HurinThalion

Wheel Of Time On Tv

73 posts in this topic

Also... that guy called his kid Lews Junior? Really?

Please tell me that was an adlibbed line, otherwise I'm going to start using that as a joke for all fantasy heroes. Like Aragorn Jr, and Richard Jr.

 

I had managed to remove that deatil from my memory... Dear Lord that name made me facepalm so hard...

It doesn't help that I find that (mostly American I think) habit of calling children "something junoir" pretty cringeworthy in real life.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, he was deliberately invoking Randland-Devil, but his demeanor, his attire and his affect seemed more much like a trickster than a champion of darkness. 

 

I've been trying to pinpoint what exactly felt off about Elan Morin, and I think it's this - he felt like a trickster. Plus, I've been imagining him more like this for so many years, anything else feels weird. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes me sad about this situation is that I know it will end up being a small wikipedia stub article detailing the situation. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lews Junior deserves more than a stub.

Seriously, I burst out laughing when he said that. Not the reaction I should have had, I think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also... that guy called his kid Lews Junior? Really?

Please tell me that was an adlibbed line, otherwise I'm going to start using that as a joke for all fantasy heroes. Like Aragorn Jr, and Richard Jr. 

*groans*

It was just such lazy writing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched it myself.

Meh.

I agree with most of hte posters on here. Seemed kinda lazy, production seemed kinda shoddy, and it felt a little off.

If you're going to do a whole episode for the prologue (an idea that i'm not against, mind you), you should at least show the last part with the creation od Dragonmount and the death of Lews Therin.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Eagle is suing Harriet.... My gosh, I'm hating the company like it's EA.....

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slander or something. They're saying the statement she released was an attack on them that would hurt the reputation of the pilot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slander or something. They're saying the statement she released was an attack on them that would hurt the reputation of the pilot.

Sounds to me like the pilot hurt the pilot, not Harriet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Eagle is suing Harriet.... My gosh, I'm hating the company like it's EA.....

 

Well, that is quite ridiculous. I wonder if that was there plan all along, or they just leaped to try and make at least some money over the whole thing. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Eagle is suing Harriet.... My gosh, I'm hating the company like it's EA.....

I don't even hate EA this much, not even after I had to pay $200 for a game that took 3 months to work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are suing harriet  for saying that she didn't have any part in that? I thought we had free speech...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slander, which is essentially saying something false (while knowing it to be false) to ruin someone's reputation, is in fact illegal and not covered by free speech. Though proving that someone knows something that they're saying is false is tricky, from what I've heard. I've been told a lot of slander and libel lawsuits were just attempts to get someone to back off. Either way, this is just a horrid move by Red Eagle as far as I can tell. Light, this is going to be such a mess...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, dropping snark for a moment...

I can understand Hariets position. The Wheel of Time is her deceased husbands legacy and, opinions on it aside, is an important part of the fantasy genre. She probably should have been consulted, if only as a courtesy.

Of course, from what I understand, the legal documents didn't obligate any company to involve the Jordan estate. Martin's involvement with GoT, or Rowling with the Harry Potter films, are exceptions rather than rules.

Frankly, thus strikes me as being more in line with Christopher Tolkien's involvement with and reaction to the LotR films: he wasn't involved, didn't like them, and made that fact clear. them. Loudly, and publicly.

So... The Jordan estate may not, legally, have to be involved in the project, but I don't see any reason why they translates to not being able to decry products or comment on them.

So...this lawsuit sounds ridiculous to me, and based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Heck, her being dumbfounded is a lot nicer than what we've been, picking up on all the flaws and mocking them from here to...uh...some distant WoT location.

I lost my train of thought. Point is, this lawsuit is ridiculous, and I hope pursuing it results in the company folding and rights resorting that to the Jordan Estate.

Harriet? Stay the course.

(Actually, side question, is 'Hariet' how she prefers to be referee to? Like with Brandon, it seems odd to me, referring to people I've never felt on first name basis.)

Edited by Quiver
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read about this stuff the less I hold hope to actually see a live-action about WoT.

Between the pilot itself and this lawsuit Red Eagle has thoroughly alienated the fans, so I doubt they are actually interested in producing something. On the other hand they are gonna hold tightly to the rights in order to make some money, so the situation could easily end up in a court of law and be stuck there for years. As far as I read the rights ofr adaptation of D&D and the Forgotten Realms are stuck in a similar situation.

 

(Actually, side question, is 'Hariet' how she prefers to be referee to? Like with Brandon, it seems odd to me, referring to people I've never felt on first name basis.)

So I'm not the only one who find it strange to do that, good to know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slander, which is essentially saying something false (while knowing it to be false) to ruin someone's reputation, is in fact illegal and not covered by free speech.

I know that, but harriet said nothing false that I know of. she said

- she hasn't been consulted about the stuff

- she thinks they are doing it just to keep the rights (I really doubt that could be taken as slander)

- she wants to sue them for it

 

So suing her is quite stupid. maybe they just want her to back down.  but if they really care about someone ruining their reputation, then maybe they should sue themselves. Really, sueing her because she wasn't happy with the adaptation has sooo much potential for a streisand effect. While no one outside of the wot-fans community would have ever read harriet's comment before, now in an attempt to shut her down they seriously risk becoming famous in all the world as "those guys who sued the wife of the deceased author for saying that she didn't like how they adapted the story".

 

EDIT:

(Actually, side question, is 'Hariet' how she prefers to be referee to? Like with Brandon, it seems odd to me, referring to people I've never felt on first name basis.)

 

To me it feels strange that the wife gets the name of the husband (most european countries did the same until a few decades ago, but I was born just after that so to me it's ancient history), so referring to her as "mrs jordan" would sound even worse.

Edited by king of nowhere
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suit in question makes the claim that Harriet had foreknowledge of the episode being aired. I'm not saying they're right (in fact I think they're lying) but that is what the suit claims.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it feels strange that the wife gets the name of the husband (most european countries did the same until a few decades ago, but I was born just after that so to me it's ancient history), so referring to her as "mrs jordan" would sound even worse.

 

Technically "Mrs. Jordan" would be just plain wrong, since "Robert Jordan" is a pseudonym.  I believe she generally goes by "Harriet McDougal", or "Harriet McDougal-Rigney" (Rigney being RJ's real last name).

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see REE is doing everything they can to be hated by WoT fans....

 

Reading the article, this is what I understood: They're suing Harriet (I'm not sure if it should be Ms or Mrs McDougal, so I'm going with her first name; also we seldom use honorifics in my native language and just using a family in English name sound rude to me; I know it's weird but anyway) for saying Universal should have been involved when REE claims she knew that contract has expired. Also, because they claim  Jordan Estate wasn't supposed to publicly criticize anything REE produced on WoT.

 

They're pretending to be offended by the statement when this 'pilot' was so horrid they likely knew they'll get mainly negative reactions. May be they think there's no bad publicity and are using the victim card. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically "Mrs. Jordan" would be just plain wrong, since "Robert Jordan" is a pseudonym.  I believe she generally goes by "Harriet McDougal", or "Harriet McDougal-Rigney" (Rigney being RJ's real last name).

 

Thanks. I was going to refer to her as "Mrs Jordan", but the lawsuit refered to Hariet McDougal, and I wasn't sure if that was how she wanted to be refered to or... 

 

You know. Anwyay, thanks for clearing that up. *upvote*

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so as someone who has never read WoT, nor did I watch this pilot, nor do I have any vested interest in the subject matter, thus making me an unbiased third party, here is what I have to say:

 

Note: it is long...

The lawsuit seems reasonable enough. I'm not sure if any of you read the actual legal document at the end of the article Weiry linked to, but it is all reasonable stuff. I will note, though, it is only reasonable if they can provide documentation proving the "Statement of Facts" section of the legal document. In doing so, they would prove a few things:

 

-Universal did not have the rights, and have not had them since Feb 2014 (Harriet claimed Universal does have the rights)

-Any movie or television production could be made and aired without involving Harriet or Bandersnatch (Harriet's post made it sound like she was expecting such a thing)

-Harriet and her legal team were in correspondence with Manetheren during April 2014 discussing how Universal no longer had the rights, and that the rights reverted to Manetheren (meaning Harriet did know)

-Harriet, her assisstant, and her attorney all traveled across the country to meet with Sony and Radar to discuss a television production, and Harriet said she would only attend if Sony paid for airfare, which they paid for first-class. During this meeting, apparently much was discussed, at which no point Harriet contended REE's claim to the rights, and she even urged them to continue the project (this means she even knew about the production)

 

Now, why does this matter? It matters because of how Harriet's post was written. As is discussed in the legal document, Harriet's use of quotation marks when refering to the pilot casts doubt in the minds of readers. She comments how the channel that the pilot aired on is meant for comedy, implying the pilot had no reason to be broadcast on such an obscure channel. She then claimed she had no knowledge of the production, nor did Sony/Radar/Manetheren consult her in any way, which is a lie assuming Manetheren produces the documentation I discussed above (and this is where slander comes into play). She continues to say that Universal has the contract, which the aforementioned documents would prove they don't and that she knew they don't (more slander). Finally, she ends with saying she is dumbfounded by the pilot's existence, which she shouldn't be, and that she is going to take actions to keep something like it from happening again, which implies legal actions against Sony/Radar/Manetheren.

 

So, to summarize, Harriet published a post that cast doubt on Manetheren and their product, claimed false information as truth to hurt Manetheren (aka slander), and through her use of language made an attack against Manetheren as a company, which could have detrimental effects on their future productions (as I already presume none of you will purchase any of their products after this). Given her actual statement, those all seem like reasonable claims, but only if they can provide documents to prove their claims. If they have no documentation, no proof, then this is a pointless lawsuit that will result in Harriet counter-suing them, and they will doubtlessly lose a lot of money.

 

The most damning evidence against Harriet will be those plane tickets, in my mind. E-mails are one thing, but the plane tickets will prove Harriet traveled out to meet them, meaning she had detailed knowledge and was very aware of Manetheren's pursuance of a televised production.

 

Now, as for what some of you are saying regarding the show's quality in regards to this lawsuit, that does not matter at all. Harriet never once commented on the quality of the production, nor does the legal suit make any mentions of the quality of the production. For all purposes of this law suit, the production could have been horribly made sock puppets with a watercolor backdrop made by a five year-old and dialogue pertaining to Eye of the World.

 

With all that said, now that I've acquainted myself to the situation, I'm rooting for Harriet. I hope Manetheren has no documentation, and that she gets to sue them for every penny they are worth. Worst case scenario? Harriet has alzheimer's...or there's a second set of documents showing Universal has rights, and Bandersnatch sold rights to two different companies, which means they are in for a whole new world of hurt, legally speaking (sued by two companies, rather than just one, for large sums of money no doubt).

Edited by Blaze1616
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the times to play the old wot game, now is the time. A television show run entirely live stream in the game engine would have been better!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

huh, that''s intersting. WEll, I assumed the lawsuit was ridiculous because I assumed harriet was telling the truth because she had no reason to lie. It is possible that  the studio brought a page out of the aes sedai book and "informed" her in a way that she would misunderstand, so that she was officially told about that episode even if she had no knowledge of it.

Or maybe she forgot (I suppose she has plenty of work meeting regarding the wot production rights), in which case she can claim it was an error in good faith from her part and retract the statement. I have no idea how that would result legally.

 

Anyway, she can at least say that the adaptation is crap without being liable for it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.