor choices in the process.

3 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

You've said you're glad we enjoy the show, and you've said our joy in the show has made us band together, that we must be getting pleasure from banding together against you... I eagerly await you lying about all this, or dodging it in some way.

I don't think this is a conspiracy. A lot of people in this thread like this show and have explicitly stated they want this to be a thread of positivity for their own entertainment. For much of this thread, I've been a dissenter to this, and that has caused me to be the subject of ire for many people here.

ASOIAFrelatedusername also used this thread for some cathartic venting, and many went on attack against them, so they quit this thread.

You and others are indeed attempting to enforce an atmosphere in this thread that makes it entertaining to you, and are actively attempting to make it exclusionary to others who don't share your views of the show.

3 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

So you are scientifically accurate in your dislike of the show, but we heathens are too dumb to know what we're consuming, and we're to be glad you condescendingly allow us our enjoyment anyway? Gee, thanks!

I certainly disagree with a lot of your assessments on logic, characters, and narrative choices.

For example, does it make sense for the dagger of Shadar Logoth to not instantly kill Rand? One can't go so far as to label it a scientifically inaccurate event, but it is a plot hole. That affects my enjoyment; it doesn't affect yours. Which is fine, and I don't think it's condescending at all to recognize that.

3 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

No. Your interpretation of those merits is not a given. Nor do you get to assert their superiority without discussion, and when pressed to discuss, you've backed out. That's ranting. And we don't have to put up with it. 

I've debated pretty exhaustively and willingly on nearly every point. Plenty of other people have backed out, citing their exasperation on the discussion, and have in fact pleaded that I back out.

The only discussion I can think of that I didn't engage is the game of describing each other's viewpoints on the show. And as I said, I'm willing to do that vis PM.

Is there any dangling discussion in particular that you feel I've backed out of?

Edited October 28, 2023 by IFR

[Jace, Extat]

This is my favorite thread on the Citadel.

[karaddin]

6 hours ago, Jace, Extat said:

This is my favorite thread on the Citadel.

What the hell are you getting on a discount on with this endorsement? This thread doesn't sell a fish auto feeder.

[Pellert]

Honestly, i am very torn on this series, but first a few very high level “disclaimers” since it’s my first post in this thread;

1) I have just started the prologue of ToM on my third reread 

2) I am not a book fanatic, despite have read the series several times, generally I wouldn’t expect the show to follow the books in every plot, and I am perfectly aware that bringing the series to the TV screen will require a heavy adaption, as a “faithful” (yes faithful can be a vague term, but in general terms..) is challenging

3) no matter the quality of my feelings to this series, I will for sure watch it until the end because of my “love” for the books series (yes one could always argue my love for a book should prevent me from watching a (in my view) bad adaption, but whatever)

I have been dreaming of watching WoT on the screen for 20+ years since I fell in love with the series as my first intro to really epic and large scale fantasy, and even with a very pragmatic view on how faithful they can be to the books and at the same time produce something that is “mainstream attractive” I still feel disappointed… 

S1 I found to be straight out very very bad and low quality on mostly everything, but after reading several reviews here and elsewhere, I’ve decided to put most of that on teething problems / COVID / etc. S2 I found to be an hugh improvement and really enjoyed it from an entertainment POV.

Unfortunately, even if I actually enjoy it and really look forward to S3 now, I feel it’s still so far away from its potential. I honestly feel that they spend so much time on unnecessary things where I see almost no pay-off at all, even if they had spend only a minimal effort on it. Some stuff is really nitpicking, but it kind off just “gets to me” when I see all the lost potential. Some high level thoughts; 

- biggest disappointment to me is Lan (not the actor, I think Henney is doing a good job with what he gets, but there is just a limit to how far an actor can go with a character). As I said, I just started the prologue of ToM, and Lan just joined up with Bulen on his way from Saldana to Tarwins Gap, and that sequence made me cry (honestly). Like, come on, this is Aan’allein, The Uncrowned King of Malkier, The King Without a Kingdom, he’s described as one of the deadliest men in all of Randland and a “hulking giant” - and this is what we get in the series? Without reading the books, I would rank him as a mid-tier in the show. That’s why his fight at the beach was the best moment for me so far in the show, because we finally saw him as kind of a bad ass (and no, I don’t find the scene logical or epic, I was just starved for some Lan action that is overshadowed everything. And no, I did not find the climax to justify the long wait, I would much rather exchange this scene for a more “spread out and stable” view of Lan as really deadly fighter). 
- Perrin just really sucks to me, both the actor and the character in the show unfortunately. 

- in social media reg. S1, they are trying to hype all the places where Padan Fain is present in various episodes, but very cleverly hidden. Why the fuck spend time and energy on this (both in SM and in the episodes)?! I couldn’t care less that you have spend much time on cleverly hiding a character in all episodes and I have to watch the show 10 times to pick up on it and then throw it in my face on Instagram, spend the energy on making the episodes better. 
- I really enjoyed Ewgene in s2, she really excelled there and her arc was good. 
- they do a good job with villains ((Isi/Lanf) in S2, but Valda in season 1?! Lol, it’s just one of the worst mustache-twirling villains I’ve ever seen, and basically every scene makes me itch with him, it’s so bad. 
- Warder bond plot in S1 is basically a joke to me. The only pay-off I can see is that it is a hint that Moiraine is not really stilled in S2 because it would affect Lan more, but it’s just really a waste of screen-time, ridiculous. 
- Battle of Tarwin Gap in S1 is just really a joke, covid or not. 
- the entire build-up with “who is the DR” is also just ridiculous to me (yes I have seen that some like it, so OK it’s my preference to a certain degree) but all in all I think it’s really a waste of screen time and energy, it could really been better spent on anything else. 
- I actually didn’t mind the beating Aviendha got to explain Ji’e’toh. For sure it’s really a sledgehammer approach, but it’s one of those thing I am fine with just “hammer it through and be done with it” and spend you energy elsewhere, I wish they could have done it on much other stuff. 
- unfortunately I don’t like Logan (so far, I love him in the books). To me he just seems to looney. In the books he is for sure not depicted as such a nutcase. But I guess the actor plays the character he’s given quite OK. 
- where are the epic scenes?! In tEotW and tGH there are lots of epic scenes, the ones they put in they butcher (Ingtar, can you hear me?!). I don’t really recall one scene in the show that I rate as really epic, but there are several in the books..
 

all in all, I just feel the writers are trying to be “too clever” by bringing in all these twists, reveals, mysteries and  “connections” between the plots (warder plot vs Moraine/Lan as an example) that are to me almost useless and adds very little value, they would be far better of by cutting/simplifying a lot of this and instead using the energy and limited episode minutes to focus on building the characters; world and important plots.

a bit positivity at the end - as I said I honestly found S2 to be a big improvement and I think that the entertainment value is quite high, I am just frustrated because they make so many easy mistakes and could have easily made it into an epic show. 
 

but for sure, as far as Amazon shows go, it’s miles and miles and miles and miles better than Rings of Power at least !